How did Herman Cain get stage IV cancer?

Both are BS and made up unsuported arguments.

 

Just the words you use. "money forcibly taken

Again you hoped you or anyone that wanted to give money to you could pay the bills. Thats not the way modern western countries work. Peoples lives shouldnt depend on the charity of others.

neither does the vast mayority of more state run medicine in the world.

Copy paste from some "wat to say" manual?

This makes absolutly NO sense.

Grovel? You mean go to the docter you want and get the treatment without having to go to everyone including youyr employer hoping to get enough money to pay from treatment?

Again there are plenty of system that do work, its not because you dont know they excist that they arent real. It never fails to crack me up to see people think they know everything.

You dont have any clue what you are talking about, and the worst part is, you dont even want to educate yourself. ignorance is bliss applies to you 100%

 

Where do you get this nonsense?! Let me be clear, colon cancer is a slow growing cancer.

Here is what Johns Hopkins says...

Now I realize its only Johns Hopkins but we don't all have access to the brilliant knowledge that only your friend seems to have access to.

Let me be clear on another point. There is no correlation between duration of symptoms and colon cancer stage.


Are Republican *********s allergic to books? All this information is freely available on the internet. Quit being Hermain Cain/Michelle Bachmann drones and start reading books! This full scale assault on science has to end.

Judging by your post I can see you are yet another right winger that has no idea why we do screening programs. Please READ!

 

Why anyone should care unless they think that they have some entitlement or right to not be affected by what goes on in the world.

 

This thread is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded, even for the OP's standards.

Why does anyone get cancer? It just happens. The healthiest vegan marathon runners can get it. Lance Armstrong got it. There isn't always a reason for it.

Trying to blame it on his blackness, or his diet, is ridiculous. Using cancer to score cheap political points is extremely low. Even for a liberal.

 

Uh no, they don't say that. You aren't even giving a careful reading to your own article. They study they cite doesn't make that claim either. It does claim that colorectal screening can, at low cost, reduce mortality. That is not the same thing as reducing the overall cost of healthcare in the population. More screenings done more frequently costs money and the incidence of colon cancer isn't that great that such screenings are all that cost effective. I posted the study on the cost effectiveness of colorectal screenings and the results were quite clear, beyond one every 5 years for male patients the cost begins to outweigh the cost of treatment that is saved by early prevention.

 

Do you think people should be able to buy insurance that indemnifies them in the case of a bad accident or extreme illness and, if so, why do you think it is that they cannot now do so and is it the fault of the market or government?

 

Of course there are always people that are extreme cases on each end. Sometimes the healthiest people get cancer and the chain smoking alcoholic doesn't. But for the majority of the population a healthy lifestyle (which most Americans don't live by) is the best defense against diseases like cancer. For example look at countries like japan who have the lowest rates of cancer and obesity in the world. While I do not support government intervention in health care I do believe a lot more emphasis needs to be put on preventative care.

 

Beyond one of what exactly? That's a pretty vague statement.

 

Good post archizy!

You are seeing the idiocracy that we are having to educate on this forum. Whether your politics are to the right or the left at a minimum you have to get the facts before you start battling back and forth. I want to debate health policy. I do not want to debate basic scientific facts that everyone graduating from high school should already know.

 

The only idiocracy is that of those who would hand their healthcare over to the government, the same government that can't even keep secrets safe or stop illegal aliens from coming into our borders.

 

As opposed to screening every 2 to 3 years.

 

There's preventative medicine, which includes early screening, vaccination, and medications. Then there's the issue of reducing risk including from obesity, activities, smoking, drug use and lack of exercise. The latter is just a matter of healthcare priorities. The latter is a matter of morality. To call it simply the realm of science is incorrect. You are getting into matters of morality and social engineering. There's good reason to resist the push for forcing authoritarian progressive morals like yours through the police powers of the state and it has nothing to do with science nor is there anything scientific about political force being used to reduce things you deem as "bad". Science is not a system of moral judgment as you attempt to make it.

 

Screening? What type of screening modality are you referring to in these posts exactly. You're being vague for some reason. I wonder why.

 

Who said anything about forcing people to do what I view as right? I'm for legalization of drugs and a person's free choice to do what they want with their own body. And how is early screening and medication considered preventative? Those are for finding and treating diseases people already have. Imagine if our society prevented diseases as opposed to treating them after the fact. This is one issue the free market won't really fix though because how will huge pharma companies make money if everyone is healthy? It will only change when people see the importance of healthy lifestyles and how it can drastically lower medical costs for everybody.

 

No, I'm not. You are just attempting to deflect.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/284/15/1954.short




Preventative medicine for colorectal cancer does not save overall healthcare dollars as you asserted in your OP. Your assertions in the OP are unsupported and as yet you have not provided any evidence to support them. The fact is, you were flat out wrong to declare preventative medicine to be a cure for rising healthcare costs. In order to have every man above the age of 40 screened every 2-3 years for precancerous colorectal conditions, the cost would exceed that of treating men who contract that cancer.

 

They are considered preventative because they prevent the progress of diseases which are frequently debilitating and/or fatal in later stages.

How would society "prevent diseases"?

Big Pharma isn't going to go away with socialized medicine. This isn't a problem of a "free market" because there is no free market in drugs.

If we had a free market in drugs or healthcare, how would Big Pharma prevent progress toward preventative measures? I'd really like see you try to explain that one.

 

And I very simply asked you what kind of screening modality are you referring to in your posts and you still have not answered this very basic question. I wonder why?

 

As someone who is no fan of Herman Cain let me tell you for a fact that what he said about finding out he had Stage IV colon cancer is totally possible. I know because that is exactly how it happened to me. 20 months after a colonoscopy that was completly clear, I found out I had Stage IV colon cancer. I had 2 tumors removed. It can happen.