http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_096.
In the now-locked “tards” thread, claims were made that lung cancer treatment is expensive and that smokers cost society more than they save by obligingly dying early. I find this highly doubtful. First of all, lung cancer treatment is not particularly expensive. Having sold health insurance earlier in my life, the absolute number one bogeyman for the underwriters, by far, was renal disease and/or kidney failure. Lung cancer treatment was, I was led to believe, chump change compared to this. Simply put, I have never heard of any particularly expensive treatments for lung cancer. If anybody knows of any, please do tell as I’m curious.
Worth remembering, too, is that lung cancer is one of only many potential hazards of early demise faced by smokers. Old standbys like heart attacks and strokes crop up all too frequently for smokers. Other types of cancers enter the mix as well.
8 or 9 years is generally accepted to be the average that each smoker’s life is shortened by. These 8 or 9 years, significantly, tend to overlap with the first several years of SSI and Medicare disbursements so we have to include the “savings” smokers represent for these government programs by checking out early.
I certainly don’t have all the answers but I smell something fishy about the argument that smokers cost in dollar terms anywhere near what non-smokers cost society. It just doesn’t seem to add up in light of the extra taxes they pay on the front end and the SSI and Medicare benefits they don’t get paid on the back end. Remember, too, that they pay more for their health and life coverage too. Even chewers of nicotine gum are being considered in the “tobacco” class by insurance screeners when they apply these days.