... in USA
42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
111–120 of 314 posts
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#112I 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…
Buying a $60k car seems like a completely insane concept to me, even with a Silicon Valley tech industry salary. Even $16k (used) was higher than I wanted to pay for my current car.
You have a good mindset. A lot of people view a car as a status symbol and derive its utility from a social point of view, which I think is financially unhealthy. To me all I care about is 1: How safe is it?. 2: How much will it cost me over its lifetime? And 3: Does it get me and my stuff where I want to? Everything else comes far behind these three things.
People really shouldn't be borrowing money to buy a car. It's pretty crazy how many people do this.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#113I 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…
In the US here. 60K is by no means consider a low cost car anywhere, however yes, that could be considered a low cost model if you are talking about a high end sports luxury brand, but even in that case doesn't make much sense since BMW, Mercedes and all have low cost entry models that are far below 60k, and for the the even more premium brands there lowest price cars are probably over 100K. So not sure which brand you are referring to where 60k is the entry model?
But yes if someone has money and little to no family they will spend it all trying to save themselves. Where is if they have a family they are more likely to try to live while also knowing its unlikely and thinking to the future for their families.
Also the US Congress has made the decision about low-tax low safety net. The majority of American's accordingly to the popular vote in the last election voted for democrats that would have been higher tax and higher safety net. So majority of Americans do not support the current Congress in power's approach. Hoping our health care system is fixed some day but with the power those lobbyist hold that is highly unlikely even with different leadership in charge.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absurd to say that imposing a limit is somehow misleading for something sold as "insurance." "Actual insurance" almost always has a policy limit. Everything from car insurance to corporate liability insurance has a limit. I can't think of any "actual insurance" besides health insurance that doesn't have a limit. Again, I'm not arguing against having health insurance be unlimited. I'm taking exception to your rhe…
Car insurance has no lifetime limit. The limit is either per year or per event.
My renter's insurance technically has no lifetime limit either, but they declined to renew my policy for another year after I made a single claim.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#115Earlier 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…
> gas lighting the public
I think it is merely misleading. Gaslighting is far more persistent and requires far more deliberateness than writing a comment on a forum.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#116Earlier 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.
Also in the legislative branch.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#117I 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…
> only in the US could a new $60K car be described as "a low cost model")
Not even in the US is that description remotely reasonable; $60K is above the average new car price...not just overall, but even in the “Luxury Car” segment.
https://mediaroom.kbb.com/2018-10-02-Average-New-Car-Prices-...
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#118I recently watched a family member go through this. A few things that were sobering to see:
- Three weeks in she was buried in paperwork. One chemo treatment would turn into 4-5 invoices from different subcontractors at a single hospital, some covered by her insurance, others not covered. Her insurer denied claims arbitrarily and made her go through a bunch of invasive and unnecessary procedures to prove her illness.
- Her insurer started calling her incessantly, insisting that she join some sort of program where they would “help” her make decisions about her care. It undermined the confidence she had in her doctors and the decisions she was trying to make, which is a terrible feeling for anyone to go through when they are sick with cancer and trying to survive.
- There were a series of insurance “land mines” on the horizon - forget to renew this thing on this random date 2 months from now? You’ve lost your insurance.
The whole healthcare and insurance system is a dark pattern, even for working adults who are fully covered.
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
By those metrics (and others), United States isn't a civilized country either.
Not true: Corruption: The USA ranks 16th (1 is best) out of 180 countries according to Transparency International: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percept... Free speech: If anything, there is too much free speech in the USA, as people can and do say all kinds of nonsense, starting at the very top.
Man I would hate to live in a country that is ostensibly more corrupt than North Korea...
Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
In my experience living here, the majority of people are pretty sane, however the loud, insane voices are the ones that get media coverage. The media really does have a lot to answer for pursuing entertainment value over factually-based reporting.
Voluntarily voting and scheduling voting on a weekday during work hours is also problematic, because largely only people with a strong motivation to vote (read: single-issue voters on the fringes) usually end up voting, which polarizes political discourse.