Posted on 07/19/2022 6:00:09 AM PDT by zeestephen
Minimum of about 2 Million people, numerous hospitals would close as cancer treatment is the cash cow. Cancer is just Big Business and they don’t want a cure. Medical as a % of GDP would probably drop 5% which is what is needed.
It thrives on Sugar!
Not really if the cure was one simple pill and not a drawn out regimen of treatment.
Actually they don’t, a great deal of the research is done at Universities and Clinics that get the Government grants, they do all the initial research before it goes to Big Pharma.
And yes other countries do research also.
Not as far as you seem to think
Abusers turn institutions on the abusers.
Cancer Society for example ,if you check their finances you will find that they spend only $0.05 of every dollar on whatever it is they do, rest of the money is for fundraising, salaries and overhead.
Abusers turn institutions on the abused
Correct. Were it but an aspirin it would still be a billion dollar maker, but still.
Doubtful it would be one simple little pill with no diagnosis or follow up.
Yes it does. How many doctors have told their patients to stop eating sugar and carbs after diagnosing them with cancer?
But what if it were only that. No money for followups.
Well then, it would just be a billion dollar a year business like aspirin or tylenol I suppose.
Ironic that you chose that figure, because it exposes your ignorance. Ignorance is a choice.
According to some statistics, death rates per 100,000 only began dropping in the late 90s; according to other statistics, CASES keep climbing and the deaths remain steady. So there is some validity to your statement, but ONLY in the last 20 years and ONLY if you can afford treatment. There's much, much more to it.
Analyses of the differences in patient economic burden by cancer type found substantial variation in patient out-of-pocket costs, reflecting differences in treatment intensity and duration as well as survival. In 2019, national out-of-pocket costs were highest for breast ($3.14 billion), prostate ($2.26 billion), colorectal ($1.46 billion), and lung ($1.35 billion) cancers, reflecting the higher prevalence of these cancers.So, since cancer research dollars have increased approximately 1000% since the late 90s when the cancer rate began dropping, according to ACS and people like you we need only increase the rate of spending and the individual burden by a factor of 10 to see dramatic changes...“In the modern era of cancer research, we have to think about treatment costs and how they impact our patients. As exciting and promising as cancer research is, we are keenly aware of the issue of financial toxicity for these patients,” said Norman E. “Ned” Sharpless, M.D., director of NCI. “Therapies that are highly effective are no doubt good news, but if they are unaffordable it is not the total kind of progress we would like to see. Finding ways to ensure that not just some, but all, patients get access to therapies that are beneficial to them is an important goal we must continue to strive for in the cancer community. This report will help guide us toward achieving that goal.”
“The cost of having cancer is enormous and an extreme burden on people and families, particularly for those who are uninsured or underinsured. Prevention is key to lowering out-of-pocket costs,” said Karen Hacker, M.D., M.P.H, director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. “Unfortunately, we know that many of these same people also have lower cancer screening use and may end up paying more for their cancer care. Access to the right cancer screening tests at the right time is an important step toward health equity, and we must work to make this a reality.”
The authors say that, in addition to morbidity and mortality from cancer and cost of cancer treatment by insurance carriers, out-of-pocket and patient time costs are other metrics that highlight the immense economic burden of cancer—making it a public health priority. Estimates of patient out-of-pocket and time costs can inform discussions between providers and patients about expected costs of treatment, an important element of high-quality care.
...and for those who can't pay, too bad. /s
I mean, since they're doing so well on a 'cure'. /s/s
Thanks Jane...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.