Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by brokenmachine 1655 days ago
"There would be an estimated NZ$5 billion ($4.7 billion) in savings on future public health expenditure as a result of the plans." - NZ Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall

https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-f...

2 comments

Over what timeframe? It can't be yearly.

The population of NZ is 5,000,000.

The smoking rate is 12%.

A saving of $5B/y would mean $8,333 per smoker, per year.

Don't forget that a typical smoker in NZ might pay about $5000/y in tobacco tax ($100/w for 2.5 packs or 1 pouch per week taxed at 80%+).

Let's call it a saving of $13,333/y then.

But wait! This $5B figure obviously can't be based on eliminating smoking, just a reduction. So the estimate must be based on saving much more than $13,333/y for each smoker this 'stops'.

On top of that, smokers on average die much younger than non-smokers. Healthcare costs are mostly accrued in old age.

What is the value in measuring expenditure alone? Doesn't the income generated by those activities also factor into the equation?
Governments don't usually do things from the joy in their hearts, or out of the care for their constituents.

I'm more inclined to think that smokers aren't subsidizing everyone as much as they like to think.

Governments, when objectively correct, tend to release data to support their position. The only value in measuring expenditure alone is in how the uneducated interpret it as more favorable.
So what you're saying is that the government is leaving money on the table out of care for the health of the people? That's terrible...