minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow) (01/17/86)
The "Wellness Letter", a newsletter published by the University of California, published an article on the hidden (pocketbook) costs of smoking. The article quoted a report to Congress by the Office of Technology Assessment. The report estimated that "the annual medical bill for lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and other ailments directly attributable to smoking runs between $12 billion and $35 billion annually." Also, "an estimated $27 billion to $61 billion evaporates each year because of sick days, lost wages, and lower productivity. This is a rough figure that includes such items as the projected earnings of those who die of smoking-related diseases." But, it doesn't include "other real losses, such as those from cigarrete-caused fires, which kill 1,500 people yearly and injure another 4,000." "Karl Kronebusch, project director at OTA, states the cost as follows: when averaged out, smoking costs evry man, woman, and child in the United States from $110 to $260 per year in lost productivity and wages. When you add to that another $50 to $150 annually in medical care (paid for primarily by taxes and health insurance premiums), that comes to $160 per capita on the low side, $410 on the high side." Abstracted by Martin Minow decvax!minow
smuga@mtuxo.UUCP (j.smuga) (01/17/86)
You didn't mention the additional cleaning costs for clothes that stink of stale smoke. Drapes and furniture too. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Janet Smuga I've had a great many troubles in my time, ihnp4!mtuxo!smuga and most of them never happened. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/18/86)
> The "Wellness Letter", a newsletter published by the University of > California, published an article on the hidden (pocketbook) costs of > smoking. The article quoted a report to Congress by the Office of > Technology Assessment. The report estimated that "the annual medical > bill for lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and other ailments > directly attributable to smoking runs between $12 billion and $35 > billion annually." > On the other hand, the retirement funds and social security may save a bundle. > Also, "an estimated $27 billion to $61 billion evaporates each year > because of sick days, lost wages, and lower productivity. This is a > rough figure that includes such items as the projected earnings of > those who die of smoking-related diseases." But, it doesn't include > "other real losses, such as those from cigarrete-caused fires, which > kill 1,500 people yearly and injure another 4,000." > Wages lost are not necessary a net loss in an economy without full employement. As pointed above, we may talk here about zero-sum game: some people do not collect wages and retirement, but others collect the wages and pay less for the retirement. "Other real losses" are not included because apparently they are trivial. > "Karl Kronebusch, project director at OTA, states the cost as follows: > when averaged out, smoking costs evry man, woman, and child in the > United States from $110 to $260 per year in lost productivity and > wages. When you add to that another $50 to $150 annually in medical > care (paid for primarily by taxes and health insurance premiums), that > comes to $160 per capita on the low side, $410 on the high side." > > Abstracted by > > Martin Minow > decvax!minow If one takes the lower estimates, subtracts not claimed retirement, cigarette taxes and the portion of medical care covered by smokers personally, it may happen that the costs for non-smokers are negligible.
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (01/20/86)
> Martin Minow > [ mentions many unavoidable externalities associated with smoking, > including increased health insurance, preventable fires, opportunity costs ] > The report estimated that "the annual medical > bill for lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and other ailments > directly attributable to smoking runs between $12 billion and $35 > billion annually." I too assumed that we would all benefit (on the average) if smoking could somehow be prohibited. I assumed the unavoidable externalities of smoking were negative. The lead article in the November issue of Scientific American describes cancer, its causes, and its treatments. Prevention, and consequently antismoking campaigns are inevitable topics. The authors give a hypothesis I hadn't previously considered. By chopping seven years off the average life span, smoking reduces the cost of social security and medicaid. You and I would have to pay more, in social security, if an antismoking campaign were even slightly successful. Perhaps the government should hand out cigarettes free! Everyone dumb enough to smoke hurts themselves voluntarily, and effectively puts more money in my pocket. Is this the reason our government virtually encourages smoking? I don't know. Were the authors wrong? Is this positive externality artificial, derived from an idiotic social security system that provides benefits when people reach a magic age (62?), instead of basin eligibility on the inability to do useful work? I can't believe the "real" externalities of smoking are positive. It *must* be in our interest to discourage this expensive addiction. Can somebody comment on this? -- Why don't we do it in the road? Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow) (01/21/86)
Responding to my note on the economic costs of smoking, Piotr Berman
points out correctly that smokers who die in middle age will have paid
into their retirement funds, but will not collect from them. I was remiss
in not quoting the following from the Wellness Letter article:
Of course, the smoking habit is not likely to vanish overnight.
Even if it did, it would take a few years for the economic benefits
to start accruing. *Not* smoking might create some economic
problems, too; the OTA report points out that people who now die
in middle age would live to collect their social security benefits.
On the other hand, these people would be productive longer.
He also suggests that the "other real losses, such as those from
cigarrete-caused fires, which kill 1,500 people yearly" (q. Wellness Letter)
"are not included because apparently they are trivial." (q. Berman)
If we arbitrarily set the value of life at $100,000, the 1,500 deaths
alone cause $150 million in losses. While this may be trivial in
relation to the $39 to $96 billion in total costs, its a tidy sum
in itself.
Quoting from the Wellness Letter:
In the end, the benefits enjoyed by a nonsmoking nation can
hardly be calculated in dollars. What matters more for most
of us are the profits and losses logged up in the health column,
which are unarguable.
Martin Minow
decvax!minowwerner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (01/21/86)
> > Technology Assessment. The report estimated that "the annual medical > > bill for lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and other ailments > > directly attributable to smoking runs between $12 billion and $35 > > billion annually." > > > On the other hand, the retirement funds and social security may save > a bundle. > --- Piotr Berman Of course the oft-repeated comment of Berman's contains an essential fallacy. Most deaths by smoking are not quick. They are slow, painful, and Very Very Expensive. And Social Security and Medicare (the health insurance for the Elderly) come from the same trust fund. Similarly, most retirement funds also cover some form of health insurance. Hence, no "bundle" is saved, it is just transferred from one column of the payout to another. Moreover, health care is far more expensive than health, which is why most insurers will cut you a deal if you don't smoke or quit. Still, I don't think appealing to anyone's sense of the public good will connvince anyone to stop smoking. They have to be convinced that it is in their best interest to quit. Unfortunately, too many people don't quit until after they are already coughing up blood. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "... you can do anything you want, but not everything you want."
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (01/24/86)
One thing all of this fails to address is the psychological and immediate
physical effect of smoking on non-smokers. I personally find that cancer
stick smoke makes me physically nauseous. This is bound to have an effect
on my productivity! :-) Thus, the fact that I am fortunate enough to work
in a non-smoking environment probably has direct economic benefits to my
employer (in terms of increased productivity) that are difficult to measure
specifically. This type of effect is never accounted for in any of the studies
that I have seen.
--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo}
!hao!woods
CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPAz@rocksvax.FUN (Jim Ziobro) (01/26/86)
A common fallacy is to believe Social Security is a "savings plan."
The money us young kids are putting into SS is paying for retirement
and health care of those who need it NOW. If any of us young kids die
early or if any of those old folks get sick then very simply we will pay
more.
It isn't too bad if these old folks stick around a little longer as long
as they don't get sick. If they are healthy then most of their SS check
gets recycled into the economy. As long as they can get around they are
probably doing good things for society like watching the neighborhood
while us young kids are at work supporting them.
I think most doctors would admit that they would be less willing to
"pour" money into an 85 year old body vs. a 65 year old body that might
be suffering from lung-cancer. The 85 year old body simply could not take
the trauma of any intense medical operation.
//Z\\
James M. Ziobro
Ziobro.Henr@Xerox.COM
{rochester,amd,sunybcs,ihnp4}!rocksvax!z