Bash all you want but this is why we need universal healthcare. We can't have campaigns like this for every person but I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to a better life. My hope is that stories like this will raise awareness of why universal healthcare is sorely needed.
Sometimes I wish there was a technology solution for everything.
Seriously. I want to live in a country where if you have a 1 in a million disease like this, you shouldn't have to worry about how much it's going to cost to get treatment.
Everybody needs healthcare/health insurance, and we are all the same species. Every single person in this country should be paying the same monthly fee for coverage. If wind up in a hospital, you should never even have to think about how it's going to be paid for.
Unfortunately in this country, we have people that will yell out "let them die" at a presidential debate about what to do with the uninsured, and why we shouldn't force people to pay for healthcare.
Just my story, so you can see how well it CAN work:
I live in Australia. Last year I was diagnosed with aggressive nodular melanoma. In a matter of weeks/months it spread to all the lymph nodes in my left leg. I've been through a solid year of treatment so far with half a dozen CT and MRI scans, 5 major surgeries, 3 minor (day) surgeries, chemo, constant physiotherapy and rehab, more medication than i could list, and dozens of specialists. I'm out of pocket by about $1000 total (mostly got the gap fee for one of my specialists).
If I was in the US or elsewhere, I've been told it would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Money I never could have paid.
We have optional private health cover here, but I didn't have it. All my stuff is done under the Medicare system which we pay for with our taxes.
Here in the UK a program was started sending out postal tests for bowel cancer to men and women of an at risk age.
One arrived for my father, he wasn't going to bother, he felt fine, and to do the test you had to paste a bit of poo into the kit and post it back, which grossed him out a bit. My mother persueded him to do it, and 3 weeks later he was called up by the hospital, as they'd detected blood.
2 weeks later he was having internal test and a month after that had a tumour and a couple of feel of colon removed.
It's now 3 years later and thankfully the tumours have not returned, though he has 6 monthly check-ups until the 5 year mark, then down to yearly.
All this was free (well paid for by tax). By pre-emptively catching the cancer early the NHS was able to both save a mans life, and also save a huge amount of money that could have been spent on late stage care.
I am forever indebted to the NHS and universal health care. As a self employed artist my father wouldn't have been able to afford private care, and I hate to imagine the state of care he would have received in another country, where universal free healthcare did not exist or was underfunded. The money we pay here in tax is far less than that paid in other countries in insurance, and covers everyone equally.
This story is NOT about someone who could not pay medical bills and/or didn't have insurance. It clearly states in the article that the money was needed because the parents quit their jobs and was to be used for living expenses. Please do not recast the story to suit an agenda.
And for a ridiculously difficult procedure like this? Doesn't it make sense in a way for health care to pay for it?
The parents needed to quit their jobs because they needed to move to NC. They needed to move because of the procedure. Yes it might be a grey area but I'm okay with exceptions like this.
> Yes it might be a grey area but I'm okay with exceptions like this.
It's not really a gray area, a number of countries either have a concept of "caretaker leaves" or let parents use sick/parental leaves to take care of young children (in Sweden for instance, parents can take their paid sick leave — 364 days @80% then 550 days @75% — to care for children under 12)
You make a fair point, but either way, people in this country shouldn't have to worry about financial hardship as a result of a required medical procedure. Relocating the parents to be where a very young child needs to get treatment is all part of the same medical expense, as far as I'm concerned.
Having lived in a country like you describe, cost still plays part in it. Suddenly, you're on waiting lists. Waiting lists that are years long. And this is regardless of what your doctor says. Need a treatment within the year or you'll suffer the rest of your life? Tough, you can wait 3.
Oh, you can go the private route. But you're still paying the cost of the public option. And both combined? Yeah, far more than what we pay here in the US.
The above isn't made up, it's just a small sample of why I left Canada. I could never subject my children to that horrid system again without feeling as if I was abusing them.
I would have thought that the number of deaths per capita in the US because insufficient funds to pay for healthcare, greatly exceeds the number of deaths per capita in Canada because of waiting times.
And in any case, Canada does not have the only public healthcare system in the world. There are many that do not have such extreme waiting times.
(Of course, this whole discussion is academic, since the US is incapable of implementing any public healthcare system, waiting times or not).
It's illegal to not treat someone who is going to die because they are uninsured. They just get stuck with a massive bill. It's untrue that the US cant implement public healthcare... They have had it for years in the form of Medicare.
1. Who was talking about deaths? Sorry, but healthcare is more than just life and death. That being said, your post screams ignorance of universal healthcare.
> Every single person in this country should be paying the same monthly fee for coverage.
> Unfortunately in this country, we have people that will yell out "let them die" at a presidential debate about what to do with the uninsured, and why we shouldn't force people to pay for healthcare.
But what if I don't want to pay that monthly fee? What if I, as a person who isn't you, decide I want to spend my $1000/year on something that isn't health care, and I want to die if I get into an accident that requires expensive surgery? Why is that not an acceptable outcome, given that I know about it a priori?
The real argument about health care cannot and should not be separated from taxation or any other economic issue - it's simply a question about how we, as a society, should subsidize poor people to enable them to pay their premiums. If they elect to do so is another issue entirely.
You benefit from everyone else paying for public healthcare, even if you never get sick. Economically it makes sense to have a healthy workforce, and medically it's a really bad idea for people with infectious diseases to stay away from treatment because they think they couldn't afford it.
I have no problems with a blanket tax on that basis alone. It's not as simple as giving people the option to opt out - by doing so they impose a cost on the rest of society even if they never get in an accident or take their symptoms to a doctor. Being a member of society has always been a quid pro quo, and I can't see why healthcare should be excluded from that bargain.
I think in both cases, the driving force behind it is compassion to other human beings. Needless suffering is truly an awful thing. As I found out in Dying Well, which is an amazing book, is that sometimes extreme pain is so severe it can't even be treated properly. In some cases, medically-assisted suicide might be the best way for a very sick individual to take control of their own destiny.
In the case of mandating healthcare, it's not that I think people should have the choice of whether or not to participate in the system, it's just that the rest of us can't go on just letting our fellow citizens die when they get severely injured. It's just unthinkable.
So you're saying that because you, as an emotional person, cannot let me die, you are going to force me to spend my personal income on something I don't want? That sounds very totalitarian.
Also, I think this debate is a rabbit hole since it is a complete strawman. I would argue that, given the correct subsidies by the government and proper knowledge about health care, almost every person in the world would choose to buy a health plan of some sort. If you don't agree with that, you must have a strange view about how the vast majority of people make decisions.
> I would argue that, given the correct subsidies by the government and proper knowledge about health care, almost every person in the world would choose to buy a health plan of some sort.
I certainly agree with that, and the thing that is going to help us get to a system like that is a mandated system. Do you also think social security should be optional and when people get old and can't work they are SOL and left to rot?
People see universal health care as a single thing, unfortunately. Having experienced it first hand, I can say, when it works, it's fine. But when you really need it, it has the tendency to fall through, and you suffer for it. And suffer bad. Essentially, it creates a false sense of security.
We all have to keep our priorities straight. Most likely, you already pay a monthly fee that's being used to fight wars you most probably don't agree should be fought.
Wouldn't you much rather see that money being used to keep you sure that some medical condition won't drive you and your family into financial ruin? That it doesn't matter what kind of weird disease you may get, you'll get proper treatment?
First, the referenced article is about a very good thing. But we'll talk politics instead since you want to discuss politics instead.
I agree with universal healthcare. I do not agree with using it to maintain a corrupt, inefficient and ineffective system that serves to enrich an elite class of insurance and banking executives and shareholders and a dishonest and sociopathic pharmaceutical industry that peddles useless-to-dangerous poisons and promotes them with fraudulent studies.
Those who support the further enrichment of the corrupt predatory medical system in the US in any way shape or form whatsoever are a big part of the problem.
1.Doctors are required to get an undergraduate degree, any undergrad degree before attending medical school.
2.Health insurance is paid for with pre-tax money but money a consumer spends directly is paid for with post-tax money.
Change these two things, elimnate the tax break for health insurance and allow people to attend medical school straight out of high school, and the cost of health care should drop quickly.
Universal healthcare isn't a single thing though. It's easy to say we need universal healthcare, but much more difficult to define. Take Canada's version of universal healthcare. A version which caused me to leave Canada after 10 years and move back to the US[1]. In this case, the boy would most likely be forced to wait. Private care would be available, but at a much higher cost (this on top of the taxes that would need to be paid to cover the public option).
So while universal healthcare might sound great, in practice, it's not so easy.
1. Specifically, the Quebec arm, who I despise with all the hate a father who basically watched his son get abused for more than a year by a corrupt and horrid system as well as the people that make up that system. No care is better than the "care" he received.
A different perspective: my dad was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer in 2006. Even though his prognosis was very bad, he got top notch care, got MRI/PET/CAT scans whenever they were needed, got put into an experimental chemo program, and generally received fantastic care. Although it wasn't enough, and from a financial POV was probably a Poor investment, I cannot in any way fault the care he received. There are certainly problems with the Canadian system, but every experience I've had with it (even and perhaps even especially the unsuccessful ones) has been fantastic.
But that's luck. Getting amazing care like that is a matter of circumstance in Canada. By luck I don't mean, "it's usually bad, but you got lucky", I simply mean that it all depends on where you live, what doctors happen to be kicking around, what facilities are present and if you manage to talk to the right person with the right pull at the right time.
Good health care is a scarce resource. The US has decided that it will ration it based on who can pay, Canada based on a queue. Both methods have disadvantages.
> In this case, the boy would most likely be forced to wait.
Unlikely: the reason for wait time in UHC systems is prioritization based on needs (rather than money). This child would likely be labelled as high needs (highly depressed immune system and "easy" treatment) and be at the front of the queue.
Bullshit. This is ignorance talking. In practice, it's based on legislation and man power. Even if the law mandates a time frame, it can still be ignored. This is exactly what happens in Canada.
Of course it's based on manpower, prioritization can only happen based on available resources, if there are no resources prioritization can not do anything. And it couldn't do any more if the prioritization scheme was different.
> UHC systems is prioritization based on needs (rather than money)
You seem to be confused. The reality is based on manpower, but you seem to think that manpower is the same regardless of the system used. That isn't true. Manpower is defined by funding, pure and simple. Lack of funding? Lack of manpower. This is the current problem in Canada.
So, you can prioritize treatment, but it's meaningless if you don't backup that treatment with proper funding.
Essentially, you want prioritization based on needs and manpower, but you don't discuss funding in anyway. You also ignore who sets prioritization.
Now, collecting funding is relatively easy to discuss: taxes. Of course, the flip side is paying. The government can put requirements on the cost for various services. But unless you are suggesting all doctors must accept government insurance, this doesn't affect private costs. Those costs will go up. Essentially, if you want more money, go private (again, same thing you see in Canada). This pulls workers from the public sector, and swamps the system. That's when you get 3 years waits for services, sub-standard workers, etc.
By ignoring who sets prioritization, you also skip past a sticking point. Who controls that? Government or doctors? Well, regardless of who you'd want, it's the government. After all, they are defining what they will pay for, and the costs. Even if the doctors say one thing, say something is needed, the government doesn't fund it? So sad, too bad. Your paying for something that isn't covered. And don't think for a minute it will make sense, either, what they cover. I'm not talking about rare diseases or conditions.
No. It's easy to suggest how you think things should be done, and make simple remarks like "Just base it on need." It's akin to me saying "Don't get sick." or "Save money for your health care." It's like if I say to a poor person "Get a better job."
As others have pointed out, the money was used for relocation and support while not working:
> Lucas and his family have to relocate to be close to his doctors at Duke University for six months. His parents decided they would both quit their jobs to care for the boy and his baby brother. After meeting with financial planners, the family decided they would need to raise $50,000 to support themselves
Even in the UK, with an extensive and complex set of welfare benefits, people would not be supported fully by the state if they just left their jobs to care for an ill child. (I have no idea what benefits would be available, the system is pretty much incomprehensible.) So Redditors did something really good, that have made this child's recovery a lot nicer.
But, for people who want to talk about politics: How can the US government spend so much on healthcare and have such a lousy system?
Why is this "not the time to debate the healthcare issues?" I could see that being a fair point if someone had died, out of respect. But in this case I seriously do not see why it's just assumed that talking about healthcare in the U.S. is not fair game for this thread?
Because the story wasn't about the US health-care system.
It was about a family that decided to relocate to be closer to their son's doctors at Duke. They also decided to stop working during their son's treatment to better take care of him. To do this, they needed financial help and the Reddit community stepped up to help cover the bills.
These were all tough (and valid) choices for the family, but doesn't have much to do with the state of the US heath-care system. Their choices were all outside the heath-care system, it was about caring for their family during a hard time. Their son was denied treatment, in fact, insurance wasn't even mentioned in the original story.
By starting to talk about the need for universal health care, the entire conversation changes away from what was a simple story about the power of social media to help people. Instead the thread devolves to a pro-universal health-care versus libertarianism debate. Unfortunately, this is the way HN has started running on the weekends. All we end up with are the same arguments: libertarianism is awesome, Apple sucks, Android sucks, Google sucks, religion sucks, HN has degraded :), etc... it is a little tiring.
So while, it may be a good time to discuss the state of heath-care in the US, this story isn't the place. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed.
> It was about a family that decided to relocate to be closer to their son's doctors at Duke.
It was not exactly a decision, leaving a 3 years old child for 6 months in a medical environment tends to be a rather hurtful option for everybody.
> They also decided to stop working during their son's treatment to better take care of him.
Outside the US, there are UHC countries with (paid) caretaker leave, or allowing parents to use (paid) sick leaves to take care of young children if needs arises. In Sweden, they could have taken up to 364 days at 80% salary (and a further 550 days at 75% salary). And even without that, this would generally be protected circumstances: the employer would not be allowed to fire the employee for taking unpaid leave to take care of his/her child, not without taking significant (monetary) risks.
> By starting to talk about the need for universal health care, the entire conversation changes away from what was a simple story about the power of social media to help people.
I'd expect that people in here try to get to the root of the problem instead of praising band-aids. Praising band-aids is good, but insufficient: band-aids are a short-term solution to potentially systemic problems.
I disagree. The family would not have had to stop working during their son's treatment in any country with universal health care. The US family medical leave act is ridiculous in that it only allows up to 12 weeks in a calendar year of leave before the employer is entitled to terminate you. In any other first world country with universal health care, the right to take an extended leave of absence to care for a sick or dying child is protected by law.
Other countries have looked at the economic consequences of forcing a productive citizen to quit their job to care for a dying relative and have determined that it is both less costly than paying for professional in home nursing and less costly from a societal standpoint in that the family does not need to collect welfare assistance because they lost their job.
This reminded me of the people in egypt (i think it was, or somewhere near) that named their baby facebook cuz he was born during the arab spring. The reddit story is more poignant to me, maybe cuz the only other mainstream media coverage of reddit was that whole jailbait debacle. Nice to see the site redeem itself..maybe redditors really do get the whole karma concept after all
Sometimes I wish there was a technology solution for everything.