Smoking Crossbow

[predator]

I thought I would throw crossbow in the title to attract long term members.
Worked, didn't it??

But seriously, since we have had a smoking thread, I would like to have your imput on a statement a Doctor once told. He will remain nameless. The discussion centered around the Tobacco Co.s settlement with the states over present and future healthcare costs associated with smoking.

He said that smoking actually lowers overall health care costs. His reasoning was that a large percentage of smokers died in their 50s and 60s of smoking related illnesses which are less expensive to treat than diseases which affect people who live into their 70s and 80s. By the same token the Social Security System also benifits for obvious reasons.

At the time, I was a heavy smoker and he didn't say keep smoking, it's good for America!, but what he said did have some merit. What are some thoughts on this interesting statement?

[Art]

I think that Doc is FOS!

What disease is there that only kills people in their 70's and 80's that is more expensive then lung cancer? Besides, it's not like smoking kills everyone before they reach 70.

[buckfever]

The "death credit" was part of the tobacco companies' defenses in the suits brought by the various states. I don't remember whether the judges barred them from evidence in Florida and Texas or whether the companies simply decided that it was too risky to attempt such a defense, but I know that it never got before a jury.

The theory was that the premature death of smokers saved the states a lot in health care costs that would have become necessary if those smokers had survived and lived to a ripe old age.

Regardless of how tasteless you might find this defense, there was some truth in it. I don't remember offhand how much the "death credit" was, but, if memory serves, the savings didn't exceed the costs. There are a couple of articles floating around that talk about it that you could probably find. Try googling for "death credit" and "smoking".

[Art]

I don't believe for one second that smoking actually saves us money.. There's little sensible logic in that theory IMO. Smoking cause health problems, not just death. Therefore I don't get it.

[C.L.Button]

I hope that Doctor doesn't discover that we like PORK FAT too ! :eek: :D

[predator]

I think that Doc is FOS!

What disease is there that only kills people in their 70's and 80's that is more expensive then lung cancer? Besides, it's not like smoking kills everyone before they reach 70.

He mentioned Alzheimers and Parkinsons.

I'm just relaying the topic of conversation, and again he may have just been wanting the smokers in the room to stop and think. I did.

[buckfever]

I don't believe for one second that smoking actually saves us money.. There's little sensible logic in that theory IMO. Smoking cause health problems, not just death. Therefore I don't get it.

Philip Morris feared that jurors would have your same reaction. What's so hard to believe? Smoker Bob dies of lung cancer at the age of 58. Had he not smoked, the stats say that he would've lived to be 74.8 yrs old. Sure, the state paid for Bob's lung cancer claim (thru Medicaid), but had he lived, the state would've been on the hook for additional medical treatment for 16 years. Bob died of lung cancer, but he probably would've died from some other condition that would have cost Medicaid significant funds in the end. The problem with this analysis is that smoking causes a bunch of other diseases that require treatment (emphysema, heart disease, strokes) for long periods of time. This is an inexact science, but it does have some legitimacy. Do I think that smoking saves society money? No, but this defense was going to be used as a set-off, not full vindication.

Believe me when I tell you that we had an ARMY of lawyers and a full complement of experts working on all this. And this was just from my firm which represented only one tobacco company.

[Art]

Buck, I feel as if I'm the proverbial one legged man in an azz kicking contest try to discuss this issue whith you, but I'll state my opinion anyhow.:D :D

I can understand the logic on a per case basis where an individual dies in their 50's from a smoking related disease whereas another person lives to be 75 as a non-smoker and has those 15-20 extra years of medical bills.

However, that seems to be based on the assumption that smokers will die in thier 50's. How does it make sense for the majority of smokers who live beyond their 50's and still have a whole host of complications that stem from smoking, yet still die from a smoking related illness? Seems to me like that senario would be the most common as well as the most expensive?:confused:

[buckfever]

Buck, I feel as if I'm the proverbial one legged man in an azz kicking contest try to discuss this issue whith you, but I'll state my opinion anyhow.:D :D

I can understand the logic on a per case basis where an individual dies in their 50's from a smoking related disease whereas another person lives to be 75 as a non-smoker and has those 15-20 extra years of medical bills.

However, that seems to be based on the assumption that smokers will die in thier 50's. How does it make sense for the majority of smokers who live beyond their 50's and still have a whole host of complications that stem from smoking, yet still die from a smoking related illness? Seems to me like that senario would be the most common as well as the most expensive?:confused:

Experts from both sides developed very sophisticated actuarial/statistical models which attempted to account for all of this. You are correct that smoking causes all kinds of health hazards that cost the state a lot in Medicaid funds to treat apart from the disease that actually kills them, but the premature deaths of smokers (b/t 5-10 years earlier on average based on various studies) saved the state from having to pay for medical expenses (completely unrelated to smoking) which would have statistically occurred had those individuals not smoked.

Remember that these lawsuits did not involve direct claims by individual smokers. The state suits only sought damages for the additional medical expenses borne by the states as a result of smoking, and ALL of the proof was based on statistical models.

Let me give you a hypo to attempt to explain the logic: Suppose the average male smoker dies at the age of 64, and the average life expectancy of a nonsmoking male is 74. The states proved its damages (i.e. the amount it had to expend on the smoking related diseases) for all smokers. Now, also suppose that 20% of all nonsmoking men develop some form of cancer between the ages of 65-74 that requires treatment paid for by medicaid. If the cigarette companies have to pay for all of the medical payments related to smoking, shouldn't they receive a set-off for the amounts saved by the states that they otherwise would have had to pay for the treatment of that 20% that would have contracted some nonsmoking related cancer.

[Art]

Hmmm. My head hurts.:D

Personally, I think states might be inclined to take the side of the smokers considering the amount of tax revenue cigarette sales generate.

[buckfever]

Hmmm. My head hurts.:D

Personally, I think states might be inclined to take the side of the smokers considering the amount of tax revenue cigarette sales generate.

Yep, the states' hypocricy was certainly another component of the defense, which was somewhat effective.

All of this crap about these suits being about "protecting our kids" was utter BS. Despite the known health risks associated with tobacco, the states chose to keep 'em legal in order to maintain a very lucrative tax revenue source.

After they got paid (actually, they're still getting paid), only the smallest of fractions is actually going into anti-smoking programs for kids or even adults for that matter. If they were really worried about their constituents' health, they'd just go ahead and ban cigarettes entirely. Of course, this wouldn't be too popular, politically speaking.

This was a "money grab" pure and simple. They just filed suit in the venues with the most liberal, tobacco-hating judges they could find.