Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, has removed the hook from your chubby, smoke-filled mouth. As the lead of a health care cost study, he has some surprising news for all his trim, fit and healthy compatriots. They will strain the health care delivery system a lot longer and at greater cost than the rest of the population.Released this week, the Dutch study exposed the fallacy of a widely held perception that obese people and smokers combine to create a horrid drain on the health care system. In many countries bureaucrats have been focused on reforming (or penalizing) the obese and smoker groups as the way to dramatically reduce global health care costs. Ironically this study confirmed that healthy people over their lifetimes will cost a heck of a lot more then the chubbies or the smokers.
The study found that from the age of 20 until death, care for an obese person averages $371,000 or 11% less than the care required for a healthy one. Care is even cheaper for smokers at $328,000, which is a savings of 21.8%. By contrast, a healthy person who has avoided flab and cigarettes will still end up requiring $417,000 worth of medical care.
Perhaps it is time to call off the food and cigarette police who have been operating under the guise of economizing and focus our health efforts on improving the quality of life for all people. This seems a much healthier alternative to shaming.
The researchers arrived at these conclusions after creating 1000 cyber people, dividing them into three groups, and simulating their lifetime health costs. Their models were based on the cost data and medical records for the total amounts of illness and disease in the Netherlands during the year 2003.
Apparently the researchers were not surprised with the results. Obese people had more health care costs from the age of 20 to 56, but as the obese and smokers generally lived shorter lives, it costs less to treat them.
Based on their research, healthy Dutch people (defined as healthy-living, meaning thin and non-smoking) lived an average of 84 years. The obese lived an average of 80 years, while smokers lived only until about age 77. As more smokers than non-smokers get lung cancer - difficult to diagnose, treat and often fatal - their illnesses and treatment options were comparatively brief.
I am not advocating an unhealthy lifestyle, but do think smokers and the obese should be given a break once in a while. Excluding lung cancer, all three groups' incidence of cancer was essentially the same. Diabetes and heart disease afflicted the obese group more often, but it was the healthiest people who had the most strokes. (If you are in an age group where strokes are common, it is always a good thing to know the symptoms and which medical facilities offer the best treatments in your area. Specialized treatment within the first hour or two may prevent permanent disability, but is useless later on.)
Ultimately, of course, the real question is about quality of life. If you are healthy, do you get to enjoy life more? Certainly. If you are fit, can your life be fuller and your earning potential greater? Absolutely. Greater longevity also allows you to work longer or make some other meaningful contribution in life.
Looking at a lifelong diet for a mere 4 years after 80? That might take more analysis.:)
Then again, any day above ground is a good one. I'll get you an ashtray if you'll hand me a celery stick.*
*Full disclosure: Quit smoking in September of 1977 and never regretted it. I also start a diet every morning but often decide to go back on one 'tomorrow' instead. :)


Comments: 40
Thats rediculous!
I'm with Patricia- got any lays chips to go with that onion dip?
But then again, people with short lives do less harm to the planet, right? Less litter, less resources used? Yes, but what happens to the gazillions of butts those smokers tossed in the gutter or in the trash? Like the other toxins out there, they leach into the aquifer and poison every living thing.
A similar analogy could be written: "Dumb kids are cheaper to raise, because they won't need to go to college ($$$!). So let's all have dumb kids!" I don't think people would go for that one.
The answer (or new questions) might be found here
Let's face it though, smokers particularly are at a disadvantage when it comes to taxation as in our country they are now a minority (thankfully). The 'health cost savings' however is baloney, even though quality of life issues certainly are and should be the motivating factor there and with healthy body mass.
When you have a moment, Elizabeth, please read my latest offering.
Then he lit up a cigarette. I was surprised. When I harassed him a bit about how this was out of line with his new health consciousness, he said,
"Here's how I look at it. We're all going to die. All these people who never did anything wrong in their lives are too. The only difference is my last thought will be, 'could have been the cigarettes, could have been the drink, could have been that exciting but dangerous sex in the 80's." Their last thought will be "Why me?" How do you want to go out?"
I like that perspective.
But quality of life isn't always cheapest and happiness can be elusive too. Pray that your daughter's are pretty & stupid . . . they'll be happier in life when their cheating husband is fooling around on them . . . they'll worry less . . . some of the arguments are quite specious.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Me: "Guess what, Honey?" (Innocently making dinner or cleaning up kitchen and have a brilliant thought or joke or something I recently read that I would like to share with my loving life-partner of the last 30+ years.)
Him: "WHAAAAATTTTT?" (Setting: Couch. Activity: UCLA college game or any sort, tennis match in Australia, final four game, Super Bowl or any other 'important' sporting event previously TiVo-ed but currently being watched.)
Me: "Why are you so nasty?"
Him: "Don't be so sensitive. You take everything personally. I was watching a GAME."
Me: "_ _ _ _ you, too."
Him: "What's the matter with you now?"
If you really want to help people quit, remember that some of us are b*tchy for WEEKS until the nicotine is completely out of our bodies and the cravings subside. Most people have had it by about two weeks, so the third week is when a lot of smokers start up again from my experience.
For this reason, I have compassion for anyone who smokes and wants to quit but finds the process horribly difficult or even impossible. I quit smoking over 30 years ago but it was the 2nd hardest thing I ever did. (Surviving cancer treatment was the hardest.)
Cigarette companies know that they must addict smokers in their youths, as mature adults rarely take up the habit and continue it. I believe I was addicted to smoking before I started, as my father was a chain-smoker until he had a heart-attack at 39. It took him 2.5 years after that to quit, as he just couldn't manage his anxiety, etc., and when he finally did quit he had also developed emphysema in addition to asthma, which he already had.
At one point all five children in my family smoked. I quit first, then everyone else did. When my father died young, all four of my siblings started again. They quit again and when my mother died, they all started smoking again. Two of them still do, and cannot seem to give it up.
The worst thing, of course, is the health toll on themselves, then on their housemates with second hand smoke, and then on their families when/if they get horrible diseases. Smoking also predisposes people to get all kinds of cancers, although lung cancer is the main one with lip, mouth, throat and tongue cancers prevalent as well.
Forgive me if I didn't express myself on this issue, but my point was that the 'medical cost' of treating people is not the reason we should encourage them not to smoke by shaming and taxing them. As they don't live as long as other people, their medical costs are less. My best friend still smokes a half pack a week, which is mild by others' standards, but if she succeeds in quitting, I'll be the happiest person on the block.
You sound more like an ex-smoker, Eric, than a non-smoker. I don't envy anyone who smokes, as I know the shame, hostility and constant torture they must endure from 'the public' and their families. Let's find a way to love the 'sinner' and help them quit by being compassionate and loving. Maybe then they can let go of the habit with out support and kindness. Just my take.
Smoking is a toughie, though. It's pretty universally accepted that it's not good for you or for the people around you. Still I have a hard time with sanctimonious, self-righteous people who think they can run others' lives better than the people themselves. Smugness is very unbecoming.
BTW I'm not a smoker, but I buried both parents because of it.
A big THANK YOU for my sister Elaine for taking over the moderator duties of BEST ORIGINAL PHOTOS, ART AND WRITING and I thank YOU for posting your original work to this group.
When young you don't even think about your health but can you imagine how good you would feel if you never smoked?
On the diet issue, I get a thrill now if I allow myself to drink lemonade! Ha ha ha.:)