US is the only western country that has this problem. It's also one of the richest countries in the world.
42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
41–50 of 314 posts
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#42Perhaps 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.
> 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.
When it comes to big medical problems, health insurance is rarely 100% effective against monetary problems.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#43Perhaps 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.
That's not really true. A few cancers can be put into permanent remission (eg Hodgkins'), but most cancers kill you regardless of what you do.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#44Sometimes 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…
Half the population have below average IQ's, and even people with above average IQ's still struggle with abstractions. These topics are complex and it's easy to frame the negative state in a way for low IQ and poorly educated people to grasp, so they tend to side with what they "think" they understand.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#45Earlier 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.
> 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 in…
The scenario the parent poster is describing is where ACA is repealed and replaced, and presumably that replacement would also do away with the 80% medical loss ratio. In that scenario the insurance companies will likely just not reduce premiums from what they are today, netting them a huge windfall.
This is also why states like Alaska have seen ACA premiums fall over the past year or two. They instituted a state-wide reinsurance program, which means insurance companies' losses are capped at a reasonable amount per claim, then the state comes in and pays for the rest. This reinsurance program is funded in sort of a complicated manner, but basically it funnels the ACA tax credits that would have been paid to taxpayers, absent the reinsurance program, into the reinsurance program.
Rates go down when insurance company losses are capped, either by a lifetime or annual benefit limit or by legislation that says they'll be made whole, because losses are predictable.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#46Sometimes 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…
Again and again history reveals a surprising fact: you can push people really far before they finally reach their breaking point. And when that breaking point is finally reached, the trigger will not be what you expected.
This is especially true when there are no obvious and politically viable good alternatives. In the US everyone outside the center-left or center-right seems to be an absolute lunatic of one sort or another, and even if that weren't the case the two party oligopoly system is deeply entrenched and guarantees that alternatives can't succeed. There's nobody who is both sane and electable that isn't part of the mainstream duopoly.
The more polarized people become between the two major parties the more deeply entrenched the duopoly becomes. People don't dare vote for anyone but D or R because otherwise the hated other side will win. It completely rules out any third party or independent.
Only two parties means there really isn't that much diversity of thought beyond a small number of hot-button issues, and it also reduces the work load for lobbyists and other influence peddlers. Fewer parties means fewer people that have to be begged, bribed, misinformed, or blackmailed to get whatever you want. It makes regulatory capture a lot easier to achieve.
I really don't think the American two party system is working. We need more of a parliamentary type system where you can have many parties and a greater variety of views can get a hearing.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And many states are enjoying the government that jerrymandering and voter suppression efforts provide.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#48Sometimes 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.
The majority of Americans voted for Hillary.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#49I am sympathetic. From HN stories, the US health care situations seems abysmal.
BUT, i want to make 3 counter points, if only for the sake of discussion.
a. Cancer for many is a terminal disease. There are always some very very expensive and experimental or marginal treatments. If u have money, and are going to die, and decide to spend all you can to squeeze an extra year of life , i am very sympathetic but even the most generous European have spending limits.
b. This is about the US. The US has made a conscious decision to low-tax and low-safety-net. This is very harsh for the ill or poor. But this choice is reaffirmed every 4 years by sort-of-functional elections at multiple levels of government. Bernie never even made it past the primaries.
c. No one mentions the non terminally ill 95% who presumably enjoy high salaries for years and years (only in the US could a new $60K car be described as "a low cost model")
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#50Earlier 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.
> 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 in…
The entire point of insurance is to pool risk so that a bunch of people together pay reasonable amounts, instead of a few people paying enormous amounts and the others paying less. Lifetime limits give you lower rates in exchange for making the insurance much less like actual insurance.
If we’re talking about “don’t piss on my leg and tell me its raining,” don’t sell me “health insurance” that will leave me high and dry if I ever really need it.