Live data from Hacker News

42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

bigthink.com

241–250 of 314 posts

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

#241
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But quite evidently, the US system leads to harrowing quandaries for many ill people and their families, worse overall health outcomes, higher overall costs, and richer health insurance CEOs than what's done in all other developed countries; and I still don't understand why you appear to defend it. We're specifically talking about cancer treatment in this thread, where the data is pretty clear: the US has dramatica…

> the US has dramatically better survival rates for cancer in the US, No, the US massively over-tests and over-diagnoses cancer at very early stages, but this does not lead to better quality of life nor to longer life.

> No, the US massively over-tests and over-diagnoses cancer at very early stages, but this does not lead to better quality of life nor to longer life.

Prostate cancer is considered one of the most treatable forms of cancer. It's lethal if not treated. But given the proper intervention, a person can live for literally years (if not decades). The treatment isn't fun, but it's very effective, and most people consider it better than, you know, death. As of a few years ago, the survival rate for people with prostate cancer was over 90% in the US. People are actually more likely to die from an unrelated cause than they are to die from prostate cancer after treatment.

The UK, on the other hand, has an abysmal track record of treating prostate cancer - worse than every other OECD country, in fact. As of a few years ago, the survival rate was barely more than 50%. That is shameful , and it's ridiculous to dismiss that as "overdiagnosis".

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

#242
post #228
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it important for you to issue a petty nuance to this that you should, and probably do, realise that I already acknowledge? Compare: "China is actually not inherently undemocratic there's a lot of local officials etc being voted in". Yes, but on the systemic, overall, scale there's a blatant democratic deficit present for all to see.

Because it's a question of scale not kind, when you go to the DMV etc in the US you don't expect to bribe anyone. That's far from culturally or historically universal, so day to day it's just not that corrupt relative to other countries. Now, is politics in the US rigged? Ehh. You do need to actually participate to be counted. Don't vote and don't lobby then sure they your voice is not heard. Now does everyone get eq…

Indeed it is. The scale I wrote about above was lobbying [people in power], not giving the highway cop half the official fine.

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

#244
post #243

>When he died, she was left hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt If a person dies, how can the bill go the spouse? I don't get this.

She very likely signed agreements to be financially responsible for the treatment. This is one of the very first forms a hospital will ask you to sign.

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

#245

Earlier 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.

The majority of Americans voted for Hillary.

The majority voted for 'none of the above'.

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have any other insurance policies with unlimited caps. My home, auto, liability etc all have limits. Why is healthcare special in this regard?

Those are all inherently limited by the replacement cost of the insured item. With health insurance, there is no replacement cost.

So you want the insurer to provide insurance with unbounded downside? OK. But don't be surprised when the price of this insurance is very high.

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

#247
post #159
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, it's funny - from my superficial understanding political theory predicts that a first-past-the-post system turns into a two party system with the parties getting ever more similar ("median voter theorem"). But that's not what happened in the US in the last decade or so. But agreed - proportional parliament allows for articulation of important non-majority views (such as the emergence of the Green party in Germa…

I expect social media trying to drive "engagement" has had a major effect. It appears that in both social media, and in politics, making sure people are as pissed off as possible about the other side drives engagement, and that also means turnout. This coming election in November is going to be very interesting.

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

#249
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now my grandmother has stage 4 cancer, and has opted to not treat. The chances were very low for survival and the process painful. I'm pretty sure I would opt similarly if over 60. It sucks, and it's hard to see her that way. I'm heading over to see her after work in a few minutes (she's gotten worse the past couple days). I don't think it's responsible to always opt for treatment. It sucks and it's a hard deci…

Your family doesn't have to pay ANY of your medical bills when you die. Hospitals will try to guilt them into paying, but there's no legal obligation (this doesn't apply to spouses, but there are ways to protect them).

If you die, your estate will be tapped to pay what it can, assuming you die with assets.

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

#250

What are your life savings for if they can't be used to save your life? Every other use is fortuitous but until you have more money than you could spend to save your life then that is the purpose of that money.

Most people would like to retire some day, I think.

The good news is we cured your cancer! The bad news is that you will now have to work until you die.

Post reply on HN