Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#41

Post by XorNot »

yaakov34 wrote: post #21
vectorpush wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. I'll also add that we don't even need to definitively eradicate the possibility of cancer to consider it effectively "cured". If we can reduce the rate of cancers such that they only start to appear in populations that are approaching, say, 80+ years of age, it will probably become more effective to focus on other leading causes of death rather than dwelling on cancers that end up killing people in the…

Yeah, we'll definitely want a "dementia moonshot", or a few, before we attempt to create a generation of centenarians. However, cancer incidence climbs terrifyingly rapidly when people reach their 60s - long before we are ready to give up on them. A successful cancer moonshot (and the Nixon one, by the way, was quite successful) will let millions of people enjoy many good years with their loved ones; not to mention t…

My otherwise healthy grandfather is going to be killed by cancer in the next few months. And for what seems like an utterly stupid reason: if they cut it all out of his neck, there's no way currently to replace the lymph nodes he'd lose or create enough replacement tissue to cover it over.

Actually coming to grips with the idea that a seemingly mundane engineering issue is what gets him was surprising.

Give that problem 10 years and I suspect I'll read the news one day and hear about how we've now solved it.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#42

Post by zaroth »

waterphone wrote: post #28
ams6110 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is mandatory, hence the penalty for not having it.

It effectively is a fine, but it's not a criminal penalty, so it's kind of like an opt-out fee that's significantly cheaper than most of the supposedly affordable plans. (Which are extremely expensive even at the low-end where they're completely useless with $10,000 deductibles.)

I think you are dramatically underestimating the cost of getting "actually sick" if you think a $10,000 annual out-of-pocket maximum is "completely useless". Not to put too fine a point on it, but $10k could be a mere couple hours of care in the ER.

Also, there are cost-sharing reductions which would reduce that $10k significantly depending on your income.

If you do find yourself in need of actual medical care but without any insurance, the workaround is simply you will have to move to a new state, which will allow you to sign up outside of open enrollment periods.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#43

Post by refurb »

rue wrote: post #40
refurb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're way overestimating the impact of antibitoic resistance.

Antibiotic resistance is the biggest health threat we face.

Maybe, but we don't even know if it will happen (mass drug resistant infections).

I'd say cancer is worse!

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#44

Post by ck2 »

ams6110 wrote: post #4
ck2 wrote: post #2

the better we get at keeping people alive, the older they will get I'm generally not a fan of people either but there are kids with cancer that I feel should get some time to enjoy their lives outside of dying in a hospital if at all possible, someday. Besides, there are still many, many millions of people in the USA who can't get insurance so even if there was a "cure" or life extension, they couldn't afford it. Don…

Why don't you have insurance? It's mandatory now.

It is technically impossible for millions of Americans to get insurance. I mean unless you can print your own money.

26 states refused to expand coverage so there is a huge hole and they went to the supreme court who said it was perfectly okay for them to do that. Google it.

Hillary will be unlikely able to fix this and Trump definitely won't fix this, so if I get cancer in the next eight years (plausible, both parents died from it) I am screwed, though technically I could undo my entire life, move to another state and wait a year to apply and hope I don't die in the meanwhile. Yay America.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#45

Post by ck2 »

DrScump wrote: post #31
waterphone wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but I don't have insurance because I can't afford it. Furthermore, attempts to use Healthcare.gov to try and even start an application process did and continue to fail because I don't have a credit history and therefore do not exist in their system and hit a roadblock. I cannot sign up for Medicaid in my state either for the same reason. And while it may be technically mandatory, I have so far fallen belo…

You don't need to have a credit history to get Medicaid. Heck, a complete lack of one may work in your favor. In CA, you don't even have to be here legally to get Medicaid (MediCal) now.

26 states refused to expand medicaid which was a critical part of Obamacare's plan to get everyone insurance.

So it is very possible to make too little to get insurance outright and too much to get medicaid. In fact there are many millions of people in that boat in 2016. Apparently we are illegal human beings, walking around without insurance.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#47

Post by maxander »

pc2g4d wrote: post #24
maxander wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was about to post the same- the article has such a "nothing is worth doing" level of pessimism about medicine that halfway through I was wondering if the author was suffering from depression. He's right that an ever-older population will bring about more cancers- so we'd better have ways to treat them . And he's right that the "cancer moonshot" likely won't provide the singular, all-out cure, but no one outside of…

The author acknowledged significant advances in cancer treatment, including one he called a moon landing in its own right (immunotherapy). No need to cast aspersions on his mental state---I think he's clear-eyed yet not despairing, facing the difficulties of cancer treatment (it's like stopping evolution from happening, if you think about it) but still recognizing the progress.

True enough that I shouldn't bandy about accusations of depression. But the author derides a billion-dollar cancer research effort as "pointless" in the title. He may recognize the progress, but he's bizarrely adamant that people won't cure cancer.

Re: A Pointless Cancer ‘Moonshot’

#48

Post by wang_li »

waterphone wrote: post #28
ams6110 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is mandatory, hence the penalty for not having it.

It effectively is a fine, but it's not a criminal penalty, so it's kind of like an opt-out fee that's significantly cheaper than most of the supposedly affordable plans. (Which are extremely expensive even at the low-end where they're completely useless with $10,000 deductibles.)

The maximum out of pocket costs under the law is $6850 for an individual and $13700 for a family.

Regardless, the law is the law and it's undoubted that the folks who choosing not to do their legally required part and maintain health insurance will immediately jump on a plan if they happen to need care. Bunch of selfish jerks.

Post reply on HN