"Mr. Sanborn acknowledged that keeping the secret could be a strain: His computer has been hacked repeatedly over the years, he said, and obsessive fans of the work have threatened him. “I sleep with a shotgun,” he said."
There was a Standford professor that was wondering why he had void of cancer patients around 63 and 64. Turns out people wait to get on Medicare for treatment because they cannot afford it with their standard health insurance.
USA would save money in the long run with Universal health care. Since people in the US wait until it gets bad before seeking treatment. This means fights cancer at stage 3 and 4 instead of 1 and 2. Latter the stage the more it costs and less likely for success.
This is one reason foreign doctors come to the US to study and train. Modern countries with Universal Health Care treat at stage 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 being rare ... except for the USA. Need to study advance cancer and aggressive, this USA is a great place.
> This is one reason foreign doctors come to the US to study and train. Modern countries with Universal Health Care treat at stage 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 being rare ... except for the USA. Need to study advance cancer and aggressive, this USA is a great place.
Is there any data supporting this?
Cancer survival rates by country seems to go against your narrative.
US has better survival rates for lung, breast, prostate cancer than most of the world. Look at the above link.
I have relatives who are doctors from outside the country, now in the US. None of them fall under your narrative.
Logically, the data disagrees with your narrative.
The reason why they came to the US is: 1) access to best research/tech; and 2) (of course) more money, and 3) most of the Western developed world is highly restrictive when it comes to immigration for doctors compared with US
This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, and hashing this out would tilt a story about Kryptos sharply towards a story on health policy. He's 79, he's very covered by Medicare.
Where is the rule that comments must stay on topic and avoid diversion? It was a more interesting and informative comment than yours that you've restated here (particularly given that being "very covered by Medicare" does not even counter what you originally replied to, as it will not cover all or perhaps even most costs)
I found their aside relevant to my interests as a fellow HN reader. The guidelines also advise against fulminating; you made your point, and I think it’s fair that theirs also stands.
I am happy that you are concerned with the guidelines, and I don’t want to protest too much. I appreciate your contributions to HN more than my own most days, and I do hope I don’t rustle your feathers.
> That's fine
seems to conflict with your concerns about the upthread conversation being derailed to a certain reading:
> This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, and hashing this out would tilt a story about Kryptos sharply towards a story on health policy.
As the auction proceeds would ostensibly fund healthcare costs, it seems on topic to muse about the costs being covered by Medicare, or not. If they would be covered by Medicare, the claims of healthcare costs not being met are all the more interesting and discussion-worthy.
You are drawing a conclusion that was not proven by your comment.
OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates.
Both of you could be correct: OP could be correct that many income-constrained folks delay treatment until they age into qualifying for Medicare, and you could be correct that on the whole, folks in the USA have better cancer treatment outcomes.
If you reread OP, they were speaking to there being more advanced cases of later stage cancers in the US, which you didn’t really speak to or refute, so to my reading, you are jumping to conclusions when you say that their aside is false per se.
> OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates.
Yes, and you can make a straightforward logical deduction from survival rates to delaying diagnosis which I left out, but detail it below:
1. From Data: Assume equal or worse cancer rates in the US and similar levels of cures across US and Europe (cancer rates are indeed worse in the US and Europe does have good cancer treatment on par with US)
2. OP claimed: People delay diagnosis in the US
2a. From data/science: Delayed diagnosis => Higher death rate
3. Deduction from 1 and 2, and 2a.: Higher death rate in the US
4. Data: Lower death rate in the US
5. Contradiction: 3 and 4
6. Reductio: We have a contradiction. We have to negate one of our assumptions or more. We can't throw away data, so we can only throw away OP's claim (2).
I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that.
Did you copy and paste the numbered list from somewhere else? That isn’t how folks on HN typically format things here, and it seems reminiscent of AI output, which is not allowed under the HN guidelines.
> I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that.
We aren’t talking about population-level statistics in this thread, but rather a specific named individual meeting their personal healthcare costs, so your point is off-topic, not OP’s.
Dang has told me more than once to let the mods do the moderating and to not hash it out amongst ourselves, as it steps on their toes and makes any enforcement by mods seem selective. Email and/or flag, and move along.
I don’t work here, and neither do you, so let’s both agree to disagree on it being on-topic or not, as it’s not my place to speak for dang or the other mods, and it’s not yours either, for that matter.
I appreciate you saying so; dang also replied to my email to that effect. Hopefully the other folks get the memo, though I understand that you can’t reply to them directly, as their comment is [flagged] and [dead].
For my own sake, I apologize to everyone, and to you directly, tptacek, for the way this thread took a weird turn; it was illuminating in its own way.
> Did you copy and paste the numbered list from somewhere else? That isn’t how folks on HN typically format things here, and it seems reminiscent of AI output, which is not allowed under the HN guidelines.
No. I really wish you would have bravely responded to the points rather than accuse me. Do the guidelines encourage or discourage good faith arguments?
That "numbered list" is called a proof or argument. My PhD was in mathematical logic (see my user name).
An AI accusation on top of misrepresenting that the original point OP made was about population-level patterns.
> This is one reason foreign doctors come to the US to study and train. Modern countries with Universal Health Care treat at stage 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 being rare ... except for the USA. Need to study advance cancer and aggressive, this USA is a great place.
I don't think it is productive for us to continue this conversation. It is really sad that minor formatting and rudimentary logic is all it takes for some people to suspect AI usage.
Response to:
> If you reread what I wrote, I didn’t say you were AI or not using it, merely bringing to your and the other readers’ attention that your formatting wasn’t the norm for many folks who post on this site, whereas it is the norm for many AI-generated outputs.
Ah, the classic. "Did you beat your wife? I didn't make accusations! I am just questions!"
> An AI accusation on top of not grasping that the point OP made was about population-level patterns.
If you reread what I wrote, I didn’t say you were AI or using it, or not, but merely bringing to your and the other readers’ attention that your formatting wasn’t the norm for many folks who post on this site, whereas it is the norm for many AI-generated outputs.
That the conclusion you draw is one of being a victim of a false accusation, when none was laid at your feet? “A guilty conscience needs no accuser,” so they say.
> I don't think it is productive for me to continue this conversation.
On this point, I am full agreement. Apologies if I have upset you or wasted your time. I found your points well-reasoned but a diversion to what was supposedly already beside the point, so I will only say that two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts do. All roads lead to Rome, and we got there together in the end.
“Avoid generic tangents” is up to interpretation. Incidentally, so is “don’t be curmudgeonly”
Also Medicare does not cover long-term care, so if someone gets sick and develops the need for it, they’re paying out of pocket. It is a possibility that a lot of people plan for financially, which is reasonably in the realm of relevance here.
What’s not really relevant here are your personal opinions on what medical costs are or are not generally worth planning for financially.
> He has said he intends to use the proceeds to help manage medical expenses for possible health crises, and to fund programs for people with disabilities.
Medicare probably doesn't cover all of his expenses, and certainly doesn't address the second part of his intended use for the money.
It's also the quality and availability of care. I have a friend on Medicaid and finding a hospital that will accept his plan, and can give him an appointment in any kind of reasonable timeframe is exceptionally difficult.
I should've been more clear, sorry. By "expected costs", I mean speculative costs. Medicare probably is not sufficient if this particular person has such worries, no? Either he's irrationally paranoid or Medicare isn't as comprehensive as it should be.
