Friday, October 7, 2016

If the Right wing talking points during the Big Tobacco lawsuits are true, couldn't smokers do a healthshare like system?

A long time ago, while Big Tobacco was being sued everywhere, someone brought up a point. Supposedly smokers cost insurers less overall because when they did get sick, they died faster.

So now I was looking into alternatives to my health insurance. I think I figured out it is cheaper for me to stick with what I signed up for, even if they do charge me more for not going to the doctor. But, in my case, I am a relatively healthy guy with some longstanding pain. I stopped going to a doctor, and I get blood tests sometimes to see if there is anything actionable.

But I notice all the alternatives want you off tobacco too. And I think my insurance charges like twenty bucks more a month if you are a smoker.

Then I think back to these right wing discussions during that sue happy period when Big Tobacco was being fleeced.

If it is really true, couldn't smokers do some sort of health share thing and save themselves money?

Now, there are likely confounding factors. Smokers probably eat too much fast food, don't sleep enough, engage in high risk activities, etc...

More generally, given end of life care in this country is insane, I do wish there was an option where, if you found out you had a terminal disease, you got a cabin in the woods and some minimal care until you died. This would cost less and be more humane than the ridiculous attempts to keep a dying person alive under the 24/7 florescent lights in the hospital. In fact, this sort of nonsense alone might render the right wing talking points of yesterday moot. They didn't go as nuts trying to keep you alive for one more day, while charging crazy-talk amounts for your room back then.

No comments: