Vaping would save Medicaid billions

[DrMA]

«As shown in this study, the potential savings to Medicaid significantly exceeds the state revenue raised from the cigarette excise tax and tobacco settlement payments by 87%. As such, the rational policy decision is to adopt a non-interventionist stance toward the evolution and adoption of the e-cig until hard evidence proves otherwise. While cigarette tax collections will fall as a result, Medicaid spending will fall even faster. This is a win-win for policymakers and taxpayers.»

E-Cigarettes Poised to Save Medicaid Billions > Publications > State Budget Solutions

 

[CarolT]

«As shown in this study, the potential savings to Medicaid significantly exceeds the state revenue raised from the cigarette excise tax and tobacco settlement payments by 87%. As such, the rational policy decision is to adopt a non-interventionist stance toward the evolution and adoption of the e-cig until hard evidence proves otherwise. While cigarette tax collections will fall as a result, Medicaid spending will fall even faster. This is a win-win for policymakers and taxpayers.»

E-Cigarettes Poised to Save Medicaid Billions > Publications > State Budget Solutions

Except that it's all a pile of lies, based on falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection. The biggest lie is heart disease, which is really caused by cytomegalovirus, so the savings would really be zilch.

 

[pgscott]

Yep, and people living longer will put extra burdens on health care more or less wiping out any savings. The smart policy makers would know this - hence the tax on ecigarettes to make up the shortfall.

 

[redddog]

Laws are based on the "bird in the hand" principle. Taxes are the surest, easiest way for governments to raise cash. They have a shortfall somewhere? Find a vice and tax it more. Not enough? Raise all taxes a bit. These Medicaid estimates are just that. Estimates.

Here's the backroom discussion:

OK, Mr. Math Kid Right Out Of College, and what if your numbers are wrong? What if we lay off the e-cig tax and only see a 70% decrease in Medicaid expenses? We're screwed! How about we tax it to the brink AND save the money on Medicaid?

 

[caramel]

Yep, and people living longer will put extra burdens on health care more or less wiping out any savings. The smart policy makers would know this - hence the tax on ecigarettes to make up the shortfall.

The whole purpose of a health insurance system is that the costs are equally spread to all participants.

If everyone has to pay his own real cost + insurer's markup, then it's not an insurance system - it's a fraud designed to add a markup to the individual health costs.

 

[skoony]

there would be significant savings whether or not smoking is
responsible for everything they claim or not. health care claims
have surely been exaggerated but they are not without any merit.
add in the productivity gains of decreased colds and flu and
a healthier all around life style before one gets old with the additional
productivity into older age your talking real money.
smoking may not be the direct cause of so many illnesses its
said to have caused but,its certainly a major aggravating factor
in the development of those illnesses.

regards
mike

 

[caramel]

there would be significant savings

You're missing the point. The purpose of the system is not "savings".

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Except that it's all a pile of lies, based on falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection. The biggest lie is heart disease, which is really caused by cytomegalovirus, so the savings would really be zilch.

I smoked for 30+ years. I know for a fact that my "wind" increased dramatically and I can do much more stuff now without breaking into a sweat since I switched to vaping 3 months ago. Whether smoking causes all the problems it is said to cause or not vaping appears to me to be MUCH less harmful to me.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

You're missing the point. The purpose of the system is not "savings".

Yes the only problem the govt has is how to route more money to the health care industry. Lobbyists in our bought government.

 

[skoony]

You're missing the point. The purpose of the system is not "savings".

i know that. they will just ignore these types of studies.
we call it double dipping.

mike

 

[aikanae1]

The Swedish healthcare system saw a 45% reduction in costs from smoking related illnesses (respiratory) within the first 5 years of encouraging the adoption of snus. That's significant because Medicaid is most states largest expense. These are figures and explainations they can use.

 

[TX Foilhead]

Umm, last time I checked I don't think they have any interest in saving money, they're mostly interested in how they can get more to spend.

 

[CarolT]

The Swedish healthcare system saw a 45% reduction in costs from smoking related illnesses (respiratory) within the first 5 years of encouraging the adoption of snus. That's significant because Medicaid is most states largest expense. These are figures and explainations they can use.

You mean they hallucinated the savings by using a SAMMEC-type computer program.

 

[aikanae1]

You mean they hallucinated the savings by using a SAMMEC-type computer program.

What do you mean?

 

[aikanae1]

Umm, last time I checked I don't think they have any interest in saving money, they're mostly interested in how they can get more to spend.

I get tired of the generalized hate.
Why do you waste time commenting if you feel there's no hope?
Some of us are trying to figure out what we can say or do and that's no help.

 

[CarolT]

What do you mean?

Meaning that rather than actually analyzing data, they PRESUMED that less smoking would reduce illnesses in the first place. They used relative risks from some other source, e.g. the American Cancer Society's CPS study, and then calculated how many illnesses were supposedly prevented. Then they multiply illnesses times average costs of illness (from yet another source). They get away with this all the time, thanks to the media. That way they can manufacture propaganda supposedly showing how successful they are, even if there has been no effect whatsoever.

 

[caramel]

If they already got away with those figures and you can't oppose them, then just use them for your own advantage. Claim that e cig would have even more of the same benefits, since it's easier to switch to e cig than quit. Which means that you can attract more people into this "savings" program than by peddling cold turkey.

P.S. However, once again, you have to keep in mind that the purpose of healthcare is not "savings".

 

[sofarsogood]

I've got it. Instead of taxing e-cigs tax Medicaid! Brilliant. Actually the analysis is one of the most promising arguements I've seen in favor of ecigs.