Fester, Jefferson,

Just a thought

On average fat smokers who never exercise cost the taxpayer less than lean fit non-smokers.

Here's why.

Roughly speaking for every extra $1 smokers generate in additional healthcare costs they pay $20 in cigarette taxes. Smokers are, on average,net contributors.

If they are also fat and never exercise they will most likely die at a relatively young age from heart attack or cancer. That's cheaper than having them linger for years on the old age pension and having to pay for their care if they get dementia. Many dementia sufferers required a decade or more of care.

I don't think we can simply look at the cost to the taxpayer when we consider healthcare. Nor should we assume that lean, non-smoking healthy types are the lowest cost.

Looking at the TOTAL picture those with unhealthy lifestyles may cost less.

Interesting, Steven. You reminded me of a story-no idea of its veracity- about an Eastern European country offering discounted cigarettes to its senior citizens as a means of reducing health costs.

I think it far more practical to sell a good lifestyle for the benefit it brings. For example, in other parts of the world high salt intake is targeted as a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and is believed to kill more people than smoking.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/the-silent-killer-we-cant-seem-to-live-without-20100710-104vt.html

It is probably also a major cause of morbidity and mortality in remote Australia.

Out of interest, how many on this forum are on a low sodium diet? How many are aware of how damaging a high sodium diet can be? The government is very concerned about tobacco, yet has little or no policy directed at something which kills more Australians: Yet another example of why exclusion based policy is not such a great idea.

Fester

In the late 1940s old age pensioners in the UK could get free tobacco discount vouchers as a supplement to their pensions:

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-59.html

In 1999 Phillip Morris advised the Czech Government to abandon attempts to get people to quit smoking because it would harm the economy:

See:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/philipmorris/pmczechstudy.pdf

Quote:

Public finance gained between 19,523 mil. CZK and 23,793 mil. CZK, with the realistic estimate of 20,270 mil. CZK, from smoking-related taxes. Public finance saved between 943 mil. CZK and 1,193 mil. CZK (realistic estimate:1,193 mil. CZK) from reduced health-care costs, savingson pensions and housing costs for the elderly -- all related to the early mortality of smokers.Among the positive effects, excise tax, VAT and health care cost savings due to early mortality are the most important. Increased health-care costs, absenteeism-related social costs, lost income tax related to early mortality, and fire-induced costs total between 13,849 mil. CZK and 16,605 mil. CZK, with the realistic estimate totalling 15,647 mil. CZK.

(CZK = Czech Kronor)

Sounds bizarre doesn't it? Kill off the old dears to save a few bob on each.

I take your point about salt but I suspect the negative effects of a sedentary life style are even greater. I have no evidence but I would guess that lack of exercise is the biggest single cause of premature death in Australia.