5 ms·

More than 42% of 9.5M people with cancer drained life's assets within 2 years in the US.

porphyrogene 8y ago
The publication is NPR so that it is US news goes somewhat without saying. However, this is something that Americans need to understand is exceptional for a nation of its resources.
- mbostleman 8y ago
  So what is the solution? More than 42% went all in with the constraint being their personal assets. If that constraint was lifted, then what would the next constraint be? Obviously the additional assets would come from other people, and probably not voluntarily (which is a different issue), but what would be the limiting factor then? Also, I assume the new pool of assets would be available not just to the 42% that were willing to put all of their own in but to the remaining 58% as well. The US may be a nation of relatively high resources, but they aren't infinite. What do the rules look like for this in other nations?
  - shereadsthenews 8y ago
    How about if we have a single entity who pays doctors and hospitals fair and reasonable rates, we fire hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats we don't need, and we fund it all out of general revenues, saving roughly 2 trillion dollars per year, while at the same time improving life expectancy and other health outcomes?
    - news_to_me 8y ago
      Socialist!! /s
    - mbostleman 8y ago
      For sure, there's all kinds of ways to make money go further. But there still has to be a rule for a constraint.
  - Joe-Z 8y ago
    >What do the rules look like for this in other nations? In Austria we pay a "Sozialversicherungsbeitrag"/social security with each month's pay. Your employer also chips in part of it. I don't even know how much it is percent-wise. It is really not that hard. You just go the doctor / hospital when you NEED it. Because that's the important thing: health care is a need, nobody likes being sick or injured and having a system where people end up bankrupt to pay for their medical bills ist just stupid. No matter the philosophical arguments against taxes and state-power, it's cruel and stupid and it's astonishing that a country that considers itself "the greatest nation" is actually run like this in the 21st century.
    - mbostleman 8y ago
      Ok, but how does this relate to the problem in this post. If I get cancer in Austria, do I spend all my money first and when that's gone, how much more is spent? Or do I only spend some of my money first (or maybe none), but still, how much gets spent on me - what constrains it?
  - ergothus 8y ago
    You're assuming that the costs are fixed, and that the only issue is when we decide to stop spending. An alternative is that the costs AREN'T fixed - that a significant portion of the money involved goes to costs that aren't actually costs of the heath care itself. This could be insurance overhead (all the people to manage the paperwork to get approval for the work ultimately adds to bill I have to pay), inflated costs (for those without insurance, or dealing with things insurance won't/has stopped covering, the habit of hospitals to raise their base rates so they can then offer a discount to insurance companies hits them full on), market weaknesses (A lot has been written about how non-transparent the market is, meaning it's basically impossible to shop for good care at a good price), etc. If a new splanch transplant (made up numbers here) ultimately costs $10,000 in the UK and $100,000 in the US (regardless of whether that is paid directly by me or indirectly via taxes), then the issue is different than what you've highlighted.
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    Death, the next constraint would be death. If the patient doesn't get better, they don't just keep piling up bills forever, eventually the Cancer kills them.
  - peteey 8y ago
    The socialization of the insurance market puts the citizens paying at the mercy of the healthcare industry. Wouldn't it make more sense to socialize the healthcare industry itself? Our tax dollars pay for much of the education and hospitals. Are we entitled to ownership?
swarnie_ 8y ago
Important distinction. Most western countries don't bankrupt you for getting old or sick. Oh boy, did i say something which wasn't Pro-'Merica?
- seanhandley 8y ago
  s/western/civilised/ IMHO the US approach to healthcare should be criminalised.
- mrep 8y ago
  To be fair, the US does have social security and medicare which gives out checks and healthcare to people 65 or older.
- systemtest 8y ago
  I live in the Netherlands, if I would get cancer my contracting income would go to zero, I would have to get a government mortgage to eat my home and after depleting all my assets I would get welfare of about €1000 per month. Bye-bye retirement. The upside is that my healthcare expense would drop from about €5000 per year to €500 pear year.
  - stingraycharles 8y ago
    If you are contracting, you should really consider getting incapacitation insurance (arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering). It’s normally paid by your employer and not cheap (but deductible), but I would consider it irresponsible not to do it.
    - systemtest 8y ago
      A arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering will cost around €4000 per year and they usually don't pay when you are sick. If you get cancer but can still sort mail, assemble key-chains or fill out an online inquiry chances are that they will not pay you. They will go through all your medical records to find any excuse not to pay you. You will have to sue them to get a payout. And you have to pay income tax on that.
refurb 8y ago
Yes, but bankruptcy due to health reasons is actually quite common in Canada as well. Why? If you’re sick enough you can’t work or pay your bills so you go bankrupt. It’s not just healthcare costs. Survey research commissioned by the Canadian government found that despite having a government-run health system, medical reasons (including uninsured expenses), were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).
- astrodust 8y ago
  It happens more frequently with non-life-threatening conditions where you slowly get ground down not from hospital bills, those don't really exist, but from ongoing medical costs, like expensive prescription medication or other supplies.
- Kurtz79 8y ago
  Not sure for Canada, but in many EU countries, if you are employed, you will keep receiving a large percentage of your salary when on extended sick leave, mostly paid by social security after the first few days. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Paid-sick-days-and-sick-leave-in-22-countries-worker-at-median-earnings-full-time_fig1_41720650 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Paid-sick-days-and-sick-... My mother was on sick leave for many months for breast cancer and the illness had a relatively small impact in terms of family finances.
- LorenPechtel 8y ago
  Yup. The real issue is a lack of disability insurance, not failings of the health insurance system.

The publication is NPR so that it is US news goes somewhat without saying. However, this is something that Americans need to understand is exceptional for a nation of its resources.

mbostleman 8y ago
So what is the solution? More than 42% went all in with the constraint being their personal assets. If that constraint was lifted, then what would the next constraint be? Obviously the additional assets would come from other people, and probably not voluntarily (which is a different issue), but what would be the limiting factor then? Also, I assume the new pool of assets would be available not just to the 42% that were willing to put all of their own in but to the remaining 58% as well. The US may be a nation of relatively high resources, but they aren't infinite. What do the rules look like for this in other nations?
- shereadsthenews 8y ago
  How about if we have a single entity who pays doctors and hospitals fair and reasonable rates, we fire hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats we don't need, and we fund it all out of general revenues, saving roughly 2 trillion dollars per year, while at the same time improving life expectancy and other health outcomes?
  - news_to_me 8y ago
    Socialist!! /s
  - mbostleman 8y ago
    For sure, there's all kinds of ways to make money go further. But there still has to be a rule for a constraint.
- Joe-Z 8y ago
  >What do the rules look like for this in other nations? In Austria we pay a "Sozialversicherungsbeitrag"/social security with each month's pay. Your employer also chips in part of it. I don't even know how much it is percent-wise. It is really not that hard. You just go the doctor / hospital when you NEED it. Because that's the important thing: health care is a need, nobody likes being sick or injured and having a system where people end up bankrupt to pay for their medical bills ist just stupid. No matter the philosophical arguments against taxes and state-power, it's cruel and stupid and it's astonishing that a country that considers itself "the greatest nation" is actually run like this in the 21st century.
  - mbostleman 8y ago
    Ok, but how does this relate to the problem in this post. If I get cancer in Austria, do I spend all my money first and when that's gone, how much more is spent? Or do I only spend some of my money first (or maybe none), but still, how much gets spent on me - what constrains it?
- ergothus 8y ago
  You're assuming that the costs are fixed, and that the only issue is when we decide to stop spending. An alternative is that the costs AREN'T fixed - that a significant portion of the money involved goes to costs that aren't actually costs of the heath care itself. This could be insurance overhead (all the people to manage the paperwork to get approval for the work ultimately adds to bill I have to pay), inflated costs (for those without insurance, or dealing with things insurance won't/has stopped covering, the habit of hospitals to raise their base rates so they can then offer a discount to insurance companies hits them full on), market weaknesses (A lot has been written about how non-transparent the market is, meaning it's basically impossible to shop for good care at a good price), etc. If a new splanch transplant (made up numbers here) ultimately costs $10,000 in the UK and $100,000 in the US (regardless of whether that is paid directly by me or indirectly via taxes), then the issue is different than what you've highlighted.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  Death, the next constraint would be death. If the patient doesn't get better, they don't just keep piling up bills forever, eventually the Cancer kills them.
- peteey 8y ago
  The socialization of the insurance market puts the citizens paying at the mercy of the healthcare industry. Wouldn't it make more sense to socialize the healthcare industry itself? Our tax dollars pay for much of the education and hospitals. Are we entitled to ownership?

swarnie_ 8y ago

Important distinction. Most western countries don't bankrupt you for getting old or sick. Oh boy, did i say something which wasn't Pro-'Merica?

seanhandley 8y ago
s/western/civilised/ IMHO the US approach to healthcare should be criminalised.
mrep 8y ago
To be fair, the US does have social security and medicare which gives out checks and healthcare to people 65 or older.
systemtest 8y ago
I live in the Netherlands, if I would get cancer my contracting income would go to zero, I would have to get a government mortgage to eat my home and after depleting all my assets I would get welfare of about €1000 per month. Bye-bye retirement. The upside is that my healthcare expense would drop from about €5000 per year to €500 pear year.
- stingraycharles 8y ago
  If you are contracting, you should really consider getting incapacitation insurance (arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering). It’s normally paid by your employer and not cheap (but deductible), but I would consider it irresponsible not to do it.
  - systemtest 8y ago
    A arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering will cost around €4000 per year and they usually don't pay when you are sick. If you get cancer but can still sort mail, assemble key-chains or fill out an online inquiry chances are that they will not pay you. They will go through all your medical records to find any excuse not to pay you. You will have to sue them to get a payout. And you have to pay income tax on that.

refurb 8y ago

Yes, but bankruptcy due to health reasons is actually quite common in Canada as well. Why? If you’re sick enough you can’t work or pay your bills so you go bankrupt. It’s not just healthcare costs. Survey research commissioned by the Canadian government found that despite having a government-run health system, medical reasons (including uninsured expenses), were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).

astrodust 8y ago
It happens more frequently with non-life-threatening conditions where you slowly get ground down not from hospital bills, those don't really exist, but from ongoing medical costs, like expensive prescription medication or other supplies.
Kurtz79 8y ago
Not sure for Canada, but in many EU countries, if you are employed, you will keep receiving a large percentage of your salary when on extended sick leave, mostly paid by social security after the first few days. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Paid-sick-days-and-sick-leave-in-22-countries-worker-at-median-earnings-full-time_fig1_41720650 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Paid-sick-days-and-sick-... My mother was on sick leave for many months for breast cancer and the illness had a relatively small impact in terms of family finances.
LorenPechtel 8y ago
Yup. The real issue is a lack of disability insurance, not failings of the health insurance system.