Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run..

[Mathbud1]

High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com

"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.

The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.

Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.

Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."

Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

 

[Listening]

Jesus Christ. This whole thread is filled with evidence.

The website cost 600 million dollars. ALREADY costs went up with that alone. It could have been developed for 1/10 of that. 60 million dollars would develop a dam good web site.

Enough said.

Cant debate with a closed minded child like yourself.

Again you can't take an anecdotal case and apply it to a broad conclusion about the nature of government. That is fallacy.

Add up enough examples and you get evidence.
But there are no examples of government doing something efficiently. You have yet to post one.

Not anyone especially you have "added up examples". And once again you are missing the point. None of you have proven that a private institution can run our healthcare system better. The fact that gov is not perfect means dick if private industry isn't perfect either.

private industry has run it just fine for over 200 years. there was no healthcare crisis in the USA. no one was denied medical treatment before obozocare.

ACA was not about fixing healthcare. it was a socialist takeover of 1/5 or our economy.

You're an idiot. 10s of millions of people can't afford basic cancer treatment and it doesn't stop there.

10's of millions of people don't need basic cancer treatment.

You are the idiot.

Why don't you start from the begginning and define the problem and what YOU see as the solution before you go around moving goalposts, sidelines, stadium locations, and everything else.

You might want to back off on calling people idiots. Your arguments are no better than anyone else's and it is quite clear you are not interested in anything that does not fit your little fairytale.

 

[Billy000]

High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com

"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.

The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.

Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.

Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."

Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

 

[Billy000]

Again you can't take an anecdotal case and apply it to a broad conclusion about the nature of government. That is fallacy.

Add up enough examples and you get evidence.
But there are no examples of government doing something efficiently. You have yet to post one.

Not anyone especially you have "added up examples". And once again you are missing the point. None of you have proven that a private institution can run our healthcare system better. The fact that gov is not perfect means dick if private industry isn't perfect either.

private industry has run it just fine for over 200 years. there was no healthcare crisis in the USA. no one was denied medical treatment before obozocare.

ACA was not about fixing healthcare. it was a socialist takeover of 1/5 or our economy.

You're an idiot. 10s of millions of people can't afford basic cancer treatment and it doesn't stop there.

10's of millions of people don't need basic cancer treatment.

You are the idiot.

Why don't you start from the begginning and define the problem and what YOU see as the solution before you go around moving goalposts, sidelines, stadium locations, and everything else.

You might want to back off on calling people idiots. Your arguments are no better than anyone else's and it is quite clear you are not interested in anything that does not fit your little fairytale.

Yeah moron and we can't predict who will get it and who won't. That's why everyone needs proper coverage.

Are you people this dumb?

 

[Mathbud1]

High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com

"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.

The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.

Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.

Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."

Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

 

[Redfish]

High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com

"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.

The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.

Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.

Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."

Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

uninsured does not mean untreated. you just don't understand how our system has worked for years.

 

[Billy000]

High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com

"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.

The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.

Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.

Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."

Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

 

[Redfish]

High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com

"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.

The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.

Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.

Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."

Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

then you should immigrate to one of them if they are so wonderful. Our system is the best in the world. Sick people come here for treatment-------from canada, UK, Germany, Japan, and all of the other wonderful state run medical systems.

 

[Billy000]

High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com

"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.

The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.

Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.

Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."

Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

then you should immigrate to one of them if they are so wonderful. Our system is the best in the world. Sick people come here for treatment-------from canada, UK, Germany, Japan, and all of the other wonderful state run medical systems.

Rich people come here for our treatment dumbass.

 

[dblack]

I still don't understand the preoccupation with debating whether government would be able to more efficiently provide health care or not. To those of you arguing that government shouldn't run health care because it is inept or inefficient - if we could work out those issues, would be in favor of government taking over health care? I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Jarhead]

High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com

"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.

The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.

Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.

Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."

Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

Question for you pal....

Sadly, we all know people who have battled cancer.

Likewise, we all know people (or know OF people) who dieD of cancer.

Other than reading about it on left wing blogs and hearing about it from left wingers during debates.....

HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW THAT HAVE DIED OF CANCER BECUASE THEY WERE UNABLE TO RECEIVE / DENIED TREATMENT DUE TO THIER HEALTHCARE PLANS?

 

[Redfish]

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

then you should immigrate to one of them if they are so wonderful. Our system is the best in the world. Sick people come here for treatment-------from canada, UK, Germany, Japan, and all of the other wonderful state run medical systems.

Rich people come here for our treatment dumbass.

and poor ones, and illegal ones. Charity hospitals work miracles on the poor from other countries---and without any govt help. you are the dumbass in this debate.

 

[kaz]

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs overourS.

If we have so many people who can't get treatment, then why are Canadians more likely to die of heart disease and cancer? What about the Canadians who die of cancer and heart disease because they can't get treatment until after they are dead? Do they prefer Canada's system too?

I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

Yeah man, we suck. You don't need this shit. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Jarhead]

Who on the left has the balls to admit the truth to this dumbass and tell us that none of you know ANYONE that have been struggling cancer but refused treatment due to poor or no healthcare coverage.

 

[Billy000]

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

then you should immigrate to one of them if they are so wonderful. Our system is the best in the world. Sick people come here for treatment-------from canada, UK, Germany, Japan, and all of the other wonderful state run medical systems.

Rich people come here for our treatment dumbass.

and poor ones, and illegal ones. Charity hospitals work miracles on the poor from other countries---and without any govt help. you are the dumbass in this debate.

Charity doesn't cover all of them dumbass. Not even close.

 

[Billy000]

High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com

"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.

The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.

Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.

Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."

Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

Question for you pal....

Sadly, we all know people who have battled cancer.

Likewise, we all know people (or know OF people) who dieD of cancer.

Other than reading about it on left wing blogs and hearing about it from left wingers during debates.....

HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW THAT HAVE DIED OF CANCER BECUASE THEY WERE UNABLE TO RECEIVE / DENIED TREATMENT DUE TO THIER HEALTHCARE PLANS?

For chrissakes, if I gave you examples of 10 people I KNOW that couldn't afford treatment, it would hardly be the whole picture.

You people are getting desperate lol

 

[Redfish]

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

then you should immigrate to one of them if they are so wonderful. Our system is the best in the world. Sick people come here for treatment-------from canada, UK, Germany, Japan, and all of the other wonderful state run medical systems.

Rich people come here for our treatment dumbass.

and poor ones, and illegal ones. Charity hospitals work miracles on the poor from other countries---and without any govt help. you are the dumbass in this debate.

Charity doesn't cover all of them dumbass. Not even close.

Is the USA responsible for the health of everyone in the world?

 

[Jarhead]

here is the real complaint from those without healthcare coverage....

THEY FOUND IT INCONVENIENT TO HAVE TO WAIT 3 OR 4 HOURS IN THE ER TO GET THE TREATMNENT THEY NEEDED FOR ACCIDENTAL INJURIES, STOMACH VIRUSES, AND OTHER BASIC MEDICAL TREATMENT.....AND THEY DID NOT LIKE THE ATTITUDES OF THE PEOPLE IN THE FREE CLINICS WHEN THEY NEEDED PHYSICALS AND OTHER PREVENTATIVE CARE.

No one ever complained that they were denied healthcare.

 

[Jarhead]

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

Question for you pal....

Sadly, we all know people who have battled cancer.

Likewise, we all know people (or know OF people) who dieD of cancer.

Other than reading about it on left wing blogs and hearing about it from left wingers during debates.....

HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW THAT HAVE DIED OF CANCER BECUASE THEY WERE UNABLE TO RECEIVE / DENIED TREATMENT DUE TO THIER HEALTHCARE PLANS?

For chrissakes, if I gave you examples of 10 people I KNOW that couldn't afford treatment, it would hardly be the whole picture.

You people are getting desperate lol

your problem Billy is that you have no idea what the true complaint about healthcare was.

It was never that people were denied treatment. ER's could, by law, NEVER turn away someone without healthcare.
Non profit cancer clinics, by law (for government subsidies) could never turn away cancer patients.

You are clueless as to what the whole healthcare debate was all about.

What are you......three years old?

 

[Jarhead]

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

Question for you pal....

Sadly, we all know people who have battled cancer.

Likewise, we all know people (or know OF people) who dieD of cancer.

Other than reading about it on left wing blogs and hearing about it from left wingers during debates.....

HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW THAT HAVE DIED OF CANCER BECUASE THEY WERE UNABLE TO RECEIVE / DENIED TREATMENT DUE TO THIER HEALTHCARE PLANS?

For chrissakes, if I gave you examples of 10 people I KNOW that couldn't afford treatment, it would hardly be the whole picture.

You people are getting desperate lol

if you say that you know 10 people dying of cancer that are denied treatment due to no insurance or no money, you are an outright liar.

If you say you know 1, you are an outright liar.