the "pro-smoking" argument suggesting that heavy smokers generally do not live long enough to develop the costly and chronic illnesses which affect the elderly, reducing society's healthcare burden, and the "anti-smoking" argument suggests that the healthcare burden is increased because smokers get chronic illnesses younger and at a higher rate than the general population. Data on both positions has been contested. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published research in 2002 claiming that the cost of each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States was more than $7 in medical care and lost productivity. The cost may be higher, with another study putting it as high as $41 per pack, most of which however is on the individual and his/her family. This is how one author of that study puts it when he explains the very low cost for others: "The reason the number is low is that for private pensions, Social Security, and Medicare — the biggest factors in calculating costs to society — smoking actually saves money. Smokers die at a younger age and don't draw on the funds they've paid into those systems." Other research demonstrates that premature death caused by smoking may redistribute Social Security income in unexpected ways that affect behavior and reduce the economic well-being of smokers and their dependents. To further support this, whatever the rate of smoking consumption is per day, smokers have a greater lifetime medical cost on average compared to a non-smoker by an estimated $6000 Between the cost for lost productivity and health care expenditures combined, cigarette smoking costs at least 193 billion dollars (Research also shows that smokers earn less money than nonsmokers). As for secondhand smoke, the cost is over 10 billion dollars. By contrast, some non-scientific studies, including one conducted by Philip Morris in the Czech Republic called Public Finance Balance of Smoking in the Czech Republic and another by the Cato Institute, support the opposite position. Philip Morris has explicitly apologised for the former study, saying: "The funding and public release of this study which, among other things, detailed purported cost savings to the Czech Republic due to premature deaths of smokers, exhibited terrible judgment as well as a complete and unacceptable disregard of basic human values. For one of our tobacco companies to commission this study was not just a terrible mistake, it was wrong. All of us at Philip Morris, no