6 ms·

At a population level, that makes sense. But, as the article notes, we don't know if any particular cancer will kill an individual. It's a conundrum. But, "Me

At a population level, that makes sense. But, as the article notes, we don't know if any particular cancer will kill an individual. It's a conundrum. But, "Meh, let's not test since it might not kill you." doesn't feel like the right answer.

lm28469 11mo ago
It also has to make financial sense, everyone's insurance would be much higher, cancer treatments are $$$, in countries with a public healthcare system it's a no go
- darth_avocado 11mo ago
  Ehh. It’s only that expensive because we let be. You can get a basic cancer screen in India for 2500 rupees which is about $35.
  - lm28469 11mo ago
    Because everything is mostly following on local purchasing power. You can build a beautiful modern house in buttfuck nowhere Belarus for 20% of what you'd pay for the same exact house in Germany. The screening isn't even the problem, finding you have _a_ cancer is one thing, pinpointing where it is, how to treat it, treating it and recovering from it cost orders of magnitude more than the initial diagnosis.
    - darth_avocado 11mo ago
      The point I was trying to make was that cancer screening is expensive only because we have a highly inefficient healthcare system. (India was an example and their healthcare system has its own flaws) Sure we can point to PPP, but the reason why screening is that cheaper elsewhere is not ONLY because of PPP. Since you mentioned Germany, public health insurance covers early detection cancer screen every 3 years (2 for skin cancer) once you’re 35. The concern about “raising insurance costs significantly for everyone” in US only exists because of the way healthcare is set up here. It shouldn’t be that expensive to screen and it shouldn’t be that expensive to treat. https://www.informedhealth.org/what-screening-tests-does-german-public-health-insurance-cover.html#:~:text=In%20Germany%2C%20public%20(statutory)%20health%20insurance%20covers,the%20doctor%20will%20explain%20everything%20in%20detail. https://www.informedhealth.org/what-screening-tests-does-ger...
      - lm28469 11mo ago
        > The concern about “raising insurance costs significantly for everyone” in US only exists because of the way healthcare is set up here. 100% definitely not lol, you need 2-3 months to see any kind of specialist in germany, 5-10 hours before someone sees you in the emergency room. The healthcare system of every western EU country is getting worse year after year because of the aging population, and on top of that we're taxed more, for shittier services. I pay 800+ a month and it doesn't even include a yearly blood work unless I beg for it. Just look at your own link, in germany we screen for two cancers for each gender and it's already so fucking expensive, there are dozens of cancers you could theoretically screen for. Skin cancer screening is actually a good example, we diagnose way more than before, and it has virtually no impact on death stats: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/melanoma-over-diagnosis https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/melanoma-... > More than 80,000 Americans are told each year they have melanoma skin cancer. If that sounds like a lot, it’s because the numbers are six times higher than they were 40 years ago. > Overdiagnosis is one of the most harmful and costly problems in medicine
        darth_avocado 11mo ago
        > you need 2-3 months to see any kind of specialist in germany, 5-10 hours before someone sees you in the emergency room That’s like pretty much the standard in the US as well? The unless you’re dying, you’re pretty much in an extremely long wait before you get seen in an emergency room, and then later get sent a $10k+ bill at the minimum. And there’s very few specialists that you can see immediately. In fact, for the majority of people, the step before “how fast can I see my specialist” is the “what specialists are in network”. And as far as costs are concerned, I pay $2000/month for two people and it will only go up once we have a family of 4. This isn’t even the top tier plan, just a good enough one. Not to mention the thousands of dollars in deductible that you have to pay before the plan kicks in. And we have an aging population as well. And that’s not going to change regardless of who’s paying for the care. You’re being taxed for it, we’re paying out of pocket. The only difference is that you get shittier services when taxed, and here you don’t get the care if you can’t afford it. And if you end up in the ER and they have to treat you despite you not having the coverage, the taxpayers cover it anyway.
  - harvey9 11mo ago
    Some tests are cheaper than others in any market.
    - darth_avocado 11mo ago
      And some markets in their entirety are cheaper than others because life saving care isn't marked up a 1000%.
- jjk166 11mo ago
  It cheaper to treat cancer if it's caught early. Reduced screening isn't reducing the need for cancer treatments - everyone who has cancer still has cancer. You might get an increase in follow up tests due to false positives, but these are cheap.

lm28469 11mo ago

It also has to make financial sense, everyone's insurance would be much higher, cancer treatments are $$$, in countries with a public healthcare system it's a no go

darth_avocado 11mo ago
Ehh. It’s only that expensive because we let be. You can get a basic cancer screen in India for 2500 rupees which is about $35.
- lm28469 11mo ago
  Because everything is mostly following on local purchasing power. You can build a beautiful modern house in buttfuck nowhere Belarus for 20% of what you'd pay for the same exact house in Germany. The screening isn't even the problem, finding you have _a_ cancer is one thing, pinpointing where it is, how to treat it, treating it and recovering from it cost orders of magnitude more than the initial diagnosis.
  - darth_avocado 11mo ago
    The point I was trying to make was that cancer screening is expensive only because we have a highly inefficient healthcare system. (India was an example and their healthcare system has its own flaws) Sure we can point to PPP, but the reason why screening is that cheaper elsewhere is not ONLY because of PPP. Since you mentioned Germany, public health insurance covers early detection cancer screen every 3 years (2 for skin cancer) once you’re 35. The concern about “raising insurance costs significantly for everyone” in US only exists because of the way healthcare is set up here. It shouldn’t be that expensive to screen and it shouldn’t be that expensive to treat. https://www.informedhealth.org/what-screening-tests-does-german-public-health-insurance-cover.html#:~:text=In%20Germany%2C%20public%20(statutory)%20health%20insurance%20covers,the%20doctor%20will%20explain%20everything%20in%20detail. https://www.informedhealth.org/what-screening-tests-does-ger...
    - lm28469 11mo ago
      > The concern about “raising insurance costs significantly for everyone” in US only exists because of the way healthcare is set up here. 100% definitely not lol, you need 2-3 months to see any kind of specialist in germany, 5-10 hours before someone sees you in the emergency room. The healthcare system of every western EU country is getting worse year after year because of the aging population, and on top of that we're taxed more, for shittier services. I pay 800+ a month and it doesn't even include a yearly blood work unless I beg for it. Just look at your own link, in germany we screen for two cancers for each gender and it's already so fucking expensive, there are dozens of cancers you could theoretically screen for. Skin cancer screening is actually a good example, we diagnose way more than before, and it has virtually no impact on death stats: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/melanoma-over-diagnosis https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/melanoma-... > More than 80,000 Americans are told each year they have melanoma skin cancer. If that sounds like a lot, it’s because the numbers are six times higher than they were 40 years ago. > Overdiagnosis is one of the most harmful and costly problems in medicine
      - darth_avocado 11mo ago
        > you need 2-3 months to see any kind of specialist in germany, 5-10 hours before someone sees you in the emergency room That’s like pretty much the standard in the US as well? The unless you’re dying, you’re pretty much in an extremely long wait before you get seen in an emergency room, and then later get sent a $10k+ bill at the minimum. And there’s very few specialists that you can see immediately. In fact, for the majority of people, the step before “how fast can I see my specialist” is the “what specialists are in network”. And as far as costs are concerned, I pay $2000/month for two people and it will only go up once we have a family of 4. This isn’t even the top tier plan, just a good enough one. Not to mention the thousands of dollars in deductible that you have to pay before the plan kicks in. And we have an aging population as well. And that’s not going to change regardless of who’s paying for the care. You’re being taxed for it, we’re paying out of pocket. The only difference is that you get shittier services when taxed, and here you don’t get the care if you can’t afford it. And if you end up in the ER and they have to treat you despite you not having the coverage, the taxpayers cover it anyway.
- harvey9 11mo ago
  Some tests are cheaper than others in any market.
  - darth_avocado 11mo ago
    And some markets in their entirety are cheaper than others because life saving care isn't marked up a 1000%.
jjk166 11mo ago
It cheaper to treat cancer if it's caught early. Reduced screening isn't reducing the need for cancer treatments - everyone who has cancer still has cancer. You might get an increase in follow up tests due to false positives, but these are cheap.