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

81–90 of 314 posts

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

#81

Post by toomuchtodo »

rayiner wrote: post #52
zrail wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scenario the parent poster is describing is where ACA is repealed and replaced, and presumably that replacement would also do away with the 80% medical loss ratio.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-wid…

Even before the ACA, most money from premiums was paid out in benefits: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20101124.949788/... > According to an April 2010 report prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the nation’s largest health insurers in 2009 had medical loss ratios ranging from 68 percent to 88 percent in the individual market; 78 percent to 84…

United Healthcare's CEO received $17.4 million in compensation last year. I don't know anyone on the GS pay scale making that. That excessive compensation could've been directed towards healthcare delivery instead of padding someone's pockets.

Private insurance is beholden to shareholders, universal healthcare is beholden to citizen stakeholders. It's plainly obvious that the private insurance market in the US has failed us. Politics aside, from an economic efficiency perspective, it would be illogical for us to continue to operate the system as it currently exists.

EDIT: This isn't an emotional appeal, it's an economic appeal to cut the fat of unnecessary, expensive bureaucrats who have no accountability except to their shareholders, and no involvement in the delivery of care. Private insurance interests are in the collection of their piece of total revenue, not care delivered.

> Either way, the public is on the hook if the system is more generous.

The public ends up on the hook regardless, whether that's through higher premiums, government subsidies, or diminished quality of life and lower life expectancy. Socialized losses, privatized gains.

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

#82

Post by croon »

henryfjordan wrote: post #10
toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And spend the rest of her life paying back medical debts that she shouldn't have to? To me, this sounds like indentured servitude and not acceptable in a first world country.

Divorce is an option. Legally divorce then cut a new will to leave 100% to the wife before you start your treatment. That way she's only out half at most if the medical debts take everything. You'd have to be careful to not treat any money or assets as communal but so long as you go through the motions there's not much anyone can do.

That sounds like the sort of hacky solution I would be ashamed to ship, but would do if the project is systemically badly managed to the point where you can't expect the sources of problems to be fixed.

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

#83

Post by jopsen »

ams6110 wrote: post #36
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…

> A lot of (possibly most of?) the money spent treating cancer is spent in cases that have very little chance for long term success.

Citation needed.

But really, in this case shouldn't we ask if the 42% who loose their life savings had an easily curable cancer or not?

It's the rich that spend most money, and they don't manager to spend everything.

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

#84

Post by njarboe »

zrail wrote: post #14
gred wrote: post #12

A big factor here seems to be lifetime limits to benefits: > Financial toxicity led Fumiko Chino to co-write a research letter in JAMA Oncology last November. After her husband surpassed his insurance policy's $500,000 lifetime limit, Chino drained her savings to pay for his treatment. When he died, she was left hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. However, these limits were outlawed by the Affordable Care Act,…

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.

Every European health care system, I believe, has some way of limiting the amount of care provided to people. It is just not so out in the open as a dollar cap on what people can get in a lifetime. Not every possible, super-expensive procedure is approved to be available to people through the public healthcare system. (Would love to hear of a country that has "universal health care" that does not limit what procedures people can have done to see how it is possible).

Everyone can't get the best possible care unless those experimental and expensive procedures are just banned and we give up on expensive procedures becoming cheaper in the future. Cancer is the biggest reason for this. If you have a cancer and can afford to employ a small research team for a few million a year, your chances them finding a custom way to beat it is much better than just trying to select from the existing treatments already out there. Health care already is 17% of the US GDP and the US government spends more % of GDP on healthcare in America than almost all European countries.

Not sure the best way to a better health care system in the USA, but just uncapping how much can be spent under insurance plans, while fixing one problem, won't work in the long run (as we are already seeing).

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

#86

Post by rayiner »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #81
rayiner wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even before the ACA, most money from premiums was paid out in benefits: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20101124.949788/... > According to an April 2010 report prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the nation’s largest health insurers in 2009 had medical loss ratios ranging from 68 percent to 88 percent in the individual market; 78 percent to 84…

United Healthcare's CEO received $17.4 million in compensation last year. I don't know anyone on the GS pay scale making that. That excessive compensation could've been directed towards healthcare delivery instead of padding someone's pockets. Private insurance is beholden to shareholders, universal healthcare is beholden to citizen stakeholders. It's plainly obvious that the private insurance market in the US has fa…

UHC paid out over $100 billion in care. How much it pays its CEO is completely irrelevant, except as an emotional appeal and rage bait. The system may not be functioning properly, but it has nothing to do with how much UHC's CEO makes, or shareholders make. (UHC's profit margin is just 7.5%).

The decision of whether to have limits on how much you're willing to spend for one case exists whether you have a private system or a public system. Either way, the public is on the hook if the system is more generous.

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

#87

Post by maxxxxx »

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.

In the US they take more than you have in the bank and give you a nice loan :-)

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

#89

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #86
toomuchtodo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

United Healthcare's CEO received $17.4 million in compensation last year. I don't know anyone on the GS pay scale making that. That excessive compensation could've been directed towards healthcare delivery instead of padding someone's pockets. Private insurance is beholden to shareholders, universal healthcare is beholden to citizen stakeholders. It's plainly obvious that the private insurance market in the US has fa…

UHC paid out over $100 billion in care. How much it pays its CEO is completely irrelevant, except as an emotional appeal and rage bait. The system may not be functioning properly, but it has nothing to do with how much UHC's CEO makes, or shareholders make. (UHC's profit margin is just 7.5%). The decision of whether to have limits on how much you're willing to spend for one case exists whether you have a private syst…

[deleted]

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

#90

Post by ItsMe000001 »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #71
expertentipp wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half the population have below median IQs.

The average basically is the median - IQ is pretty well normally distributed.

Just to continue the aside, it actually is perfectly normally distributed, since it is a purely statistical measure.

http://michna.com/iq.htm

Post reply on HN