[noncoml]

That’s BS.

Yes, both rich and poor die of cancer.

But being rich or even just comfortable gives you a completely different experience during the end of life.

You can afford to quit your job and be with your friends and family.

You can afford to see that best doctors that will ensure you have as comfortable as possible end of life.

Your kids can afford to take a sabbatical to come spend time with you.

You can be sure that no matter what your kids will be financially secure.

You know that you got the absolute best care that you could.

The list goes on.

Cancer is horrible and everyone who loses someone hurts the same. But you absolutely cannot keep saying that being poor and rich doesn’t make a difference during the progress of this awful disease.

Only someone who has never been poor would ever say that.

[jart]

If you're poor you won't even officially have cancer, because no one will diagnose you, since then you'd be entitled to services. Someone who's actually been poor would understand this.

[p3rls]

Eh, I made 75k on my IRS forms last year and don't have health insurance. The poor people I know all have way better access to treatment through medicare/medicaid and various subsidies, and all use the medical system multiple times a year while I look up videos on YouTube (thanks susan!) to learn how to perform minor surgeries on myself

When my mother died of cancer (also in her 50s, still working as a public teacher in NYC so should have had great insurance for this) the hospital went after the estate with a million dollar bill. I couldn't even afford a lawyer to contest it at the time and ended up not inheriting anything except what I could take out of the house.

The only people with good outcomes are the rich who can afford it, and the poor who couldn't afford anything yet are still being treated because other tax payers are paying into this system.

[serf]

it's not just access to healthcare, it's time, convenience, effort, whatever.

an impoverished single-parent 4 member family will not have time to exploit whatever medical care options are made available to them. this time deficit is one of the more common characteristics that impoverished families have in common.

in a way it's similar to the healthcare problems that startup people see early in the business; 'no time for the doctor, I have meetings -- i'll live with the ulcer' , just from a different angle.

lack of opportunity for time management.

[somenameforme]

Lots (if not all?) of hospitals offer free care options for patients in poverty. I grew up poor and had a family member who was able to be diagnosed, for free, a university clinic that offered free care, and then was able to receive free care through a program offered at one of top 5 ranked cancer systems in the US. Although the premium quality wasn't even that big of a deal. The overwhelming majority of care can be provided pretty much anywhere. It's not like a premium hospital offers super chemo or super radiation. The treatment is what it is, and all the money in the world isn't going to significantly change your odds of survival relative to basic treatment provided at any clinic anywhere.

The US healthcare system is broken beyond belief, and I do think there is some degree of managerial sociopathy around profit (particularly in the pharmaceutical and insurance wings), but by and large there still remain options for people even if they may be arduous, and I do think that hospitals and doctors are still significantly motivated just to provide good care.

[armada651]

The problem is that, for patients in poverty, the chance that cancer will be detected early enough for treatment is much, much lower. Cancer is often detected during check-ups for vague symptoms that most people can't afford to go visit a doctor for. By the time the symptoms become alarming or even debilitating it is often already too late.

[yyyfb]

Two things can be true.

Money does buy comfort and care. Also, it does not make one immortal.

We can choose what we take away from events. I could choose to feel unlucky that I haven't made as much money as someone else, and I would be justified in it, because being rich absolutely makes a difference. I just choose to feel lucky to be alive instead, and I'm just as justified. You are free to choose your own perspective.

[noncoml]

“remember that only health and family matter”

Those were your exact words. But nice backpedal.

Edit: I don’t want to get into an argument but just beware that your original post rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I respect that’s the pain and sorrow of a loss are the same but please don’t dismiss the power and need of money. It makes a world of a difference in the process of dying. You don’t want to sound like someone living on an ivory tower.

[yyyfb]

Let me put it this way. I don't think you and I are fundamentally disagreeing: money matters, to the extent that it allows to buy statistically better health outcomes and quality time with family. I don't personally think it matters more than that.

[vsuperpower2021]

In general if you want people to take you seriously, don't make statements like "Two things can be true." It reeks of reddit condescension where they can't make a simple statement without implying the other party is stupid enough to think that only one thing can ever be true at once.

[sebzim4500]

For what it's worth, I thought his comment was fine whereas yours is insufferable.

[vsuperpower2021]

It's not worth much!

[mynameisvlad]

I mean, considering that people harped on about one specific thing being more true than the other, it certainly seems like people think that only one thing (being rich) can ever be true at once.

Stupidity is entirely your implication, but people generally like to see things in binary. It’s far easier than acknowledging that most things live on a spectrum.