Comments on: Time to sink a SCHIP http://monoblogue.us/2009/01/10/time-to-sink-a-schip/ News and views from Maryland's Eastern Shore since 2005, and home site of the Liberty Features syndicated columnist. Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:04:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Carnival of Maryland No. 51 « ROTUS http://monoblogue.us/2009/01/10/time-to-sink-a-schip/comment-page-1/#comment-97942 Carnival of Maryland No. 51 « ROTUS Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:58:52 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3225#comment-97942 [...] points out that a proposal to fund the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by raising the Federal tax on cigarettes may not work because it might encourage people to quit [...] [...] points out that a proposal to fund the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by raising the Federal tax on cigarettes may not work because it might encourage people to quit [...]

]]> By: Marc http://monoblogue.us/2009/01/10/time-to-sink-a-schip/comment-page-1/#comment-97785 Marc Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:27:47 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3225#comment-97785 I'm not so sure about those savings. For one, smokers die earlier than non-smokers (everything else being equal). So while a smoker may consume a lot of health care in the process of dying at 65, that means he or she is not consuming health care from 65 to 85, when he or she would die of something else (and likely consume a lot of health care in the process, given that a large amount of health care spending comes in a person's final year or two). Furthermore, by dying earlier smokers use much less Social Security money, saving the government money. The idea that quitting smoking will save society a bunch of money really isn't true. You also have to consider how much government money will be consumed by all these former smokers in their extended lifespan. There are certainly other reasons to desire that people quit smoking but cost-savings isn't a big one. I’m not so sure about those savings. For one, smokers die earlier than non-smokers (everything else being equal). So while a smoker may consume a lot of health care in the process of dying at 65, that means he or she is not consuming health care from 65 to 85, when he or she would die of something else (and likely consume a lot of health care in the process, given that a large amount of health care spending comes in a person’s final year or two). Furthermore, by dying earlier smokers use much less Social Security money, saving the government money.

The idea that quitting smoking will save society a bunch of money really isn’t true. You also have to consider how much government money will be consumed by all these former smokers in their extended lifespan.

There are certainly other reasons to desire that people quit smoking but cost-savings isn’t a big one.

]]> By: ShoreThings http://monoblogue.us/2009/01/10/time-to-sink-a-schip/comment-page-1/#comment-97782 ShoreThings Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:06:35 +0000 http://monoblogue.us/?p=3225#comment-97782 I heard a statement recently that smoking in the U.S. was down 33% from 1990-2007. Some portion, if not all, of the revenue lost to a decrease in tobacco tax revenue is offset by savings in long term health care costs. Somebody with a two pack a day habit is spending more than $200 a month on cigarettes. They could make a car payment with that and help save GM. I heard a statement recently that smoking in the U.S. was down 33% from 1990-2007.

Some portion, if not all, of the revenue lost to a decrease in tobacco tax revenue is offset by savings in long term health care costs.

Somebody with a two pack a day habit is spending more than $200 a month on cigarettes. They could make a car payment with that and help save GM.

]]>