Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 314 posts

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#21

Post by mikeyouse »

dragonwriter wrote: post #20
mikeyouse wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And before people get too comfortable -- Every single "Obamacare replacement" plan does away with the ban on lifetime caps either directly or indirectly. These are enormously beneficial to insurance companies (they essentially have unlimited liability without them) and there is a ton of money to have the caps reinstated.

> Every single "Obamacare replacement" plan does away with lifetime caps either directly or indirectly. You mean, does away with the ban on such caps, right?

I did indeed, thanks for the proofread.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#22

Post by [deleted] »

mikeyouse wrote: post #19
zrail wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the study appears to be looking at 2000–2012. The lifetime limit ban started on March 23rd 2010, according to this Vox article: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/15/14563182/o... Thanks Obama.

And before people get too comfortable -- Every single "Obamacare replacement" plan does away with the ban on lifetime caps either directly or indirectly. These are enormously beneficial to insurance companies (they essentially have unlimited liability without them) and there is a ton of money to have the caps reinstated.

[deleted]

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#23

Post by ggregoire »

mikeyouse wrote: post #9

Feels like the headline should include "In America". This certainly doesn't happen in the rest of the civilized world.

Makes me think that when my dad was sick, the French healthcare system paid for everything. Obviously for all the treatments. But also for an adjustable bed, a homecare assistant and even the redesign of our home so my dad could continue to use the bathroom. We paid for absolutely nothing related to his condition. I knew our system was "generous" but I didn't expect it at this level.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#24

Post by alejohausner »

Perhaps the real problem is that chemo, radiation, and surgery don't really cure cancer, in most cases. There is a lot of bad science in cancer research. The "science" that bothers me the most is the use of 5-year survival rates.

Suppose that a cancer that starts at age 60 becomes symptomatic at age 65, and kills the patient at age 70.

Scenario 1: you are 60 years old, get screened, and opt for treatment (who wouldn't?). However, the treatment does temporarily put the cancer into remission, and you are "cured" at age 65. But then the cancer comes back, now resistant to the treatment, and you die at age 70.

Scenario 2: you don't get screened, and die at age 70.

Both outcomes are the same, but in the first scenario your oncologist declares you "cured" at age 65.

This kind of statistical chicanery leads people to opt for treatment, which is usually very bad for you.

If you or your child has cancer, could you bring yourself to not spend every penny you have? Most people would opt for treatment. But it's often a futile waste of money and life, as the article points out.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#26

Post by anigbrowl »

Thanks, capitalism.

Snarky as that may sound, it's a simple statement of fact: our society places a higher value on capital allocation than human life, and so the most vulnerable people are stripped of their assets and dignity to satisfy the demand for wealth.

Frankly, I think socialized medicine would also reduce violence in society if deployed as part of a larger economic realignment.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#28

Post by malcolmgreaves »

alejohausner wrote: post #24

Perhaps the real problem is that chemo, radiation, and surgery don't really cure cancer, in most cases. There is a lot of bad science in cancer research. The "science" that bothers me the most is the use of 5-year survival rates. Suppose that a cancer that starts at age 60 becomes symptomatic at age 65, and kills the patient at age 70. Scenario 1: you are 60 years old, get screened, and opt for treatment (who wouldn'…

Scenario 2 implies you don't have cancer. If you have it and don't get treated, you'll probably die by 62 in your scenario.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#29

Post by zrail »

alejohausner wrote: post #24

Perhaps the real problem is that chemo, radiation, and surgery don't really cure cancer, in most cases. There is a lot of bad science in cancer research. The "science" that bothers me the most is the use of 5-year survival rates. Suppose that a cancer that starts at age 60 becomes symptomatic at age 65, and kills the patient at age 70. Scenario 1: you are 60 years old, get screened, and opt for treatment (who wouldn'…

You're being very misleading when you say "in most cases". There are a lot of very common cancers that respond very well to treatment.

"If you or your child has cancer, could you bring yourself to not spend every penny you have?"

This is what health insurance is for. You buy insurance so that you don't have to worry about monetary decisions and can make decisions based on quality of life.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#30

Post by Retric »

colordrops wrote: post #15
mikeyouse wrote: post #9

Feels like the headline should include "In America". This certainly doesn't happen in the rest of the civilized world.

Is China civilized? Cuz it definitely happens there. I've heard a doctor ask a family how much money they've got in the bank, and took it all to keep a dying uncle on life support for another month. A crime.

> Is China civilized?

No. The rampant corruption, lack of free speech, etc don't qualify as civilized IMO.

Post reply on HN