8 ms·
For those of you who just want main point: There’s a caveat, however: Those gains have been reaped mostly by the well-off. While racial disparities have begun
by renholder 8y ago
For those of you who just want main point:
There’s a caveat, however: Those gains have been reaped mostly by the well-off. While racial disparities have begun to narrow, the impact of limited access to treatment for the poorest Americans has increased wealth-based inequality, according to the American Cancer Society’s annual update on trends and statistics.
- andrenth 8y agoMetal cutlery was only available to the wealthy in the middle ages. At some point they became widely available for everyone. Such is the way with most technological advances, where the high price initially payed by the rich is turned into more productivity and lower production costs, resulting in greater availability.
- crushcrashcrush 8y agoSo you’re comparing, in absolute terms, the availability of cutlery in a “trickle down” sense to the availability of decent healthcare for every American? I’m ashamed to live on this earth with you.
- andrenth 8y agoNo, I'm saying: technology becomes cheaper and more available over time. As for you being ashamed: cry me a river.
- merpnderp 8y agoAre you ashamed to live on this earth with most of Europe which waited nearly 10 years to buy into proton radiation therapy after the US adopted it? For nearly a decade there were more therapy machines in my tiny low population poor state than all of the UK.
- mijamo 8y agoWell most of Europe ranka much better than the US on Healthcare so no.
- merpnderp 8y agoWith a much less healthy population the US sees significant cancer and heart disease treatment successes over most of Europe. The US may pay quite a bit more for these successes, but it's not exactly black and white on which is better. There's a reason the top five cancer centers in the world are in the US. Edit: Just realized my mistake. You are fine with trickle down healthcare in Europe, but are not fine with it in the US. There was absolutely nothing to be gained by engaging with someone so openly biased. My bad.
- DanBC 8y ago> the US sees significant cancer [...] treatment successes over most of Europe Does it? What's your source please.
- dang 8y agoPersonal attacks will get you banned here regardless of how wrong or provocative another comment is. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
- happytoexplain 8y agoThat's a pretty dramatic oversimplification of one of the most disgusting, inhumane disasters in modern civilization: US healthcare.
- andrenth 8y agoUS healthcare is one of the most inhumane disasters in the history of modern civilization? What is this bubble you live in? Have you been to a third-world country? Have you been to a communist country?
- ihgan 8y agoI live in a third-world country, and we have public healthcare freely available for all
- andrenth 8y agoHow's the quality of this public healthcare? How long does it take for an appointment or surgery?
- ihgan 8y agoIt varies by state/city. In my state, basic care is ok: ER pretty much works, same weekend appointments for general practitioners, maybe more for specialists. I don't have direct experience whith surgery, but I had family members on cancer treatment, and the public health system was better in some cases than the private one.
- andrenth 8y agoWhere do you live, if you don’t mind me asking?
- scottlocklin 8y agoI agree that some perspective is required here, but it is pretty amazing how terrible it is. Like, we've been to the moon, have stuff like google to search through tons of information without leaving the bathroom, and people are trying to convince me we'll soon have useful quantum computers and autonomous vehicles, but it still takes me 3 hours to book a checkup with a doctor, and the soonest they can see me is 3 months from now. Then there's the billing system, which seems to have been devised to fill the maximum number of people's rice bowls. To say nothing of what happens to the uninsured. It's nuts.
- brucemoose 8y agoExcept the high healthcare prices are paid by the working class...
- InclinedPlane 8y agoExcept this hasn't been true since about 1980. Gains from economic growth have not been passed on to everyone. Health care is not available for everyone, especially. This isn't just a matter of technology. The "cost" of production of medical technologies has very little to do with their price, in the US anyway.
- andrenth 8y agoTo everyone, certainly not. To a lot more people? Definitely. Quality of life is better than ever before, worldwide. We shouldn't discard a system because it's not perfect. The alternative could be much worse.
- InclinedPlane 8y agoExactly! We should use the system the majority of the developed world relies on: socialized medicine.
- jka 8y agoThere's a grain of truth in here, and it's true that things available to the wealthy/elite tend to become available gradually to all over time. But that doesn't necessarily mean that things become _equal_ over time; it's rare to find wealthy people who will purchase the same kind of cutlery as the common person, to continue your analogy - for various reasons (fear of feeling inferior, ego, or just plain being oversold on it by marketing/salespeople). The point that the article appears to be making is that healthcare advances are applying for the wealthy - but in fact _reversing_ in some cases for the poor. That's not fair or desirable.
- fjp 8y agoAh yes, the past 40 years of wealth gains will trickle down on us any day now!