Personal antecdote here:
My father, a smoker, died two weeks ago at the age of 76 of a massive heart attack. Most likely, the cigarettes contributed to his death (although heart disease runs in his family).
Let's just say that our family took comfort in the fact that he died so quickly. He was not the type of man who wanted to live to 85 in a nursing home with a colostomy bag. That is not what he considered "living".
Is this where we're headed? Do we really want to live to be 100? Is that the government's goal? Smokers die early. Believe it or not, THEY SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY!
I want to go the same way as my dad. Good grief.
Actually, there is a Vanderbilt study that shows smokers cost less
in the long run than non smokers. Few live to be 76, though, as most die in their 50s. I don't think I have a smoker over 65 in my patient population. However, I will add that a person's employer provided insurance would not be paying for anything beyond retirement, so end of life care is moot. Nursing home is moot anyway because long term care is a separate option in cafeteria plans. Lung cancer, however, would not be moot. My husband died of cancer , but not lung cancer. His was still smoking related. He was 38, employed, and his employer provided health care paid out big bucks. He didn't live long enough to lose the insurance as would have happened if he had been diagnosed sooner. So smoking IS relevant to the employee/employer health care scene for the 40 - 50 year old crowd.
