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

31–40 of 314 posts

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

#31

Post by stewbrew »

Pharmakon wrote: post #4

Sometimes I’m just amazed that people haven’t risen up in bloody revolt yet. Recently my mother had a flare-up up radiation-induced pneumonitis and the PPO insurance she pays $14,000 annually wouldn’t approve a single unit of Advair. It took a week of talking to doctors and insurance drones to figure out that they were pushing her to an alternative that cost them $100 less. If I woke up tomorrow and people were burni…

In the US, it would have been sufficient to vote for a different party. Enjoy the government, the majority of you people voted for.

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

#32

Post by nkozyra »

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'…

> your oncologist declares you "cured" at age 65

I don't think an oncologist would do this, though.

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

#33

Post by gaius »

Pharmakon wrote: post #4

Sometimes I’m just amazed that people haven’t risen up in bloody revolt yet. Recently my mother had a flare-up up radiation-induced pneumonitis and the PPO insurance she pays $14,000 annually wouldn’t approve a single unit of Advair. It took a week of talking to doctors and insurance drones to figure out that they were pushing her to an alternative that cost them $100 less. If I woke up tomorrow and people were burni…

Sometimes I’m just amazed that people haven’t risen up in bloody revolt yet.

Well you could have had my man Bernie Sanders, if the DNC hadn't stabbed him in the back. So you know who to put first up against the wall.

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

#34

Post by rayiner »

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.

> 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.

I don't understand why you'd phrase it this way. Under the ACA, 80% of premiums have to go to medical care. A dollar saved providing care disproportionately benefits the premium payers, not the company.

People act like all this money comes out of insurance companies' profits. Cigna's (to pick a random example), operating profit margin is 6.5%. There isn't this fat margin that insurance companies can use to offer additional benefits without raising rates. That's just the math.

Saying that this is about what "benefits the insurance companies" is gas lighting the public. Lifetime caps insure that you, the ratepayer, aren't on the hook for unlimited liability. Now, I personally am willing to pay higher rates so people don't die when they hit their lifetime limit. But don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, acting like the money isn't coming out of my pocket.

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

#35

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

Sorry you're being downvoted. It's definitely true that some other countries besides the US hold a more transactional view on such matters for various reasons. It's not an accident that so many South Korean crimes movies involve an innocent person who turns to crime to purchase medical care for a dying family member, for example.

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

#36

Post by ams6110 »

chrisbennet wrote: post #2

I think if I get cancer I'm just going to have to die. I can't leave my wife destitute.

Here's the thing. Cancer comes in basically two types. That which is treatable, and that which isn't. This can be either because of the type of cancer, or based on how early/late it was detected.

A lot of (possibly most of?) the money spent treating cancer is spent in cases that have very little chance for long term success. I don't think it really is, but it almost seems like a deliberate attempt to extract all the wealth from the patient before he dies.

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

#37

Post by zrail »

nkozyra wrote: post #32
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'…

> your oncologist declares you "cured" at age 65 I don't think an oncologist would do this, though.

My oncologist has never said the word "cured" in my presence.

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

#38

Post by anonuser123456 »

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'…

Survival rates are conditioned on stage and grading. Scenario 1 you have stage 1. Scenario 2, you have stage 4. The 5 year rate differs for each stage.

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

#40

Post by rhcom2 »

stewbrew wrote: post #31
Pharmakon wrote: post #4

Sometimes I’m just amazed that people haven’t risen up in bloody revolt yet. Recently my mother had a flare-up up radiation-induced pneumonitis and the PPO insurance she pays $14,000 annually wouldn’t approve a single unit of Advair. It took a week of talking to doctors and insurance drones to figure out that they were pushing her to an alternative that cost them $100 less. If I woke up tomorrow and people were burni…

In the US, it would have been sufficient to vote for a different party. Enjoy the government, the majority of you people voted for.

In the US we are currently enjoying the government (at least in the executive) that the majority of people did not vote for.
Post reply on HN