Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jamiea99

(16 posts)
5. The take-away is not helpful either
Fri May 17, 2013, 03:27 AM
May 2013
(The study's lead author, Dr. Scott Ramsey,) says cancer centers need to do a better job of assessing each patient’s financial status, offering credit counseling, and managing patient care.

The proposal then is that cancer centers should do more to turn away people without exhorbitant savings, encourage patients to sell their homes and empty retirement accounts, and deprive them of necessary care if they can't afford it? All to avoid bankruptcy? Because I can't figure another way to interpret the real-world outcomes of such suggestions (as summarized). You simply can't get blood from a stone no matter how many times you "counsel" it.

I would prefer the author be outraged about the cost of cancer care, the massive profiteering and exploitation of the seriously ill, and employers discriminating against patients and against survivors who've filed bankruptcy. Instead, reading the study, they are encouraging additional types of employer-linked insurance policies, even after noting patients are likely to lose their jobs after diagnosis.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why is our populace not u...»Reply #5