3 ms·

> In addition, if you are sick and you go to a hospital, you must be treated regardless of your ability to pay. If you'll pardon a second response, I must poi

> In addition, if you are sick and you go to a hospital, you must be treated regardless of your ability to pay. If you'll pardon a second response, I must point out this is only true of emergencies like car accidents and the ever abundance of shootings. In most states, if you get cancer without insurance you just die. Period. And not by euthanasia, by the way, because apparently that is mortal sin / slippery-slope to mass murder.

refurb 12y ago
"In most states, if you get cancer without insurance you just die. Period. And not by euthanasia, by the way, because apparently that is mortal sin / slippery-slope to mass murder." This is patently untrue. Do a google search for "disproportionate share hospitals" and "charity care". In my line of work I've spoken with numerous oncologists and I've asked them "what do you do if your patient can't afford cancer treatment?" and the answer was always "I send them to the local hospital that treats them regardless of ability to pay."
- whybroke 12y ago
  If you have a fashionable cancer then yes there are special programs. If you do not have the right kind of cancer then there are not. Which is pretty strange in and of itself. And if you are utterly indigent then yes there programs in many counties. County or city run hospitals which is of course the exact definition of socialist which I understand is completely objectionable on principle and so something to be zealously eradicated. But if you are one of the working poor the options evaporate. Especially if you are in the wrong county/state. If you glance through this pdf http://action.acscan.org/site/DocServer/cancer-disparities-chartbook.pdf http://action.acscan.org/site/DocServer/cancer-disparities-c... I think you'll find there is an enormous difference in the fatality rate for uninsured vs insured patients exactly because of the lack of treatment. But perhaps I'm wrong: what is the name of this hospital run entirely by donation that takes every cancer patient that shows up free of charge?
  - tptacek 12y ago
    This "you get care if you have a fashionable cancer" bit does not ring true at all. The source you cited doesn't seem to back it up. Can you cite evidence that indigent care for cancer varies based on the "fashionability" of the specific kind of cancer?
    - whybroke 12y ago
      The link above does not speak about different cancer funds. It simply shows that cancer patients without insurance just die. That is obviously how it works without universal medical care; sick people don't just magically get better with magic money like a sitcom. They die. But there are large funds for breast and cervical cancer and that is obviously very good. Unfortunately there are not for rectal or colon cancer. Maybe because no one is going to run 10k for rectal cancer, maybe because it's too dirty a word to say on tv. Either way, if you're poor, be sure to get the right cancer. Or just fix your medical system. Now if you'll pardon me I must take a break and let the dittoheads and digg-patriots catch up with downvoting all my posts.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        This reply is sophomoric. Its thesis is "sick people don't just magically get better with magic money like a sitcom. They die." But that's self-evidently not true; when an indigent patient has a heart attack and arrives in the emergency room, they are treated. It's not "magic money" that saves them; there is an actual pool of resources that they draw from.

refurb 12y ago

"In most states, if you get cancer without insurance you just die. Period. And not by euthanasia, by the way, because apparently that is mortal sin / slippery-slope to mass murder." This is patently untrue. Do a google search for "disproportionate share hospitals" and "charity care". In my line of work I've spoken with numerous oncologists and I've asked them "what do you do if your patient can't afford cancer treatment?" and the answer was always "I send them to the local hospital that treats them regardless of ability to pay."

whybroke 12y ago
If you have a fashionable cancer then yes there are special programs. If you do not have the right kind of cancer then there are not. Which is pretty strange in and of itself. And if you are utterly indigent then yes there programs in many counties. County or city run hospitals which is of course the exact definition of socialist which I understand is completely objectionable on principle and so something to be zealously eradicated. But if you are one of the working poor the options evaporate. Especially if you are in the wrong county/state. If you glance through this pdf http://action.acscan.org/site/DocServer/cancer-disparities-chartbook.pdf http://action.acscan.org/site/DocServer/cancer-disparities-c... I think you'll find there is an enormous difference in the fatality rate for uninsured vs insured patients exactly because of the lack of treatment. But perhaps I'm wrong: what is the name of this hospital run entirely by donation that takes every cancer patient that shows up free of charge?
- tptacek 12y ago
  This "you get care if you have a fashionable cancer" bit does not ring true at all. The source you cited doesn't seem to back it up. Can you cite evidence that indigent care for cancer varies based on the "fashionability" of the specific kind of cancer?
  - whybroke 12y ago
    The link above does not speak about different cancer funds. It simply shows that cancer patients without insurance just die. That is obviously how it works without universal medical care; sick people don't just magically get better with magic money like a sitcom. They die. But there are large funds for breast and cervical cancer and that is obviously very good. Unfortunately there are not for rectal or colon cancer. Maybe because no one is going to run 10k for rectal cancer, maybe because it's too dirty a word to say on tv. Either way, if you're poor, be sure to get the right cancer. Or just fix your medical system. Now if you'll pardon me I must take a break and let the dittoheads and digg-patriots catch up with downvoting all my posts.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      This reply is sophomoric. Its thesis is "sick people don't just magically get better with magic money like a sitcom. They die." But that's self-evidently not true; when an indigent patient has a heart attack and arrives in the emergency room, they are treated. It's not "magic money" that saves them; there is an actual pool of resources that they draw from.