Social security benefits and medicare are a huge drain on our national resources. By 2040, social security will run short of funds. Skinny non-smokers live much longer than obese people and smokers. (I trust none of you will require cites for this statement). They will drain social security funds for many years longer than their unhealthy life-styled counterparts. Also, as they live longer, they will be more likely to fall victim to senile dementia and need more expensive nursing home care than unhealthy people who are dead. They’ll outlive their bones and suffer more fractures. They’ll also be more likely to outlive their joints and need more hip and knee replacements than dead people. As they age, more and more of them will come down with cardiac disease and cancer. Not to mention, all of the Viagra they’ll require. So: Should skinny, healthy non-smokers be required to pay higher FICA taxes than those people who are considerately killing themselves off at a younger age since the healthy will live much longer and use the benefits so much more? What do ya think?
Let’s just euthanize all the fat sick smokers instead. That way, the true costs of our limitied socialism will be more equitably apportioned to those most benefit from it.
Don’t worry – because skinny healthy people get laid so much more than the rest of us, they will still die young due to either sexually-transmitted diseases or exhaustion.
<runs huffing into thread>
It’s a good thing I quit smoking, otherwise there’s no way I’d keep up with all of this great sex. ooops, got to go, duty calls!
<runs huffing out of thread>
Irony aside, pohjenon makes a good point. Studies have shown that smokers, for instance, cost society less than non-smokers. If we’re going to tax people extra for eating unhealthy foods under the premise that they incur more costs to society, it’s only fair to tax non-smokers extra for not dying off quickly enough.
Jeff
I’d be interested to see such a study. The recent obesity thread sort of bogged down when we realized we had no real basis for any of our positions. Do you have a link?
doesn’t it stand to reason that healthy people spend more time working and thus paying taxes?
as for the op question:
(for the thin healthy non smoking men at least) we should ship them off to the castle anthrax filled with “3 score young blondes and brunettes all between the ages of seventeen and nineteen” for a lonely life dressing, undressing, knitting exciting underwear…
let the healthy non smoking women have the government, i wouldn’t care:p
Hmm (stroking chin thoughtfully) - of course, we’d really have to establish what proportion of them are criminals or tax dodgers.
And just what group do you belong Minty?
:rolleyes: [sup]As though it needed to be asked.[/sup]
Reports I’ve read suggest the reverse to the OP - namely that smokers are far more likely to get a debilitating disease that drains the state coiffers. As such smoking is a drain on public finances, even allowing for the tax revenue received from the cigs.
In the UK, with its National Health Service, this is a particular issue.
pan
Kinda pointless to give up smoking if you’re huffing, isn’t it? Sure, it makes the sex better, but still…
People should be penalized for being healthy and rewarded for being unhealthy? And this is a good idea?
Makes about as much sense as promoting suicide. “Feeling down? Then kill yourself, get it over with, and quit wasting our fucking time and money!” Umm… No 
Not really. The obese and the smokers both probably survive a while past retirement age on average, but die earlier than the skinny and the non-smokers after that. The people who spend less time working throughout their career would be those with chronic illnesses. So it really depends on how the word healthy is being used.
How about the poor and minorities? They don’t live as long either. And I’d be interseted to see if anyone’s done a good study of the costs of smoking vs. non-smoking. Any study I see seems to be biased.
I was being sarcastic, Phoenix Dragon. Besides, all those skinny nonsmokers will eventually end up with the same diseases as the obese and smokers. They will just do so LATER. Or do you think they will all lie around someday dying of NOTHING???
::lights a cigarette::
Happy to do my part in fighting overpopulation and Social Security bankruptcy. However, since I probably will die of lung cancer at 35, I’d really like the money they took out of my paychecks for my old-age nest egg back, if no one has a problem with that.
::takes a deep drag::
God, I feel patriotic.
Why, yes I do.
Here’s a link discussing the studies in general:
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artextort.html
And here are some of the studies he mentions:
http://www.pc.gov.au/orr/tobacco/tobacco2.pdf
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs-tax.htm (warning: Really Freakin’ Long)
http://www.smokingsection.com/issues2.html (discussion of the Manning/Viscusi study)
The costs of socialized medicine being what they are, this doesn’t surprise me.
I think the idea is that people shouldn’t be penalized for being unhealthy - it’s their choice.
Jeff
Well, ** ElJeffe**, before you go off making cute remarks like this, you might want to compare, say, the percent of the GDP spent on health care in the U.S. vs. Canada and what is gotten for that by various measures such as infant mortality, … Particularly interesting are also the fraction of the health care dollars that go to the health insurance bureaucracy in the two cases.
Along the lines of what I just noted above, here are a few random links I managed to find through google:
http://www.cmwf.org/fellowships/anderson_intrntl_healthcare_255bn.asp
http://www.worldpolicy.org/americas/econrights/canada-health.html
http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/mchp/cprkives/cprkiv11.htm
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffin’ glue.