5 ms·

There was a Standford professor that was wondering why he had void of cancer patients around 63 and 64. Turns out people wait to get on Medicare for treatment b

There was a Standford professor that was wondering why he had void of cancer patients around 63 and 64. Turns out people wait to get on Medicare for treatment because they cannot afford it with their standard health insurance. USA would save money in the long run with Universal health care. Since people in the US wait until it gets bad before seeking treatment. This means fights cancer at stage 3 and 4 instead of 1 and 2. Latter the stage the more it costs and less likely for success. This is one reason foreign doctors come to the US to study and train. Modern countries with Universal Health Care treat at stage 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 being rare ... except for the USA. Need to study advance cancer and aggressive, this USA is a great place. [0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/03/Cancer-diagnoses-implies-patients-wait-for-Medicare.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/03/Cancer-diagno...

tptacek 1y ago
This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, and hashing this out would tilt a story about Kryptos sharply towards a story on health policy. He's 79, he's very covered by Medicare.
- wahnfrieden 1y ago
  Where is the rule that comments must stay on topic and avoid diversion? It was a more interesting and informative comment than yours that you've restated here (particularly given that being "very covered by Medicare" does not even counter what you originally replied to, as it will not cover all or perhaps even most costs)
  - tptacek 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      I found their aside relevant to my interests as a fellow HN reader. The guidelines also advise against fulminating; you made your point, and I think it’s fair that theirs also stands.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        That's fine, I'm just always going to respond to something on HN worded as "where is the [HN] rule that". :)
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        I am happy that you are concerned with the guidelines, and I don’t want to protest too much. I appreciate your contributions to HN more than my own most days, and I do hope I don’t rustle your feathers. > That's fine seems to conflict with your concerns about the upthread conversation being derailed to a certain reading: > This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, and hashing this out would tilt a story about Kryptos sharply towards a story on health policy. As the auction proceeds would ostensibly fund healthcare costs, it seems on topic to muse about the costs being covered by Medicare, or not. If they would be covered by Medicare, the claims of healthcare costs not being met are all the more interesting and discussion-worthy.
      - thesmtsolver 1y ago
        Their aside is also false though. Look at my comment below the OP.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        > Their aside is also false though. You are drawing a conclusion that was not proven by your comment. OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates. Both of you could be correct: OP could be correct that many income-constrained folks delay treatment until they age into qualifying for Medicare, and you could be correct that on the whole, folks in the USA have better cancer treatment outcomes. If you reread OP, they were speaking to there being more advanced cases of later stage cancers in the US, which you didn’t really speak to or refute, so to my reading, you are jumping to conclusions when you say that their aside is false per se.
        thesmtsolver 1y ago
    - jrflowers 1y ago
      “Avoid generic tangents” is up to interpretation. Incidentally, so is “don’t be curmudgeonly” Also Medicare does not cover long-term care, so if someone gets sick and develops the need for it, they’re paying out of pocket. It is a possibility that a lot of people plan for financially, which is reasonably in the realm of relevance here. What’s not really relevant here are your personal opinions on what medical costs are or are not generally worth planning for financially.
thesmtsolver 1y ago
> This is one reason foreign doctors come to the US to study and train. Modern countries with Universal Health Care treat at stage 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 being rare ... except for the USA. Need to study advance cancer and aggressive, this USA is a great place. Is there any data supporting this? Cancer survival rates by country seems to go against your narrative. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-survival-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-su... For example, for stomach cancer, US has better cancer survival rates than Canada, and most of Europe (including the Scandinavian countries) 1. USA: 33% 2. Canada 29% 3. Norway, Sweden, Finland: ~25% 4. Germany ~33% 5. Italy 30% US has better survival rates for lung, breast, prostate cancer than most of the world. Look at the above link. I have relatives who are doctors from outside the country, now in the US. None of them fall under your narrative. Logically, the data disagrees with your narrative. The reason why they came to the US is: 1) access to best research/tech; and 2) (of course) more money, and 3) most of the Western developed world is highly restrictive when it comes to immigration for doctors compared with US

tptacek 1y ago

This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, and hashing this out would tilt a story about Kryptos sharply towards a story on health policy. He's 79, he's very covered by Medicare.

wahnfrieden 1y ago
Where is the rule that comments must stay on topic and avoid diversion? It was a more interesting and informative comment than yours that you've restated here (particularly given that being "very covered by Medicare" does not even counter what you originally replied to, as it will not cover all or perhaps even most costs)
- tptacek 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    I found their aside relevant to my interests as a fellow HN reader. The guidelines also advise against fulminating; you made your point, and I think it’s fair that theirs also stands.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      That's fine, I'm just always going to respond to something on HN worded as "where is the [HN] rule that". :)
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        I am happy that you are concerned with the guidelines, and I don’t want to protest too much. I appreciate your contributions to HN more than my own most days, and I do hope I don’t rustle your feathers. > That's fine seems to conflict with your concerns about the upthread conversation being derailed to a certain reading: > This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, and hashing this out would tilt a story about Kryptos sharply towards a story on health policy. As the auction proceeds would ostensibly fund healthcare costs, it seems on topic to muse about the costs being covered by Medicare, or not. If they would be covered by Medicare, the claims of healthcare costs not being met are all the more interesting and discussion-worthy.
    - thesmtsolver 1y ago
      Their aside is also false though. Look at my comment below the OP.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        > Their aside is also false though. You are drawing a conclusion that was not proven by your comment. OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates. Both of you could be correct: OP could be correct that many income-constrained folks delay treatment until they age into qualifying for Medicare, and you could be correct that on the whole, folks in the USA have better cancer treatment outcomes. If you reread OP, they were speaking to there being more advanced cases of later stage cancers in the US, which you didn’t really speak to or refute, so to my reading, you are jumping to conclusions when you say that their aside is false per se.
        thesmtsolver 1y ago
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    “Avoid generic tangents” is up to interpretation. Incidentally, so is “don’t be curmudgeonly” Also Medicare does not cover long-term care, so if someone gets sick and develops the need for it, they’re paying out of pocket. It is a possibility that a lot of people plan for financially, which is reasonably in the realm of relevance here. What’s not really relevant here are your personal opinions on what medical costs are or are not generally worth planning for financially.

thesmtsolver 1y ago

> This is one reason foreign doctors come to the US to study and train. Modern countries with Universal Health Care treat at stage 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 being rare ... except for the USA. Need to study advance cancer and aggressive, this USA is a great place. Is there any data supporting this? Cancer survival rates by country seems to go against your narrative. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-survival-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-su... For example, for stomach cancer, US has better cancer survival rates than Canada, and most of Europe (including the Scandinavian countries) 1. USA: 33% 2. Canada 29% 3. Norway, Sweden, Finland: ~25% 4. Germany ~33% 5. Italy 30% US has better survival rates for lung, breast, prostate cancer than most of the world. Look at the above link. I have relatives who are doctors from outside the country, now in the US. None of them fall under your narrative. Logically, the data disagrees with your narrative. The reason why they came to the US is: 1) access to best research/tech; and 2) (of course) more money, and 3) most of the Western developed world is highly restrictive when it comes to immigration for doctors compared with US