Healthcare costs nosedive when smokers quit

[VictorC]

"If 10 percent of American smokers gave up cigarettes and the rest cut back by 10 percent, the U.S. could shave $63 billion off medical costs the next year, the analysis found."

Healthcare costs nosedive when smokers quit

Do you think health practitioners will support vaping?

 

[pennysmalls]

I wouldn't trust one single figure in that article to be true. Glantz is famous for fudging numbers to make a study look favorable toward tobacco Control.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

I wouldn't trust one single figure in that article to be true. Glantz is famous for fudging numbers to make a study look favorable toward tobacco Control.

Exactly. And when I saw Frieden's name I couldn't finish.

 

[Scottitude]

Yep.

 

[Marc411]

They seem to be pressing a little harder to support their position on vaping, maybe they are getting a little concerned.

 

[Kent C]

I wouldn't trust one single figure in that article to be true. Glantz is famous for fudging numbers to make a study look favorable toward Tobacco Control.

Other studies have shown that smokers decrease healthcare costs.

 

[nicnik]

Other studies have shown that smokers decrease healthcare costs.

Long term, it sure does, but the anti-Tobacco Harm Reduction people quoted in the article want MORE our money, NOW!
They want to kill off vaping, and heavily tax any that manages to evade their bans.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Other studies have shown that smokers decrease healthcare costs.

Yes. They croak much sooner.

 

[nicnik]

Yes. They croak much sooner.

Aside from decreased lifetime medical costs, there are Social Security cost savings for society.

 

[Kent C]

Yes. They croak much sooner.

And quicker :- )

 

[Kent C]

Aside from decreased lifetime medical costs, there are Social Security cost savings for society.

That too. Brad Rodu's piece on those studies a while back.

 

[CarolT]

Everybody has missed the most important thing, namely, that it's based on pure speculation, not observation. And the speculations are built upon the scientific fraud of falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection. It's just like the CDC's fraudulent SAMMEC, and like the SAMMEC, they pretend that non-smokers' costs don't exist at all.

And here's why! "Funding: This work was funded by National Cancer Institute grant CA-61021, in part through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office on Smoking and Health. The CDC Office on Smoking and Health arranged a meeting with several experts on time series analysis of panel data nonstationary processes to advise the authors on methodological issues."

Then, after funding it, choosing the most militantly anti-smoker authors, and sending a team to direct tghe show, they hilariously claim that "Neither those experts nor the funding agencies played any role in the design of the final analysis, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." How's that for a laugh!

 

[Jman8]

From the article:

“We in public health need to do everything we can to promote the facts.”

....starting......now

 

[AttyPops]

Not impressed.

As an Aside:
I read that pamphlet in the pic. I hate using "vapes" or "vape" as a noun. As in "Vapes are designed to seem cool" or commonly "My vape is a _xyz___ mod.)

Verb is OK..."He/She vapes" or "I vape everyday".

I know it's common. It's like calling a cig "a smoke".
It' just me. Carry on.