Surprise!! Smokers are responsible for LOWER healthcare costs.

[Bill - Shy Cat]

This is just the opposite of what I assumed.

“Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages.”

As long as you are not exposed to second hand smoke, l guess we should be thankful for smokers. Smokers also don’t draw social security as long as nonsmokers.

The health care costs of smoking - PubMed

If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Ron Mehico]

There’s some insane statistic that I’m sure you can find that like 85% of our healthcare costs are for the last 6 months of people’s lives. Just a total waste.

 

[WildcatFan1982]

There’s some insane statistic that I’m sure you can find that like 85% of our healthcare costs are for the last 6 months of people’s lives. Just a total waste.

When my papa was in his last days he saw an EOB from his care and flat out said ‘this is such a waste of money, this should go to someone younger’

He had terminal cancer. By the time he passed he literally couldn’t do anything he enjoyed. His vision was so bad he couldn’t read or watch tv. He loved to paint but couldn’t hold the brush anymore. He was almost entirely deaf so he couldn’t enjoy his records.

 

[DreadLox]

There’s some insane statistic that I’m sure you can find that like 85% of our healthcare costs are for the last 6 months of people’s lives. Just a total waste.

Not sure what to think of your objection. We’re not supposed to treat serious illness?

It’s not exactly news that people often die from some kind of pathology. It would absolutely save money on medical costs if we didn’t treat anything.

 

[Ron Mehico]

Not sure what to think of your objection. We’re not supposed to treat serious illness?

It’s not exactly news that people often die from some kind of pathology. It would absolutely save money on medical costs if we didn’t treat anything.

The majority of “end of life care” is not treating pathology but extending the life of terminal people, keeping people in a vegetative state alive, prolonging the inevitable. Just look it up - there an entire trillion dollar industry of keeping people around for a just a little bit longer with very little if any benefit. It would cut our healthcare costs dramatically for the vast majority of the population.

 

[DreadLox]

The majority of “end of life care” is not treating pathology but extending the life of terminal people, keeping people in a vegetative state alive, prolonging the inevitable. Just look it up - there an entire trillion dollar industry of keeping people around for a just a little bit longer with very little if any benefit. It would cut our healthcare costs dramatically for the vast majority of the population.

Since Google has quit giving you answers your looking for, it's not an easy subject to research. The numbers I found are these: there are around 30,000 people at a time in a persistent vegetative state. It costs around $90.000/yr for their care. That's around 2.7 billion dollars.

I'm not sure what the answer is. If you're old enough you'll remember the uproar surrounding the decision to withhold care from Terry Schiavo.