Hard News: John Key(nesian)
236 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
All those known results of being a smoker mean that surgery is riskier and lead to longer recovery.
If you can point me to a study that says that butter does similar things, then I'll add it to my list of "sins" for which elective surgery (note elective surgery, not medically-indicated surgery) should be deferred/denied.Good, that's just what we need, a longer list!
But, hey, I'm no doctor. I'm told that butter clogs the arteries, and I could venture the guess that somebody who is a borderline heart patient or suffers in fact from heart disease is going to have more trouble recovering from surgery than somebody who isn't. Could be wrong, though.
And it wasn't my point, you know. I was just highlighting how hard your little plan would be to police. How do you know who's a smoker? People have bad lungs and bad circulation for a variety of reasons; others have a naturally high bad cholesterol that has absolutely nothing to do with their diets.
What about the economic cost of all the tens-of-thousands of lost hours spent on smoking breaks? Or the lost output of smokers who get seriously sick?
Don't be ridicolous now. There is no proof that people who take occasional breaks durinng their working day have a lower productivity, it might very well be the opposite. And I'm sure that the lost output under point two (which isn't the property of society anyhow) couldn't make up for those 750 million that smokers inject into the state coffers in excess of the cost they represent for the health system. Truth is, smokers pay for their own bills and a good chunk of yours. You suggest we ought to withdraw services from them to top it off. I'm still a bit dumbfounded about that.
In lieu of any further contribution of mine to this discussion, you can mentally paste the phrase "what Danielle said upthread".
-
Don't be ridicolous now. There is no proof that people who take occasional breaks durinng their working day have a lower productivity, it might very well be the opposite.
Tell that to a workmate who, on giving up smoking, said "I have all this time, now that I'm not always going outside to smoke." Shortly thereafter he commented that he was much more productive than he had been while a smoker, what with not going out for cigarette breaks for 10 minutes every hour.
-
Tell that to a workmate who, on giving up smoking, said "I have all this time, now that I'm not always going outside to smoke."
Those of us in sedentary jobs in offices are actually *meant* to be taking breaks every hour. It's in the OSH guidelines and everything.
(Also, I'm not quite sure what 'an anecdote about this dude I know' proves about the general productivity of smokers in New Zealand.)
-
Those of us in sedentary jobs in offices are actually *meant* to be taking breaks every hour. It's in the OSH guidelines and everything.
Yes, I know. I have one of those jobs. A minute or two of stretching at your desk, not 10 minutes to duck outside and have a cigarette. Huge difference.
To backtrack a little, that figure of $250m is solely for the costs to the health system. The Ministry of Health cites a health economist who, in 1997, estimated that smoking costs NZ society as a whole $22.5 billion dollars a year. Plus, that document appears to be saying that the $250m is just the directly-related illnesses, not the various secondary complaints mentioned such as asthma and childhood glue-ear.
-
smoking costs NZ society as a whole $22.5 billion dollars a year
unsubstantiated bollocks. That amounts to $5625 for every man woman and child in this country every year. I'm sure sombody would have noticed that.
-
That amounts to $5625 for every man woman and child in this country every year
Which is about 20% of GDP. So Double Bollocks.
-
Steve, I didn't do the numbers. Even if it's only 1% of GDP it's still a lot.
-
unsubstantiated bollocks. That amounts to $5625 for every man woman and child in this country every year. I'm sure sombody would have noticed that.
The economist in question was Brian Easton, the work was done in 1997. I don't know the research at all, but it'd be interesting to see what was included to come up with that figure.
-
Of course, the entire point of my argument was that the monetary cost, whatever it may be, has very little to do with the *value*: of the people involved, and their need for care (whether they smoke or drink or run red lights or eat great whacking cakes of butter for breakfast); of the public health system as a Good Thing, ethically and philosophically. You can cost this down to the last ten cent piece, Matthew, but you're arguing the narrowest of moot points as far as I'm concerned.
-
Coming at it from another direction I found this.
Causes of death classified by risk and condition, New Zealand 1997 Martin Tobias , Maria Turley
Ministry of Health, New Zealand.Approximately 30% of deaths were attributed to the joint effect of dietary factors. Tobacco consumption was responsible for 18% of deaths and insufficient physical activity for almost 10%.
Makes the anti Obesity drive look like the way to go eh?
-
Makes the anti Obesity drive look like the way to go eh?
But you can be thin and still eat unhealthy food. In fact, I'd argue that the non-obese run the risk of complacency if they assume that their thinness protects them against cholesterol and heart disease and all that other fun diet-related stuff. Kyle's Special Preventative Plan of Non-Shame should primarily be about the right foods in the proper amounts, and general fitness and exercise, not weight.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.