AIBU to think that actually it's the healthy living folk who will end up costing the state most?

[Frontier]

Not the fat smokers.

All of us will get ill and die eventually. Something will get us in the end and towards the end we are very likely to need some medical attention.

Those who are ill young may cost a lot in the short-term with cancer treatment or through diabetes etc but people who live an extra 30 years and then still need at the same (or more) treatment and care will surely cost more over their lifetime.

I might even argue that dying young and suddenly from say, heart attack does the NHS a favour. Caveat, I'm not being entirely serious but offering an alternative view to the one doing the rounds here ATM.

The fit and healthy are more likely to die in their sleep at 90 surely

The fit and healthy will work for longer and thus pay more tax.

Yes lots of people with diabetes having limbs amputated and then dying young will save the state loads of money

Or develop altzheimers and live for decades afterwards needing care and medication Amy .

Part of the problem with increasing physical health and living longer is the increase in dementia type illnesses that can effect otherwise healthy (and equally unhealthy) people. Care for these types of illnesses can be as draining as for the illnesses generally associated with the obesity epidemic.

Being fat/an alcoholic/a smoker means you are more likely to have a chronic health condition: which will cost the NHS a fortune in repeated admissions to hospital and outpatient treatment.

So in short Yabu.

It's not as simple as saying those who live the longest cost the NHS most, it's usually the other way round.

The thing that really racks up the cost is dementia and Alzheimer's, which is strongly correlated with obesity, excessive alcohol and lack of exercise. Smoking makes you more likely to get dementia if you live that long ..... but that's a big if, so I think we can cut them some slack. Oh and loneliness is a risk factor so we definitely need to ostracise those selfish lonely people.

Ha ha i love it!

Live fast, die young, stay pretty ... and cost the tax payer less.

Interesting idea OP.

That's not true though is it amy? They may die in their sleep but before that they may have daily visits from carers to enable them to stay at home or need looking after in a care home, plus of course the very high incidence on dementia in the very elderly. There aren't many 90yos who live entirely independently.

Most are (probably) not going to work longer. Not much longer anyway. It's still young to die at 60, most people are close to retiring if not retired by then. They'll certainly draw their pension for longer.

It doens't matter anyway because the NHS is going to fall to sh*t during this generation.

New advertising campaign:

SMOKER PACKER FAGZA DAY

How will they cost more if they are healthy (and presumably working, paying tax etc. in the meantime)?

If they are fit and healthy they are volunteering for all sorts of things after they retire. The country would fall apart without them. Keeping fit and healthy means they are less likely to develop dementia.

The OP is right statistically

Old peo

The elderly are the biggest cost to society financially. 40 years of retirement is the biggest cost.

Dying younger costs the state less.

The ideal scenario for the state is dying at 65, the day after retirement. No pension or nhs costs.

Living to a 100 is not desirable for the state as on average you have 17 years of poor health before death.

Surely someone who has been fit and healthy all their lives has put more into the state monetary wise anyway?

Surely even 'healthy' living doesn't stop wear and tear such as arthritis and hip replacements? Eye surgery, hearing aids and the like?

Not necessarily, look at what the miners put in - a lot of whom died younger.

Or the men that dealt with asbestos and ended up with cancer or mesothelioma.

The majority of cancers are not caused by lifestyle but by work and poverty

Why don't we cut through all the arguments by euthanasing everyone at 65? Fat or fit it will not matter. They will have outlived their usefulness and that's all that counts. O brave new world, how beautiful you are.

Is there a modern equivalent of that though namechange ?

The problem is longevity. I cant however find a humane solution to the world population over load. I rather liked the solution in Dan Browns Inferno but I doubt it will catch on.

That is modern, those men are dying off in their 60s and 70s now.

The ones who worked with asbestos worked with it in the 60's and 70s

I meant the job role as a modern equivalent. I can't really think of any.