A couple weeks ago, I “attacked” a young lady who agreed to be interviewed and quoted by name in the StarTribune. She was objecting to health questions posed by her employer (who pays for some or all of her and her coworkers’ health insurance) regarding her personal habits.
She and her husband are on a rightful mission to repeal the Smoking Ban, a government intrusion on a slippery-slope and an infringement on the rights of hospitality-business owners and their patrons. But apparently they have confused the legitimacy of their cause with the burden that smoking and obesity, predominantly the products of personal choice and lifestyle, are to our health care system.
This is no small issue given the rising amplitude of liberal chatter to socialize our health care system, which would undoubtedly remove any elements of personal accountability.
Be not confused. The two issues are separate. Smoking is legal and smoking is conducive to poor health – for the smoker and her hapless bystanders. We all pay higher health care costs because of it.
Nonetheless, I don’t begrudge smokers’ personal choices nor business owners’ right to allow patrons to enjoy a perfectly legal activity in their establishments. But keep your smoke off my body, and don’t make me pay for your personal choice. An assertion not usually lost on liberals or conservatives.
As the system is organized, we’re all in this together which means the system has an interest in the degree you have chosen vis a vie your habits or lack thereof, to be a burden to it, statistically at least.
I drive fast and get more speeding tickets than most motorists. I don’t expect you to pay for my actuarial increment.
Let’s be clear on this too. The argument that tobacco taxes mitigate the incremental cost to society is naive. Look no further, all moneys collected by the biggest Ponzi scheme in history The Social Security Administration over the years are accumulating at interest for your retirement, too.
The Syllogism? Contrary to the logic “I’ve smoked three packs a day for eleventeen years and haven’t been hospitalized or died (yet),” ipso facto smoking isn’t bad for your health:
1. Among other issues, smoking causes heart attacks.
A smoking ban in one Colorado city led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations within three years, a sign of just how serious a health threat secondhand smoke is, government researchers said Wednesday. The study, the longest-running of its kind, showed the rate of hospitalized cases dropped 41 percent in the three years after the ban of workplace smoking in Pueblo, Colo., took effect. There was no such drop in two neighboring areas, and researchers believe it’s a clear sign the ban was responsible.
The study suggests that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country, said one of its authors, Terry Pechacek of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
At least eight earlier studies have linked smoking bans to decreased heart attacks, but none ran as long as three years. The new study looked at heart attack hospitalizations for three years following the July 1, 2003 enactment of Pueblo’s ban, and found declines as great or greater than those in earlier research.
2. Heart attacks are expensive. Billions are spent on devices and medications for the prevention and prevention of heart attacks.
3. We all pay for the aggregate expense as subscribers to group health insurance plans and via Medicare and Medicaid.
4. Hence, if I don’t smoke, and you do, the system is making me pay for your poor personal choices; the basis for my “attack.” That fact and the pressure of rising costs has incented health care providers and employers to rightfully seek to separate and quantify those who make good choices from those who don’t.
Because it’s fair. Because it’s good business. Risk classes should be separated and held accountable to the degree they are a burden to the system. Please don’t come crying to me if you’ve drawn the short straw by your own volition.
It’s an intrusion of your rights only to the extent that the way health care is delivered, via your employer, is also broken – so the system isn’t perfect.
…and if “We The People” don’t fix the system, the government will.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
“and her hapless bystanders”
Support this statement. Look into it. You might be surprised at what you find.
Also, please look into the whole “dead people cost less” thing that Margaret mentioned before. I think it’s true.
“I drive fast and get more speeding tickets than most motorists. I don’t expect you to pay for my actuarial increment.”
And there are no externalities to your speeding? Nobody pays but you with higher insurance rates and tickets? Maybe you never notice the other drivers trying to get out of your way and the near misses and accidents they cause because you are driving too fast.
In the state I live in schools are paid for by state income taxes. We have, like MN, one of the highest state income taxes in the nation, and public schools are the largest part of the state budget.
I have no children. Why am I forced to pay for the personal choice of other people to have children & send them to the public schools?
And there are no externalities to your speeding? Nobody pays but you with higher insurance rates and tickets?
Of course there are. That’s my point. I (potentially) pay higher rates and have to shop for auto insurance with my personal driving record and selection of automobile, both results of my personal choice and behavior. And, I can even be dropped or denied if my record is bad enough.
…oh and FWIW, I really don’t personally drive that fast, it was an example.
Also, please look into the whole “dead people cost less” thing that Margaret mentioned before. I think it’s true.
Troy, I think my link to the heart attack study refutes that in and of itself.
As for the second-hand smoke, I’m pretty sure we can all agree that it’s not healthy, and certainly not pleasant to be involuntarily subjected to it if you are a non-smoker. I can’t imagine anyone aguing otherwise but give it a try.
“As for the second-hand smoke, I’m pretty sure we can all agree that it’s not healthy, and certainly not pleasant to be involuntarily subjected to it if you are a non-smoker.”
I feel the same way about flatulence. How dare people eat so much starchy food when they what is going to happen? How can they be so irresponsible?
Why am I paying the price for their dietary choices?
Where would someone get involuntarily subjected to smoke?
Your example of fast driving still doesn’t work. The costs of your fast driving are numerous and potentially lethal to others, not just yourself and yet you say that only you are paying the cost of your insurance premiums and or tickets. Not true. If anything, the direct result of speeding costs us more so we should be able to coerce you more, like put a device in your car that prohibits you from going over 65.
Smoking is bad for you. It ups your risk for almost everything bad, healthwise. But The idea that a smoking ban in one place alone is responsible for heart attack risk going down in that place seems a little farfetched. Heart attack hospitalizations are expensive, no doubt, but I don’t think they compare with a year or two of end of life care and life support, unfortunately and the irony is that the smoker won’t need it because his heart will fail long before that. Smokers die sooner. This is already what the ads say. I think you should go with that. Not that quitting smoking saves us money because it’s debatable and some of the facts don’t really fit, nor would you want to encourage people to think along those lines, taken to their conclusions.
The kids and family members of smokers are involuntarily exposed to smoke. But good point; insurance rates ought to reflect one’s behavior. (for example, life insurance companies would do well to take into account a behavior that takes 30 years off one’s life, but I digress)
Regarding our host’s speeding, that is reflected in the portion of car insurance for “liability coverage.” I bet it goes through the roof with a few speeding tickets.
“The kids and family members of smokers are involuntarily exposed to smoke.”
I don’t think voluntarily or involuntary matters much for minors, at least not legally. There are a host of adult behaviors that children are subjected to where there opinion is neither sought nor considered. Piano lessons, anyone? How about going to Sunday school? Adult family members can make their own choices. I’m sure more than one marriage has fallen apart due to cigarette smoking.
Johnny Roosh said:
“Troy, I think my link to the heart attack study refutes that in and of itself.”
I disagree. Sick old folks (and relatively healthy ones too) can consume (very expensive) mountains of non-smoking-related-illness medication over the later periods of their lives. People who die from heart attacks and smoking related illnesses rarely do. 😉
“As for the second-hand smoke, I’m pretty sure we can all agree that it’s not healthy”
I can agree with that, but I would like to see how it compares to AQI (http://aqi.pca.state.mn.us/hourly/, http://airnow.gov/) before saying exactly how unhealthy it is. Reading the “Full Report” on second hand smoke from the surgeon general (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/) for many of the studies made me think “you assumed what?” quite often. :-/
“and her hapless bystanders”
Support this statement. Look into it. You might be surprised at what you find.
You might be surprised.