Cancer Patients Need Obama

I am a Cancer Patient and was in the process of losing my insurance because the insurance companies only allowed expenses not to exceed 1 million. Thanks to the Insurance Reform I was able to keep my insurance. So if we lose President Obama ? Do we run the risk of losing our insurance. I will be voting for President Obama !!! Thank You Mr. President Obama !!!!!!!!!

Report post

23 replies. Join the discussion

I am thankful for the changes in healthcare and agree that we need more. We also need to be active in protecting the Affordable Healthcare Act because there are those who wish to dismantle it.

Report post

did you know in the 400 pages of the healthcare act--it states anyone 76 or older cannot get chemo or radiation-i call that euthanasia, why do you think all the people from canada and england come her to the us for cancer treatment--they cant get an appt with a specialist for months in their country.

Report post

April24 is right. Guess we all need to start lying about our ages. When you get to be 76......poof! Think ahead. You
may not like all the provisions so much.

Report post

It is good to know all about the issues that we all face together. I am just fearful that we could lose our insurance and I dont have the means to pay for all the medical bills. As it is I am still paying MD Anderson and I dont even see a way out yet. They dont tell you the cost of a Stem Cell Transplant or that you could need more treatment than what they first told you. I know we are all together in this issue and all we can do is fight together. God Bless All

Report post

Could someone please provide the page number and the exact quotation that states that people over 76 can't receive chemo or radiation? It is very important that we know the CONTEXT in which this statement was made.

Thank you.

Report post

No one will be able to tell you what page it's on or what the context is because there is absolutely nothing of the sort in the bill. It's just another lie, like the "death panels", used to try and turn the public against what could be a decent start to reforming our broken healthcare system. It's no more true than the rumor about anyone over 70 not being covered for neurosurgery. Trying to make an issue out of something that is based on nothing more than lies and innuendo is ridiculous. Other than the fact that it is an out and out LIE, chemotherapy as a treatment is off the table for many patients over 76 to begin with. The doctor looks at the type of cancer, the overall health of the patient and how aggressive the cancer is. At 76 years of age, with a slow growing cancer, chances are, many patients will die of completely unrelated causes long before the cancer reaches terminal stage. There's also the quality of life issue that has to be considered. Aggressive cancer treatment is absolute hell in strong, young, otherwise healthy patients. If you're looking at a 76 year old with other age related health issues, the chance of the treatment causing premature death rises dramatically.

Even if a person wants to look at things from a purely financial standpoint, after all, there aren't unlimited funds to pay for healthcare, you have to think about what is most sensible. Should that finite amount of money be used to treat a 35 year old mother of 2 young with stage 3 TNS breast cancer that has a 70% chance of complete recovery or should that money be spent on an 80 year grandfather who has a 90% of dying from age related causes unrelated to the cancer if left untreated and only a 25% chance of surviving aggressive treatment?

Report post

section 1233 6:11 hr 3200

Report post

Some of your coments are way out there! Republicans get cancer and get old as well! We should all hope that someday politics will work for the people and not just those who are politicians! We had the best medical treatments in the world here before the new health care bill. Now what we had is in jeapordy because of this bill. Dr's and Med facilities are limiting what they provide because of the bill. Common Sense must prevail. Good health to all.

Report post

Section 1233 has absolutely nothing to do with cancer, chemotherapy, age restrictions or treatment of any type. That section covers Advance Care Planning Consultation coverage.

The exact text of section 1233 is :

(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

This is the same section the republicans tried to pass off as the "death panel" clause. It doesn't deny treatment for anyone for any reason. In layman's terms, it means that people diagnosed with a terminal illness will have the right to discuss their options with health care professionals to determine the best course of action for them. It's a necessary mental health service that has been previously excluded by most private insurance.

Report post

You're welcome bizezgrrrl. It really irritates me people just believe, hook, line and sinker, what they have heard from the media, be it FOX or MSNBC. It's even worse when those people repeat what they heard as "fact" when it's pure lie. Is the healthcare bill perfect, no. But it's better than what we had before.

People can talk all they want about rationing and death panels, but the fact of the matter is, we were already rationing healthcare. It was reserved for those that could afford it, regardless of whether or not it would actually help them. We already had death panels in the form of accountants for insurance companies and hospitals that sit around and decide if it's more cost effective to actually TREAT a poor patient or let them die and pay off the family later. Will people die waiting for care under the new system? Probably, but people are already dying waiting for treatments they can't afford.

A person's health and well-being isn't something that should EVER be a "for profit" business. You said your goal is to see your 9-year-old daughter through puberty. I have a daughter too, she's 15. At this point, I just want to be able to see her go to her prom. That's not the way it should be. We should be able to REALISTICALLY be thinking about things like college graduation, weddings and grandchildren. Under our for profit system, those things are just fantasies to far too many people.

Opponents try to make cost a factor to a universal healthcare system. Somehow, they don't seem to realize that prevention and early intervention is more cost effective in the long run. For what it costs for ONE person that has a massive heart attack to go through quadruple bypass and recovery, we could treat 1000 people with high blood pressure and early coronary disease and prevent many of them from ever getting to the point where aggressive treatment is even necessary. For what it costs to treat one 30 year old woman with stage lllb breast cancer, whose tumor wasn't found earlier because she was too "young" for routine screening, we could do earlier screenings and interventions for 500 women under 40 that are at risk. From a purely financial standpoint, waiting until people are late to end-stage to offer assistance makes absolutely no sense. From a HUMAN perspective, turning these people away until they are at death's door is deplorable.

Report post

You are good and I hope all of you are not thinking that I am into politics or even trying to influence someone to vote for Obama. My question is, will we still have coverage ? My husband passed away in 2005 from Multiple Myeloma only because we did not have insurance and he did not survive 2 yrs for Medicare like I did. It is not far and it scares me to lose my insurance. Ceara maybe you should run for President .

Report post

The healthcare bill does help protect those that currently have coverage. It prevents insurance companies from dropping people just because they have, or could, cost them too much. Losing Obama would almost certainly mean losing that protect. However, even if he is reelected, the bill is in serious danger. Our president actually has very little power on his own, just like our individual congresspersons have little power alone. There are problems with BOTH sides of the political spectrum, but when it comes to the health and well being of the average American, it's the Republicans that are putting them in the line of fire. Republicans in both the House and the Senate have come right out and admitted that they intend to oppose anything and everything proposed by Obama. They don't care what may be best for those actually affected, they're more interested in playing politics while people are dying and the general public seems to have no problem with this. Had the Democrats opposed everything presented by Bush immediately after 9/11, people would be outraged.

Don't get me wrong, 9/11 was a terrible day for our country, but terrorism is a minor threat compared to our lack of access to affordable healthcare. 3000 Americans died in the attacks, almost 4500 American soldiers have died in the "war on terror". Even if you include the 1000 9/11 first responders that have since died the death toll is 8500 over a period of a decade. At least 45,000 Americans die EVERY YEAR because they lack health insurance. That's 124 people EVERY SINGLE DAY, but no one seems to care unless it directly affects them. Maybe if things were more blatant, more people would be concerned. As far as I'm concerned, "uninsured" should be added as an official cause of death. Maybe then more people would get outraged and DEMAND action.

Report post

Ceara, you go girl!!!!!

Report post

I tend to get a little fired up about matters relating to health care in the US. I get red hot when it comes to people spreading lies that were created for the sole purpose of trying to destroy what little headway has been made to create a better system, even if the person doesn't realize the "information" they are repeating is completely and utterly untrue. People are dying because they can't afford the care they need yet politicians, and a large number citizens, want to do away with the little help that is available for those in need. It's just a basic fact, known to EVERY industrialized nation except the US, that for profit health care is detrimental to the well being of the general public. I don't know why it is taking so long for Americans to come to the same conclusion.

Report post

Let's see. If we don't want "for profit" health care......what other industries would you make "Non-profit"? Do you
really think that government control is "non-profit"? Check out the free choices in England, Canada....government
health care. I've watched them not be able to get certain drugs (approved here) because their government has not
approved them. Yes, they do mention that they are too expensive to approve.

Only if you pay no taxes, can you believe this health care package is "non-profit". Ask those who are treating you if
they will still be in business in 4 years....or are they planning on retiring. What in the world makes you think that if the
health care response is up to someone in the government that you will get better care.......dream on!
Soneone will be paying for it....it's not free.

Report post

Just checking the ages of those here in the discussion, it's easy to see we're all just protecting our own interests and those of others in our age group. I'm guessing those past retirement age are sitting pretty with Medicare and - if they can afford it - a Medicare supplement. I absolutely understand the concern about losing that sweet deal. (I also admit being jealous that I probably won't live long enough to enjoy that socialized system, despite paying into it for the past 25 years.)

Those of us under retirement age have our own set of fears that all center around being able to continue insurance coverage should we - or our partners - lose jobs in this awful, awful economy. Currently, the only family coverage options for those out of work are:
- COBRA (if your employer offers it) at $1200/month;
- Private pay for $1900/month;
- or going without insurance and paying out of pocket (chemo alone is typically what? $11,000/month?)

Medicaid isn't an option for those who have worked their whole lives and lived a comfortable middleclass life. Our assets are too large.

Given that very real scenario - can't we agree something needs to change? Shouldn't there be an affordable safety net for the middle class? Nobody wants a handout.

Would someone opposed to Obamacare provide a summary of a proposed workable option the Republicans present? I can't believe anyone is so obtuse to think the current system is just fine as it is.

Report post

I'm 38 and under the "old" system, I'm basically uninsurable. The recent changes and the coming changes make finding insurance a little easier, but it's still not a workable option for me, and many others. The biggest problem for me is the fact that I live in Texas. Rick Perry has made it clear that our state will be "opting out" of any and all types of health care reform. Medicaid isn't an option here for almost anyone between the ages of 18 - 65. Even if I lose everything and live in a cardboard box, I still wouldn't be eligible for Medicaid in this state. A person has to be totally and permanently disabled before they qualify. For those that are dealing with illness, as opposed to physical disability, we're on our own. Granted, once we the terminal point we may be able to qualify, but who would want to spend the last few weeks or months of their lives fighting government bureaucracy?

For those that say "what makes you think our government could do any better than what we have now", apparently they have forgotten that WE are the government. For profit systems aren't about health care, they are all about profit. All a person has to do is compare the executives at for profit systems with those at non-profit systems. The majority of the decision makers in non-profit systems are actual health care professionals with years of experience in hands on patient care. In the for profit systems, the executives are made up almost exclusively of people with backgrounds in accounting and finance. No sane person would ever go see a CPA for medical treatment, but that is exactly what we're doing in the current for profit system. It's common sense, you don't go to a doctor to get your taxes done, why would you go to an accountant when you're critically ill? Why is that such a difficult concept for so many, otherwise intelligent, people?

Millions of people have died as a direct result of having no access to insurance and/or affordable health care and millions will continue to die until WE demand better. For years I've thought about working on a project where hundreds or even thousands of people that are being directly affected by the issue are interviewed. We all hear the individual, in-depth stories. But those don't show the magnitude of the problem. Individuals go in front of congress all the time. Hearing from one person that is going to die because they can't put aside petty differences and do the job WE hired them to do is obviously too easy for them to ignore. My hope is, that if they have to look at thousands of these people at the same time, it might enough to ignite what little humanity they have. In order to actually make effective changes, we have to make the issue personal, even for those who have yet to be personally affected.

Almost everyone knows at least one person, friend, family member, co-worker, neighbor, who is affected by this issue, even if they don't realize it. We have to stop being "silent martyrs". I've known people that were dying, yet still spoke out against any kind of national health care system, not because they didn't feel there was a problem with the current system, but because they were afraid of how supporting a change would make them look to others. Somehow, the general public has been made to believe that those supporting a national system are freeloaders just looking for a handout, when in reality, they're just hard working, tax paying people that don't want to die simply because they can't afford the treatment.

No system is perfect. Txhouse mentioned the British and Canadian systems not approving certain drugs that are approved here because of the cost. That's not entirely true. There are certain drugs not approved for use in the public system due to cost. However, patients that can afford private care are free to pay for them out of their own pocket. That's basically the way it works here. the difference is, in their systems, patients still have access to other affective treatments regardless of ability to pay. For example, Erbitux, a chemotherapy used to treat colon cancer costs $17,000 a month (in the US). That option would be off the table for those using the public system. However, Avastin, which "only" costs $4400 a month (in the US) is an option that is EXTREMELY effective against colon cancer. Those using the public system may not have access to the absolute best treatments available, but ask ANYONE without insurance in the US if they would rather have access "second rate" treatment or no treatment at all. For most of those with no insurance, Avastin is still out of their financial reach.

Under a public system, the cost of the drugs could immediately be reduced by at least half by simply banning the marketing of prescription medication. Drug companies currently spend more on marketing than they do on R&D. Unfettered marketing of prescription drugs to the general public is banned in EVERY country except the US. Like the for profit health care systems, the pharmaceutical companies don't care about what is best for the patient, they care about what will make them the most money. That means they will do whatever is necessary to persuade the patient and the doctors to use their drug even if it isn't the best option for them.

Like I said before, I tend to get riled up about the issue, but it's late so I'll get off my soapbox for now and anxiously await for a response from someone that opposes a national system to show us a better option, but I won't be holding my breath.

Report post

I totally agree with you. We must protect the Affordable Care Act and do what we can to move toward the type of insurance other "civilized" nations have - national health plans that ensure that sick people either go broke or die because of health costs.

Report post

Wow, this is a heated and very informative debate. It is not surprising that people want what's best for them - but we must also remember that thinking about the well-being of others is equally important. Fear feels terrible to everyone, and it spreads. Until we can eliminate people's fears about being abandoned to lives of poverty, illness, and preventable early death, none of us will feel secure.
Nothing is more frightening than feeling alone and helpless. I'm sure we would not want anyone we know to feel that way. Eventually, anyone becomes everyone

Report post

Great discussion affirming our need to embrace healthcare reform (AKA Obamacare, for lack of any other option) as introduced in 2010/2011.

Still sincerely interested in constructive comments illustrating workable Republican alternatives.

Anyone?

Report post

This discussion is closed to replies. We close all discussions after 90 days.

If there's something you'd like to discuss, click below to start a new discussion.

Things you can do

Discussion topics

Community leaders