Hacker News Reader

Comment by baconhigh | Hacker News Reader

Public health system == we get to ban smoking if we want.

You are free to express your individual liberty wherever you currently are, please stay there.

Smoking is taxed very heavily in NZ - to the point that smokers are a net financial benefit to the public health system.

Money is only part of the problem. At least in Australia, the shortages of Doctors in regional areas is a problem that doesn't go away simply by throwing money at it. An unhealthy population strains what is a limited resource.

Obese people are far more likely to strain healthcare systems than smokers.

> the shortages of Doctors in regional areas is a problem that doesn't go away simply by throwing money at it.

Have they tried offering $5M per year to the doctor? $10M?

"There would be an estimated NZ$5 billion ($4.7 billion) in savings on future public health expenditure as a result of the plans." - NZ Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall

https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-f...

What is the value in measuring expenditure alone? Doesn't the income generated by those activities also factor into the equation?

Governments don't usually do things from the joy in their hearts, or out of the care for their constituents.

I'm more inclined to think that smokers aren't subsidizing everyone as much as they like to think.

Governments, when objectively correct, tend to release data to support their position. The only value in measuring expenditure alone is in how the uneducated interpret it as more favorable.

So what you're saying is that the government is leaving money on the table out of care for the health of the people? That's terrible...

Over what timeframe? It can't be yearly.

The population of NZ is 5,000,000.

The smoking rate is 12%.

A saving of $5B/y would mean $8,333 per smoker, per year.

Don't forget that a typical smoker in NZ might pay about $5000/y in tobacco tax ($100/w for 2.5 packs or 1 pouch per week taxed at 80%+).

Let's call it a saving of $13,333/y then.

But wait! This $5B figure obviously can't be based on eliminating smoking, just a reduction. So the estimate must be based on saving much more than $13,333/y for each smoker this 'stops'.

On top of that, smokers on average die much younger than non-smokers. Healthcare costs are mostly accrued in old age.

What you are saying here makes sense, but I wonder practically speaking how well a prohibition like this will work, given that universally whenever a government pushes back on some vice (alcohol or drugs, for example), it causes a backlash... I have to wonder if smoking is any different in this regard.

This is the best argument against a public health system. Once you turn it over, the government controls far more of your life than you bargained for. I suppose some people are OK with that. However, history is cold comfort to those of us who are skeptical.

I'd rather have public healthcare and a government that "controls far more of your life" than some faceless insurance company controlling my access to healthcare.

You can become far healthier by yourself by exercising basic self-control and using a little bit of open-minded health research than by paying lots of money to some profit-minded doctors. No insurance company needed!

I'll remember that the next time I'm in A&E.

What history? I don’t know of any society that adopted socialised health care and there were overwhelmingly negative outcomes.

The public health argument is really good one. Heard it a lot last couple of months. We can justify it all in name of public health, right ?

Also please, take more decisions out of me - life is hard anyway :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com