3 ms·
Im inclined to blame the US healthcare system. It looks like a gofundme was setup to pay for her cancer treatment. A sensible system a) wouldn’t need patients t
by pm90 11mo ago
Im inclined to blame the US healthcare system. It looks like a gofundme was setup to pay for her cancer treatment. A sensible system a) wouldn’t need patients to pay for treatment and b) might have caught it earlier through regular screening
- enkonta 11mo agoSo nobody dies or cancer in places with universal healthcare?
- CrazyStat 11mo agoDo you have any evidence that the cancer is a type that would have been caught by a screening regime currently in place in other countries which is not in place in the US? Without such evidence your post reads more like propagandizing a death for political purposes than an honest argument.
- LexiMax 11mo ago> Do you have any evidence that the cancer is a type that would have been caught by a screening regime currently in place in other countries which is not in place in the US? Do you have any evidence that it wasn't? I honestly don't know if earlier detection was possible, or would have helped her out or not. What I can tell you is that given the state of health care in this country, you can bet that my default assumption would be "yes" until proven otherwise. Starting with the assumption of "no" gives our system more slack than it deserves.
- delichon 11mo ago> you can bet that my default assumption would be "yes" and "yes" until proven otherwise. That's a recipe for healthcare inflation. There are endless unproven tests and treatments.
- altairprime 11mo agoLooking at corporate profit levels versus wage levels over the past twenty years, the U.S. as a capitalist country can afford a great deal more of healthcare inflation in order to raise the quality of life for its population. Should its businesses afford that out of their profits? Since households can’t afford eggs, much less health care costs, at the wages paid by businesses; so this decision is up to firms rather than households to decide. Founders, your input would especially be appreciated here.
- CrazyStat 11mo ago> Do you have any evidence that it wasn't? Most types of cancers are not routinely screened for. The post says that the cancer was in her liver and lungs, and neither liver cancer nor lung cancer are routinely screened for (lung cancer screenings are recommended for people with a history of heavy smoking). > What I can tell you is that given the state of health care in this country, you can bet that my default assumption would be "yes" until proven otherwise. This is clearly a politically-motivated point rather than one grounded in science or reality. Cancer screening in the US is generally more aggressive, not less aggressive, than in other developed countries. For example, the US has historically recommended annual mammograms starting at age 40, while Europe doesn't start until age 50 and only does them every two years. US guidelines are to start screening for colon cancer at age 45 (c.f. 50 in most of Europe), and the US uses a much more invasive (and costlier) approach to colon cancer screening on top of the age gap. If anything the US probably overinvests in cancer screening. The evidence in favor of starting mammograms at 40 is extremely dubious, as is the evidence for invasive and expensive colonoscopies (standard US practice) over fecal matter tests (standard European practice) for colon cancer screening.
- Findecanor 11mo ago
- lynndotpy 11mo agoEven if inappropriate, this reads like a normal expression of grief to me. It's normal to be upset about the circumstances under which someone died, and to be angry if you believe it was avoidable. Under the five stages model, this would be bargaining and anger.
- squigz 11mo agoAnother one of these? Jeez. Whether you're right or not, it doesn't matter - this is not the time or place to bring this up.