From the BBC:
Smoking could be banned in playgrounds and hospital grounds as the Welsh government continues its drive to clamp down on cigarettes in public... The British Lung Foundation (BLF) Wales said action was needed "urgently" to tackle smoking, which kills 5,600 people in Wales every year and costs NHS Wales £386m - seven % of its budget.
The estimate of the "cost" of smoking to the NHS has been creeping up in England, from £2.7 billion ("one billion more than a decade ago") back in 2008 to £5 billion ("up to five times the previously accepted figure") today, i.e. an increase from about 3% to 5% of the NHS budget.
But the plucky Welsh are forging ahead with their estimate that smoking "costs" the NHS 7% of its budget, they've leap frogged 6%. I really don't know why they are fannying about like this. The simple fact is that about a fifth of adults smoke, it's easy to make the claim that a smoker "costs" the NHS twice as much as a non-smoker (tough to prove or disprove either way), and that way, mathematically, smokers could be said to "cost" the NHS one-third of their budget*, or about £40 billion a year or something. I mean, if you're going to completely make up numbers, why not go for broke?
The article continues:
"What we really need to see is a genuine sense of urgency about tackling smoking," said Chris Mulholland, Head of BLF Wales. "The plan promises a boost for smoking cessation services, but we need action quickly. These services, which help smokers quit, need to be at the centre of the NHS, not on the sidelines."
Yup. The Righteous claim that it only "costs" the NHS £224 to persuade somebody to stop smoking. Actually, if you crunch the numbers it's more like £10,000 per quitter.
* Yes, a third. One smoker "costs" the NHS (say) £2,000 and four non-smokers "cost" the NHS half that, £1,000 each or £4,000 in total. The grand total "cost" to the NHS of those five people is £6,000 and the one smoker "costs" the NHS £2,000, or one-third of the grand total. But no doubt if you say it fast enough, you could convince the non-mathematically minded that smokers are 20% of the population so double that and they "cost" the NHS 40% of its budget.
Huw Edwards, a lucky man in many respects
2 hours ago
14 comments:
Devil's Kitchen claimed that smokers end up costing the NHS about the same amount because they die quicker, I wonder if there's any truth to that? Certainly BUPA has never asked me whether or not I smoke. (Although funnily enough I have a chronic condition which is actually helped by smoking).
How do these f***tards always get the ear of the BBC?
Mark, perhaps if you set up, say, the British Health Foundation, Chair (and sole member, but you don't tell them that) Mark Wadsworth, got your wife to pose as your secretary and ring up to make an appointment, you could get them to put your made-up numbers on the airwaves?
When I were a lad, there were always letters from the secretary of the South West Organisation for Road Development being printed in the press. It turned out that SWORD consisted of one man who paid a typist to type his opinions and send them to the paper under his (the typist's) name.
The thing is.... you have to die of _something_.
Is lung cancer more expensive to treat than alzheimers? I've forgotten...
J, you don't imagine for one second that the NHS "wastes" any money on treating lung cancer, so you? Pah! That is a thoroughly Unrighteous form of cancer, unlike e.g. breast cancer and thus not deserving of taxpayer's cash.
The British Lung Foundation (BLF) Wales said action was needed "urgently" to tackle smoking, which kills 5,600 people in Wales every year and costs NHS Wales £386m - seven % of its budget.
Ask them to name one!
http://www.parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/2011/08/27/and-they-still-cant-name-one/
I suspect we non-smokers make a profit out of smokers. If it wasn't so, then the figures would be all over the place.
In my dad's care home there was one smoker out of 32 residents. He smoked his daily pipe of baccy outside and didn't wee on the chairs, unlike some of the others.
1% of that type of money would do me at this point.
IPJ, nice one.
AKH, yes of course, smokers benefit non-smokers to the tune of about £500 each per year, that's even according to official EU statistics, which probably wildly understate the transfer. Hence and why I'm not all that fussed about tobacco duty, I pay it, and my wife and kids, who don't smoke, get the subsidy.
JH, me too. But would you be happy to pay in the £20 billion in return?
MW: do you know a ballpark figure of the total cost for all public+NHS "outreach and prevention" activities regarding not only smoking, but also obesity, drugs, etc.?
-Kj
"The British Lung Foundation (BLF) Wales "
Who? Why do they have national offices? (In whales of course ;)
Why are they disassocating themselves from Britishness?
Is this another fake charity shroud-waving?
The public need to be kept in the dark!!!
Lung cancer detected late usually kills you quite quickly, so it should be cheaper than something that takes a long time. And the NHS isn't going to waste money to keep you alive for an extra month. If detected early, the treatment is to cut it out, so not that expensive either.
Kj, I'm afraid not. Try asking Dick Puddlecote.
PJH: "Is this another fake charity shroud-waving?" You'd think so, but actually the BLF is more of a lobbying organisation for Big Pharma, which I covered here.
Anon 1.41, thanks for extra info.
"The thing is.... you have to die of _something_."
No, Jer, don't you realise, if you give up smoking drinking and eating the wrong type of food or too much, then you will live for ever.
B, several years ago, I remember reading a newspaper article exhorting people to stop smoking, it listed the advantages as "Save money, live longer, die healthier". Which I thought was sort of either missing the point or a contradiction in terms.
Post a Comment