Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My late stepson's mother died from brain cancer because she had no insurance. She worked full-time, but for a small employer who wasn't obligated to provide it. She was able to pay the bills for the imaging, diagnosis, and some medication, but nothing else, certainly not surgery, chemo, or radiation treatments. She wasn't low enough income to qualify for any of the programs listed above, but didn't make enough to afford insurance, and she didn't qualify for any kind of clinical trials. It was pretty sobering. (Of course, now her income would qualify her for a health insurance subsidy.)
Wow, that's horrible. I don't know how a doctor would be able to deny a cancer stricken woman treatments. They should have at least tried to work out a payment plan. If you're in that situation, I wonder if it's best to just quit your job, so you can qualify for charity.
I think medical in general should be non-profit, take as you need. How, maybe Canada?
You hit the nail on the head. And insurance companies and hospitals YEARS ago used to be non-profit in the US! When Blue Cross first started at Baylor in Texas, it was non profit! That was the entire idea, until a bunch of people got together and realized they could make boku bucks off of others' illnesses.
And it doesn't even have to be like Canada's system, or "socialized healthcare" to be non profit. It just has to be turned on its head from the way it is now, and the people whose pockets are being lined will not allow that to happen.
Answering the OP: Nobody should be left to die ever, and nobody should be left with a $100,000 bill because they developed an illness they had no control over.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,597,197 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgordeeva
Cancer seems to be affecting more and more people these days. Although there have been a lot of advances in the different drugs used to treat cancer, I truly wonder how people afford them. I read somewhere that the chemotherapy for one year will cost over $100,000. Even if they have insurance, how do cancer patients manage to pay the remaining costs?
If a cancer patient does not have insurance or enough money to pay for treatments, should we just let him die? I know that everyone is now eligible for health insurance, but that doesn't mean it's affordable. A lot of people are opting out and paying the fine because they can't afford the premiums. So what should a person do if he finds out he has cancer? Should he quit his job and see if he can at least qualify for Medicaid?
I've never personally known anyone in this situation, but I am very curious about all of this. Do you believe there should be more options for cancer patients without insurance? Have you personally known anyone who has got cancer with no insurance?
Unless you happen to be THE absolutely healthiest person of anybody born in your year, and continue to remain the healthiest person born in that year all the way until your own death, the same question you pose about cancer patients can eventually be posed about your own health care expenses.
Beyond this, "socialized medicine", as certain extreme libertarians and conservatives love to call health care payment practices usually found in Europe, simply proves to be overall less burdensome for society (and hence actually cheaper in money terms) than our present system. Yes, there will be more taxes to pay, but it's a lot cheaper in the long run than paying tens of thousands of dollars for major surgery out of your own pocket - even for solidly middle class people.
Well in many cases if you can't surgically remove the cancer, you have no choice but to get chemo or radiation. It's very unlikely you will live otherwise.
I know. I still stand by my earlier statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00
It's easy to say that from the other side: you haven't faced it. I would have died before my 25th birthday if I had not gone through with chemo. I had the same attitude until I actually got sick - and then realized that I didn't want to die and without chemo, I absolutely would.
And how do you know that?
I have been clinically dead twice now; and was brought back.
Since then I have came to the conclusion that we ALL start dying the second we are born. So live life, enjoy it, and then you die for real.
The life that the majority of people on chemo live, is NOT living; so I won't do it. I refuse. It, along with many other things of that nature are in the papers I had drawn up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear
Sort of a moot question now as everyone is required to have health insurance.
Sure, some people choose to 'beat the system' by paying a fine instead of securing health insurance.
In my mind that is a pretty stupid thing to do with your life; but that's just me.
But that's the problem, NO ONE needs affordable health insurance; we need affordable health CARE.
I just went to a funeral last week of someone who had lung cancer. I wasn't close with her, but it really made me start thinking how anyone can get cancer and how fast it can kill someone.
While I can't view the link you provided without a login, the stats from it are likely for ANY type of cancer. So, not only are they including the 'big' cancers that grab the headlines, such as lung, breast, prostate, etc.. They're also talking about relatively small cancers that are massively treatable(In most cases), such skin cancer and things of that nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nurider2002
Although I think everyone should receive treatment regardless of ability to pay, I do have a problem with cancer treatment in general. Too much money is wasted providing chemotherapy for advanced cancers that will not be cured and in all liklihood will only at best extend someone's life by a number of months.
There's the reply that shares my view. Many of these 'million dollar' treatments, in my view, are wastes of money. Now.. Obviously, the 'waste of money' is in the eye of the beholder.. My grandmother didn't die from or have any form of cancer, and i'd pay any amount of money for just one more day with her.. But.. Step back from the situation and logically and objectively look at it.
Is it worth it to spend a million dollars on treatment to extend someone's life by weeks or months? Take it being someone you care about, or yourself out of the equation.. What is the 'break even' point?
That's a very difficult question to answer. I can tell you that if *I* were diagnosed with whatever form of cancer, and a doctor came back and told me that it would cost a million dollars and they MIGHT extend my life by two months.. I would decline. Especially when you consider the side effects that are likely from the treatments. Now.. If they come back and say "With treatment, we can 'cure' the cancer and you could live another 20 years" and it's going to cost a million bucks.. That's different.. That's worth it.
But.. What's that magic number? I don't envy anyone who has to make that decision. And when it is someone you dearly care for.. I don't think you CAN make that decision, because, the answer will always be "just one more day"
This is where talk of "death panels" get started, and why we will likely never have any form of one-payer/socialized/whatever you want to define it as healthcare in the USA. Because, once we do, that decision is made by the government. And I wouldn't trust the US Government with a potato gun.
Beyond this, "socialized medicine", as certain extreme libertarians and conservatives love to call health care payment practices usually found in Europe, simply proves to be overall less burdensome for society (and hence actually cheaper in money terms) than our present system. Yes, there will be more taxes to pay, but it's a lot cheaper in the long run than paying tens of thousands of dollars for major surgery out of your own pocket - even for solidly middle class people.
Where I'll disagree with you on this is that none of the countries that you speak of have anywhere near the population of the US.
Remember, this is the country that has Medicare waste at approximately 10%, which translates to approximately $49 billion dollars per year.
There are approximately 49 million people on Medicare in the US. So.. it's basically a thousand dollars per person thrown out the window each year. (Did I do my math right there? Quick figure)
Now, expand that to universal/whatever health care.. With approximately 316 million people in the US.. That would equal out to be waste of about half a trillion dollars a year.
Canada, which people love to hold up as an example of a 'success' story.. Has a total population of about 33 million. the UK.. About 63 million.
I've said it before.. I have no problem with a one-payer healthcare system.. But not run by the US Government.
Beyond this, "socialized medicine", as certain extreme libertarians and conservatives love to call health care payment practices usually found in Europe, simply proves to be overall less burdensome for society (and hence actually cheaper in money terms) than our present system. Yes, there will be more taxes to pay, but it's a lot cheaper in the long run than paying tens of thousands of dollars for major surgery out of your own pocket - even for solidly middle class people.
So you're saying that in other countries there is unlimited treatment? The topic of this thread was cancer treatment. Not operations.
I think not. So there's a rationing body and wait time even though in people's imaginations it's just GREAT!
While I can't view the link you provided without a login, the stats from it are likely for ANY type of cancer. So, not only are they including the 'big' cancers that grab the headlines, such as lung, breast, prostate, etc.. They're also talking about relatively small cancers that are massively treatable(In most cases), such skin cancer and things of that nature.
There's the reply that shares my view. Many of these 'million dollar' treatments, in my view, are wastes of money. Now.. Obviously, the 'waste of money' is in the eye of the beholder.. My grandmother didn't die from or have any form of cancer, and i'd pay any amount of money for just one more day with her.. But.. Step back from the situation and logically and objectively look at it.
Is it worth it to spend a million dollars on treatment to extend someone's life by weeks or months? Take it being someone you care about, or yourself out of the equation.. What is the 'break even' point?
That's a very difficult question to answer. I can tell you that if *I* were diagnosed with whatever form of cancer, and a doctor came back and told me that it would cost a million dollars and they MIGHT extend my life by two months.. I would decline. Especially when you consider the side effects that are likely from the treatments. Now.. If they come back and say "With treatment, we can 'cure' the cancer and you could live another 20 years" and it's going to cost a million bucks.. That's different.. That's worth it.
But.. What's that magic number? I don't envy anyone who has to make that decision. And when it is someone you dearly care for.. I don't think you CAN make that decision, because, the answer will always be "just one more day"
This is where talk of "death panels" get started, and why we will likely never have any form of one-payer/socialized/whatever you want to define it as healthcare in the USA. Because, once we do, that decision is made by the government. And I wouldn't trust the US Government with a potato gun.
Well, first of all, whose to say that cancer treatment should cost a million dollars in the first place? That's the number they charge because they think they can get away with it here in the good old us of a.
So, you would sooner trust a corporation with your life over the government? No thanks. Given the choice I'll take the government any day over paying a million dollars, and if I can't trust them I'll leave the country and see if I can get treatment somewhere else.
So you're saying that in other countries there is unlimited treatment? The topic of this thread was cancer treatment. Not operations.
I think not. So there's a rationing body and wait time even though in people's imaginations it's just GREAT!
Free everything!
There might be some rationing, but it's much better than what we have here. Sure, you can get a treatment or operation right away in the United States, but only if you have the right insurance. Insurance companies do rationing too btw. I think I would trust the government before the greedy insurance companies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I still stand by my earlier statement.
