3 ms·
> Access to chemotherapy or radiotherapy or surgery is much easier for wealthy people than it is for poor people. Is it? When I underwent chemotherapy, I did n
by ernesth 14y ago
> Access to chemotherapy or radiotherapy or surgery is much easier for wealthy people than it is for poor people.
Is it? When I underwent chemotherapy, I did not pay for anything (to be honest, I paid gas to get to the hospital, but did not pay for medics, hospital bed, tests, blood analysis nor lost my salary for the days I could not work). Even though the price of some of the medics that were injected in me twice a month was greater than my monthly salary. Cancer is a disease for which poors are very well treated in France (So yes, in some wealthy country, cash makes no difference).
- pmb 14y agoYes. I have relatives who died due to a lack of health care. They felt sick for a long time, but only got treatment once the chronic problem became acute. Unfortunately, when a chronic undiagnosed cancer condition becomes acute, it means that it has metastasized and the survival rates drops precipitously. Lack of health care meant that the sick person died in pain instead of getting better early on and living for many more years. (Nota bene: this is a USA story - I am under the impression that this would not happen in basically any other western democracy)
- jackpirate 14y agoYes, but what if they needed to stay working just to feed themselves and were unable to work as hard because of the chemo? Just because a procedure is "free" doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything :)
- lurker14 14y agoSocial Security and Medicaid/Medicare step in at this point.
- DanBC 14y agoBy poor I mean the many people paid less than $3usd per day.
- mortenjorck 14y agoI think it says something that one of the most critically acclaimed TV series in the US right now is premised on a middle-class high school teacher who turns to a life of crime when his state-provided health insurance is insufficient to cover his cancer treatment.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]