The American Spectator : Cain, Cancer, and Obamacare

Text Size

Cain, Cancer, and Obamacare

By David Catron on 9.28.11 @ 6:09AM

Hermain Cain is right about how he would have fared under Obamacare.

During last Thursday’s GOP presidential debate, Herman Cain told the audience that he’d be dead if Obamacare had been in effect when he was diagnosed with colon and liver cancer in the spring of 2006. Cain has often made this statement on the campaign trail, so the moderator asked him to elaborate. Cain answered by pointing out that “from March 2006 all the way to the end of 2006, for that number of months, I was able to get the necessary CT scans, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy… go to get surgery, recuperate from surgery, get more chemotherapy in a span of nine months.” He went on to suggest that, under Obamacare and its bureaucratic red tape, his diagnosis and treatment would have unfolded far more slowly and that probably would have been fatal.

This provoked a predictable flood of fact-free derision from numerous progressive pundits. Steve Benen’s response was typically snide: “What Cain is peddling is little more than ‘death panel’ garbage without the literal phrase.” More surprising was the skepticism with which some critics of Obamacare responded. David Whelan at Forbes, for example, wrote that Cain was overstating his case: “ObamaCare’s main feature is throwing money into the current system. There’s very little change to how care is delivered.” This is particularly naïve coming from a writer whose bio says he has “a job in hospital finance.” A key feature of Obamacare is the Accountable Care Organization (ACO), and it will affect the delivery of care more profoundly than any development since Medicare introduced the Prospective Payment System (PPS).

For readers sensible enough to have avoided careers in health care finance, PPS is a price control scheme whereby Medicare began paying hospitals a fixed fee based on diagnosis rather than the patient’s length of stay or cost of treatment. Within a decade of its implementation during the early 1980s, a tectonic shift occurred in the way care was delivered. Because PPS applied only to patients who spent at least one night in the hospital, it created a powerful incentive to treat patients on an outpatient basis whenever possible. And, as any health care economist would have predicted, the number of outpatient surgery procedures skyrocketed. As the New York Times reported a decade after the introduction of PPS, “The shift… to outpatient surgery accelerated in the 1980’s, growing at a rate of more than 10 percent a year.”

ACOs will affect patient care in an equally dramatic fashion. However, instead of merely shifting the setting of care, they will slow down the speed at which it is delivered. How? As with the PPS system, it’s all about the incentives. The ostensible purpose of an ACO is to achieve high quality and efficient care by encouraging a group of hospitals, physicians, and other providers to work closely together on a particular population of patients. But, under the ACO rules proposed by Donald Berwick and his fellow bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “quality” and “efficiency” will be measured in terms of money. “If the ACO is not successful it… is at risk of having to pay money back to CMS, and its participating providers may find that their own Medicare reimbursement is subject to recoupment by CMS.”

Dr. Paul Hsieh, of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, recently phrased it thus: “Under the ACO system, patients basically become cost centers for hospitals and doctors.” In other words, a system purportedly designed to promote quality and efficiency actually creates disincentives that discourage physicians from pursuing those goals. As Hsieh goes on to ask, “If his patient has chest pain and needs to see a cardiologist, should the physician recommend the better but more-expensive expert across town — or steer him towards the cheaper but not-quite-as-good cardiologist in the same ACO?” Obviously, this puts the physician in an awkward ethical position. Obama’s HHS apparatchiks have fashioned a system that will sometimes force him to choose between his financial wellbeing and the health of the patient.

And if you’re thinking you can avoid the clinical dithering and ethical ambiguity that will inevitably result from the incentives HHS has built into their system, think again. Another distinctive feature of Obamacare’s ACO system is “blind assignment.” Unless someone imposes some sanity on the proposed rules, it is entirely possible that you could be retroactively assigned to an ACO without even knowing it. This means, in theory at least, that your doctor could be prescribing care according financial imperatives of his ACO rather than your best interests. Will he hesitate to send you to a pricey specialist or think twice before sending you to the hospital for an expensive diagnostic test, like an MRI or a CT scan? Will your doctor temporize if your symptoms are ambiguous, as they often are for patients with colon cancer?

If Herman Cain’s doctor had been beset by such concerns, and had succumbed to them, we would probably be referring to him as “the late CEO of Godfather’s Pizza.” The man’s chances of surviving his colon cancer were, according to his physician, about 30 percent. As to the tumors on his liver, which she didn’t know about until she saw the results of his CT scan, she broke it to him thus: “I’m not sure what I’m going to do about those until after I open you up.” So, despite the snide remarks of DNC shills in the blogosphere, the skepticism of media “fact-checkers,” and even the doubts of more serious critics of Obamacare, Cain was absolutely right when he said, “I’m here five years cancer free because I could do it on my timetable and not on a bureaucrat’s timetable.”

The good news is that the ACO rules proposed by Donald Berwick and his minions at CMS, like the bleak prognosis provided to Herman Cain in March of 2006, are not the final word. Obamacare has been metastasizing at a rapid pace, but it isn’t too late to stop the disease in its tracks. If the voters are willing to endure a harsh course of therapy that will often leave us nauseated, tired, and depressed, the cancer can be eradicated from the body politic. And it may well be that the specialist we need to call in is Herman Cain himself.

About the Author

David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (111) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Teaghan| 9.28.11 @ 7:30AM

I hope barry and michelle's kids don't ever get cancer, or need an over the counter inhaler, cause they will surely meet an untimely death, like that that has been prescribed to millions of American citizens.
Obamacare, coming to a physician near you.

VBMax| 9.28.11 @ 7:47AM

The elite ruling class doesn't live by the same rules as the rest of us. Their healthcare will be the best that money can buy. I don't worry about the Obama kids having to face anything like the rest of us will have to face.

PJ| 9.28.11 @ 9:59AM

Sorry for not reading your posting until after I posted mine!

PJ| 9.28.11 @ 9:55AM

Rich people & Obama's kids will always be able to get exceptional healthcare under Obamacare. It's called "greasing the palms" of the bureaucrat or traveling outside the country for a medical vacation.

DRed| 9.28.11 @ 10:02AM

You apparently have no idea what you're talking about. Obamacare doesn't set up some sort of exclusive government run healthcare that all Americans will be required to use. So Obama and any other wealthy people will of course have access to better health care than the rest of us. Just like they do now. What's the problem?

Occam's Tool| 9.28.11 @ 10:31AM

The problem, DRed, is in the incentives to gradually slide to an NHS that are built into the bill.

Unlike you, DRed, I HAVE been a senior consultant in an NHS system in New Zealand. I have seen surgery wards where the patient's families were forced to clean the bathrooms because they were too filthy to use. I have seen CT machines used until they were fit only "to be donated to a third world medical clinic or a veterinarian's office (Lakes DHB, Rotorua, New Zealand)." I DO know that the average wait time for an MRI is 1-6 months if you are not presenting with severe trauma. I DO know that Herceptin was rationed by New Zealand Pharmac to 11 weeks of treatent instead of the 52 weeks. I DO know that the length of time for "elective " back surgery was 2 years, and no private insurance would EVER cover a pre-existing condition. (My wife was an invalid for a year thanks to my overlooking this point---it took her two months from referral to surgery at Mayo, and she is pain free for 2 years, now)

In short, I DO know that you have no first hand experience as a patient or an MD under an NHS, or you would not be talking.

Please leave this to the grownups.

DRed| 9.28.11 @ 10:40AM

What incentives are those?

Boar Hunter| 9.28.11 @ 3:50PM

Occam,

My compliments to you for even attempting to sway DRed with such a polite and real world example of a national run health care system.

I personally wish I had the words to express my contempt for the willful idiocy expressed by DRed and those like him. The magnitude of ignorance required to disavow the consequences of Obama care is simply staggering.

This idiot ignores 90% of what you say and has the nerve to ask, "What incentives are those?" when explanations comprehensible to a third grader are readily available on the internet to anyone with the slightest interest in the truth.

After all, I'm sure giving more power to the government is, "just what the doctor ordered." It's not like they're ever going to regulate what we eat or drink or try to mandate any other activities we choose to engage in, right?

Im certain the helpful recommendations the government gives to the health care providers would have no impact on their financial viability and the government would never make any health care decisions affecting someones life based on monetary concerns.

If we would just allow our government a little more control over our lives they would create a health care panacea that would run like a finely tuned Swiss watch. Naturally, the wealthy would fund all of it, but unlike now, doctors salaries would be fairly determined so as to attract only the most qualified practitioners to the medical field.

Seriously, I could go on for pages, but what's the point? DRed and the other useful idiots of his ilk will continue to long for the day when fairness and justice is determined by their benevolent government.

Jack London| 9.28.11 @ 6:38PM

Fact is Occam, you'll keeping citing New Zealand - a country with a population of 4 million - until you've bored us all to death. What you ignore is the improvements they are undoubtedly making, but if you think they are about to set up the equivalent of Sloan-Kettering or MD Anderson for this population then you're deluded.

Occam's Tool| 9.29.11 @ 10:10PM

I'm sorry truth hurts. I simply point out that University of Auckland is ranked as equal to UCLA and also supposedly has one of the best medical schools in the world according to international rankings, and I KNOW they suck in many and various ways.

I also know that the system is closely modelled after the UK's NHS, and Berwick supports that model. I also know that most of their MDs practiced or trained in the UK NHS model. I also know that like your namesake, Jack, you are a blithering Leftwing nincompoop.

I'm sorry if you find actual facts and figures boring. You are a lightweight without training or experience in this.

Notary Sojac| 9.29.11 @ 12:50PM

I'm not sure I care nearly as much about what the patients and MD's think, as I do about the taxpayers.

And absent evidence to the contrary, I suggest that the Kiwi taxpayer is OK with the system as is.

Occam's Tool| 9.29.11 @ 10:07PM

Try reading the New Zealand Herald, a Liberal newspaper, and find out where you are wrong.

One day, Notary, barring an immediate fatal accident, YOU will be one of the patients.

Occam's Tool| 9.29.11 @ 10:13PM

And then, Notary, it will matter bucketloads to you.

By the way, Kiwis pay more in income taxes and sales tax thanks to their NHS (their defense costs are minimal) than we do---their highest tax bracket starts at NZD $60,000, and their nationwide sales tax is 12.5%, just to have their indigineous peoples have the highest lung cancer rates in the world because they don't cover smoking addiction properly. Oh, did I mention that NHS is discriminatory, as well?

Alan Brooks| 9.28.11 @ 8:47PM

If Cain or Romney-- or whomever (it looks as if Obama does have a titanic struggle as Axlerod said yesterday) wins, the outcome is predictable:
another dreary four or eight years of post-Reaganism. you are going through motions;
which makes sense.

It gives you a warm 'n' fuzzy feeling to think you will elect another Reagan, when you wont.

Alan Brooks| 9.28.11 @ 8:51PM

Most of you don't like biotech anyway. You secretly agree with conservative bioethicists.

You want progress but you don't want to change things, so you might end up with neither. IMO you are not pious, merely sentimental.

DRed| 9.28.11 @ 7:53AM

Since Herman Cain is relatively wealthy (one assumes) he wouldn't be using 'Obamacare' and his medical coverage would have been exactly the same. Nice try, though.

jothepro| 9.28.11 @ 8:26AM

Hey DRed, put your thinking cap on. There are many people who aren't well off. I believe he was making a point. Get it?

Ignats75| 9.28.11 @ 8:43AM

Gee. A rich guy who has the little guy's interests at heart? A foreign concept to you Red huh? Just another example of intellectual shortcomings on the left.

DRed| 9.28.11 @ 10:00AM

Actually, it seems more like a rich guy who is either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about. Cain has (again, I assume) private insurance. So his medical treatment would have been unchanged under 'Obamacare'. But maybe he was trying to say that if someone of more limited means had his cancer, their treatment would have been slowed by the government under 'Obamacare'. Setting aside the question of how that person would have had health insurance in the absence of 'Obamacare', there's nothing in the provisions of 'Obamacare' that would allow a government agency or employee to make decisions regarding an individuals course of treatmet, so Cain would still be wrong.

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 1:08PM

Hey Ignats, remember Crazy Cat?

JayDick| 9.28.11 @ 11:23AM

First, his comments were based on being covered by Obamacare. Second, as you state, Obamacare will result in two very different systems of care. There will be a small, efficient, high-quality system for rich people who can afford to pay cash for their care. And there will be a large, inefficient, low-quality system for everyone else who is covered by Obamacare. That doesn't sound to me like an improvement over what we have now.

Lesser Weevil| 9.28.11 @ 1:33PM

Even that sad outcome is way too optimistic. Yes, the wealthy and well-connected will have access to better care, but the stifling of innovation and the depressing effects on the medical community will drag the whole profession down.

ERNEST| 9.29.11 @ 8:58PM

Remember, what you have now; 30 to 50 million people with no insurance, you can be denied insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. Yes I know, you could care less about others.

Alan Brooks| 9.28.11 @ 9:35PM

Cain is a GOP token, he could change his name to Jim Crow and dance de dance.

Mam-mie!
Mam-mie!
I'm Alabamy- bound!

TrueBlue| 9.29.11 @ 3:28PM

And the Left calls the conservative crowd racist...

ERNEST| 9.29.11 @ 9:06PM

Yes they are! Republicans and the the tea party.

Mike Hawk| 9.28.11 @ 7:59AM

Obamacare, the only thing he has done that is truly shovel ready.

Pecos Pete| 9.28.11 @ 8:04AM

Repeal ObamaCare, repeal, repeal and repeal. Defund, defund and defund.

JayDick| 9.28.11 @ 11:24AM

Defunding is only temporary and is incomplete. It must be totally repealed, along with many other things Obama has done.

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.28.11 @ 8:24AM

Don't you just love when Life imitates Art?
It does, ya know.
We've all seen the Movies, where the MACHINES take over the World. Sometimes they ENSLAVE the Human Race. (as in The Matrix) Sometimes they seek to EXTERMINATE us. (The Terminator)
We watch them, and say to ourselves: "Can you imagine?"
We have Robots who can mimic how we move. With every new Generation, they resemble us, more. Aren't Japanese Men, actually DATING these Robots?
Now, include in this scenario, that we have "Geniuses" who are building Computers that actually THINK, like we do.
Can SENTIENCE be far behind?
We've seen other Futuristic Movies. Soylent Green, comes to mind. The Population is enormous. Earth's Natural Resources are depleted. The people RIOT in the streets, for Food. Their "BETTERS" feed them Nutritious Wafers, made from the Bodies of the DEAD.
I know what you're thinking.
These things will never happen.
Robots will never evolve and take over. Governments will never give us Food, made from Cadavers. Flying in Space Ships to Outer Space is just a Fantasy. It's Science Fiction.
Oh, wait. That last one USED TO BE a Fantasy. It USED TO BE Science Fiction.
One Movie, in particular, was Logan's Run.
In that story, like in Soylent Green, there was a Population Problem. So, in order to keep the Population at a manageable number, whenever a person reached a certain age, they had to Report to a Government Station, for Termination. An implanted Red Light, would flash, and the person would hand himself over to HIS BETTERS, and he would get a Pill.
I was reminded of that Movie, when Obama told a woman that her Mother, would be TOO OLD to receive any meaningful Medical Treatment, and that it might be BEST FOR EVERYONE, if she just got a Pain Pill.
Logan's Run? Impossible? Science Fiction? Never Gonna Happen?
How's that SPACE STATION doing, these days?

Dan Hirsch| 9.28.11 @ 9:36AM

I'm not so worried about smart robots...even if they can build a machine that can ape an ape's mental abilities, consider how far they would have yet to go... I don't see it as a problem for a long time.

DTOM

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.28.11 @ 9:41AM

Danny Boy. I'm talking about Robots that can think for themselves.
You have to do the Math.
Robots with the same Dexterity as us, only exponentially STRONGER + a Computer Brain that can think like us, only, exponentially FASTER = ?
Capische?

DRed| 9.28.11 @ 10:52AM

You've gone off the DEEP END.

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 1:32PM

But they can only think as much as they were programed to think, Tim.
They cannot think "for themselves".
I remember when Rush Limbaugh said that a few years back.
And it's sorta like zombies. People believe in them, but there's no such thing as walking dead.

Now, if Obama had some robots programmed to come after us or something, it would give new meaning to the term, Obama-bots, wouldn't it?
LOL.
That LOL was to signify I am joking, ok folks?

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.28.11 @ 2:44PM

If they can THINK FOR THEMSELVES. then they can go beyond their Programming.

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 2:59PM

But they cannot do that. They can only do what they're actually programmed by humans to do, Tim.

JayDick| 9.28.11 @ 3:38PM

Artificial intelligence, the holy grail of computing, would theoretically allow a computer to "learn" from its experiences and, in a sense, think for itself. That's a long way off, if it is ever achieved.

Over time, computer systems might be built that aid in the diagnosis and treatment of medical problems. For a long time, they would be useful only as an aid to doctors. I can see the possibility that eventually, they could take over these functions entirely.

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 3:41PM

There is no such thing as artificial intelligence.
Only God can give that, and He doesn't give it to robots.

Even the computers that will be able to diagnose medical treatments, if that comes about~ will only be able to do so because of the information input into their systems... by humans!

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.28.11 @ 6:04PM

Dear JayDick; THANK YOU.

VBMax| 9.28.11 @ 3:18PM

Anatomy of a human being: body, mind, spirit
Anatomy of a robot: body, mind, programmer

A robot without a programmer has no creative imagination....the human spirit on the other hand is blessed with plenty of it!

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 3:42PM

A robot without the programmer is like the pancakes without the syrup.
Or a "Day without the Sunshine!"
LOL!

Southern_Comment| 10.1.11 @ 10:40PM

He's referring to AI. For the general public you see it quite a bit in video games, but it definitely has it's uses in the back end. However, that does not negate the fact that Timothy L. Pennell needs to put down the smoking apparatus and go outside for a little while.

Dan Hirsch| 9.28.11 @ 1:51PM

TLP;

It's not dexterity, strength, volume of memory capacity, or number of calculations of per second that keeps the computer behind the monkey, and I do not intend to compare humans to monkeys.

In short Don Rumsfeld contributes to understanding the limitations of machines versus human reasoning; its ability to react to 'unknown knowns' and 'unknown unknowns.'

Look at it another way, human intellect is self-reflexive and can re-write itself. A machine will always run into the smallest bits it can process and not be able to dig inside that level of understanding.

Don't sell your brain short.

And, let's not forget, a lot of us are lucky enough to know that we were made in God's image and that He gave us eternal souls, which He did not give to monkeys or silicon chips cooked up by men.

If you are not so lucky to hold that belief, don't worry about it, we have you covered on this.

DTOM

PS.

Tim, maybe I need a hearing aid, but it sounds to me that you are pretty pessimistic.

You, as a human, can re-write how you view the world, you can change your view to one of optimism. Optimism is our best defense - why? It gives you a reason to try, to strive, to dream, to do, to continue.

Because its opposite, pessimism, stops us from moving, living, thriving, and winning.

Faith is inherently optimistic. It's not as late as you might think. DH

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.28.11 @ 2:47PM

Why are you people not getting this? There is NO LIMITATIONS to the Machines, if they can THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
And, that is what these people are enabling them to do.
Pay Attention: They are making computers that can THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

JayDick| 9.28.11 @ 3:40PM

Can you provide a reference? I used to read the computer trade press all the time as I was in that business, but I haven't kept up. The popular press is often not very accurate in the words they use to describe technical subjects they know little about.

DaveD| 9.28.11 @ 6:02PM

Timothy, fear not. Human beings will always have the ultimate control over their machine creations. We can always pull the plug.

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.28.11 @ 2:50PM

You don't need a hearing aid. You need to pay attention. The things I say are FACT. They come from the Computer Industry, itself.
There are none so blind, as those who WILL NOT SEE.

irish19| 9.28.11 @ 11:14PM

Linky, please. I'm not necessarily doubting, but this requires some proof.

VBMax| 9.28.11 @ 3:27PM

"Don't sell your brain short"
I'm selling mine short...it's only a piece of meat and has little to do with thinking. It does help to translate thought into action and to coordinate energy. Only the spirit is capable of actual thought.

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.28.11 @ 6:09PM

Don't you understand? The ROBOT thing, was just a prelude to the LOGAN'S RUN!
Did you read the ENTIRE COMMENT?
Do some RESEARCH. The Computer Sciences are TEACHING computers to THINK.
As I am attempting to do, with you people.
Obviously, I'm not doing a very good job.

Occam's Tool| 9.29.11 @ 10:31PM

No, sir. In Logan's Run, you would "renew" and get zapped. The final scene was shot in Fort Worth, Texas, at the famous Water Gardens.

Mike 3/505| 10.1.11 @ 9:41PM

Tim,

"Aren't Japanese Men, actually DATING these Robots?"

Do the robots make them take out the trash, listen to nagging or watch Lifetime TV? If not, where can I buy one?

Regards,

Mike

Ignats75| 9.28.11 @ 8:50AM

I am a kidney cancer survivor. Kidney cancer is rarely if ever found until it has metasticized to other areas (i.e liver, brain). I was lucky. I ruptured my kidney playing touch football. The doctor noticed a spot in the middle of my kidney in the CAT scan. He figured it was a bloodclot. Except it wouldn't go away. Until he took my kidney out, he didn't know for sure that it was cancer, but that as a 38 year old father of three with a pregnant wife, he didn't want to risk it. So my story is similar to Herman Cain's. Thank God Dr. Morse followed his instincts and not some flow chart for risk analysis.

Jack London| 9.28.11 @ 5:45PM

Are you saying that in Europe a doc would have seen the spot and deliberately ignored it? And you also saying that every doc in the US would have known what to do?

Occam's Tool| 9.29.11 @ 10:20PM

Imaging would not have been immediately available for a non-emergency situation as described above for several months as an outpatient. Further, the imaging would have been of poorer quality than the US, Jack. Yeah, that's precisely what I'm saying here.

Further, if the surgery was NOT deemed emergent, but merely elective, the wait time would be months under an NHS. For example, back surgery for excrutiating back pain such as my wife had was 2 years, becauuse it wasn't emergent. The pain was relieved within days by surgery, as my wife's EMG showed Nerve root damage. (No, I'm not going to explain an EMG to you, Jack. You wanna play with the big boys, keep up, microcephalic one.) Months for the cancer to metastasize.

I know this issue from top to bottom. I also work on the border of Canada now. Didn't you read Berwick about deliberate undersupply and bottlenecks? I'm seeing that in Canadian psychiatric treatment which I occasionally fix.

Ignats75| 9.28.11 @ 8:52AM

Oh yeah. That was in 1994. I would've never been around to see BHO and his minions attempting to turn the USA into another failed European country. Oh yeah. Kevin and Andrew would've never been born either.

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 1:24PM

I'm glad you are here to tell us your story. It is so important that each of us be in charge of our health care.. both in choosing a good Dr. like the one you had, and ALWAYS listening to our bodies when they are telling us something is wrong.

I have a good friend that has less than 6 mos. to live due to kidney Cancer that has spread. They had told her a few years ago that they caught it all, only to now find out that it has spread thruought her body.
Prayers for Aileen. please.

Nick| 9.28.11 @ 8:15PM

Margie,

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I will definitely keep Aileen in my prayers.
May God Bless her, and her family.
Yours in Christ, Nick

Margie| 9.29.11 @ 2:40PM

Nick,
Best pray for your own Salvation.
We are not brethren.

Nick| 9.29.11 @ 4:15PM

Margie,

I can, and will, pray for both.
You are still my sister in Christ and I still love you as such.
God Bless!

Occam's Tool| 9.29.11 @ 10:30PM

You betcha, Dear Margie.

And, Dear Margie, don't blast me for this, but Nick is a nice guy. Some people you can attract more with honey than vinegar. I am aware that assholes such as Jack in Wi. and Clint would try the patience of a Saint, but, speaking as a connoiseur of evangelical efforts, kindness would work better with gentlemen, such as you use with me.

Margie| 9.29.11 @ 10:42PM

O.T.,

When you finally come to Christ, you will understand.

Mimi| 9.29.11 @ 9:25AM

Ignats75...My husband had kidney cancer in both kidneys, the tumors the size of baseballs, malignant but capsulated. They were both removed...one had 1/3 kidneyat the bottom..it was saved " BENCH SURGERY" and placed in his groin as a transplant. He lived 18 years with 1/3 of a kidney and did quite well. We had 8 children the youngest 3 yrs old. He was known all over town as " the miracle man"
Diagnosed in June27....Diagnosed and operated on July 9th....Second kidney removed in early August...it was 1979
He died from 4/1997 from complications of a Renal Cancer tumor in the BRAIN.
The quick diagnosis does not happen anywhere today.
Ignats....God bless you ...and congratulations and stay healthy. I love to hear about survivors!

Moe Blotz| 9.28.11 @ 9:15AM

Find a good surgeon to carve the cancer from body politic. Is there a doctor in the Republican presidential candidate field?

Dan Hirsch| 9.28.11 @ 9:41AM

Not any who practice medicine.

Auto industry is screwed up, is there an auto mechanic in the race? No.

The monetary system is pretty much a shambles? Is there an economist in the race? Oh, let's see, Herman Cain worked his way up to the Chairmanship of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. Hmmm.

But then is the Chairmanship experience as helpful as being a practicing MD. Hmmm.

"Honk if your for Cain"

DTOM
DTOM

Occam's Tool| 9.28.11 @ 10:33AM

Not an active one. Personally, I prefer a guy who turns around companies and makes them profitable. Oh, and I'm a racist---I prefer my Presidents Black, with no mix of cream.

Dan Hirsch| 9.28.11 @ 1:52PM

Wanna "Honkies for Cain" bumper sticker?

I do.

Know where we can get 'em?

DTOM

JayDick| 9.28.11 @ 3:43PM

Sounds to me like a real business opportunity. I'd buy one.

Occam's Tool| 9.29.11 @ 10:20PM

So do I!

tadcf| 9.28.11 @ 9:31AM

With Cain's money, he could have afforded any kind of treatment, regardless of the health plan in effect at the time.

Occam's Tool| 9.28.11 @ 10:33AM

Yes---but you couldn't.

NYMPH| 9.28.11 @ 10:18AM

What we will end up with will be two healthcare systems under Obamacare. One system for the wealthy who can pay whatever is needed to receive the best care and one for the rest of us. The system for the rest of us will have healthcare professionals that get paid what ever the governments deems as sufficient, and the healthcare professionals for the wealthy will get paid what they are actually worth. Where do you think the "best" in the healthcare field will go?

Jack London| 9.28.11 @ 5:46PM

And what kind of system do we have now? Do you have the gold-plated insurance Cain has?

Harry the Horrible| 9.28.11 @ 10:52AM

I think we need a two tier Health Care system.

Tier 1: Everything is free, but you only get the most basic health care. You get to stand in long lines. If generics, or basic surgery won't fix it, you get lots of generic narcotic pain killers until you die.

Tier 2. You get what you or your insurance will pay for. No lines. Access to latest treatments and medications.

Medical care is not a right but that doesn't mean we can't help meet basic needs, if nothing else, for reasons of disease vector control.

George S| 9.28.11 @ 12:08PM

Why are those our only choices? How about a healthy dose of deregulation of the health care and insurance industry? When you are looking to purchase cosmetic surgery or laser correction eye surgery -- both 100% out of pocket, out of Medicare -- you are not limited to long lines of free or limitations imposed by insurance. You have many choices at many price points because there is competition among the sellers for your dollar.

Harry the Horrible| 9.28.11 @ 1:32PM

I'd like that. A free market in health care would go a long way towards driving health care costs down.

Jack London| 9.28.11 @ 5:48PM

Og George big yawn, the old cosmetic surgery idiocy. You'll have to put on a few more brain cells my friend.

Stefan Stackhouse| 9.28.11 @ 3:25PM

That is typical of what you see in 3rd world countries, at best. Since the US is well on the way to being a 3rd world nation (thanks to BHO & crew), that is to be expected.

Brian B| 9.28.11 @ 12:07PM

--Setting aside the question of how that person would have had health insurance in the absence of 'Obamacare', there's nothing in the provisions of 'Obamacare' that would allow a government agency or employee to make decisions regarding an individuals course of treatmet, so Cain would still be wrong.--

DRed seems a little confused, to be charitable.
Not only will the ACO dictate how resources are allocated, which in medicine means how or whether you are treated, but the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research has already been establish by the stimulus bill, one of the effects of which will be a significant shift in how end of life care and incurable diseases are treated.
Mr. Cain's cancer, as described, is Stage IV cancer which is also known as terminal or incurable cancer, although some cases of seeming cures do exist as do prolonged remissions. It is hard to imagine a cancer of this type not being treated much differently once those cost cutting and comparative effectiveness aspects of the above programs are in full flower.
Moreover DRed's first statement in the above quote seems to imply that absent Obamacare only the wealthy have health insurance which of course is utter nonsense.
And lastly he seems unaware that in many countries with state run healthcare the wealthy in fact are dissuaded from buying better private health care although they can usually travel to gain it, the place they travel to most commonly being, yep, the United States. Apparently we're to believe that is just coincidental.

Drunken Sailor| 9.28.11 @ 12:13PM

No fair sir! How dare you use facts and logic over ideology. Foul, Foul, I say!!

George S| 9.28.11 @ 12:14PM

I wouldn't quote anybody who cites a law unless I was sure he read the law in its entirety along with the thousands of rules written under the grab-all 'as the Secretary may determine' and the hundreds of references of amendments to other acts.

DRed| 9.28.11 @ 12:32PM

So we're talking about Medicare now, right? I admit, I am a little confused. Obviously, Mr. Cain's healthcare wasn't provided by Medicare. So I'm not sure how the ACOs are going to dictate the care he's allowed.

No, I'm not saying that only wealth people have health insurance. I'm not even sure how you thought I was implying that.

'Obamacare' is not state run health care. So I'm not sure how your anecdote is pertinent. Maybe I'm confused.

Dan Hirsch| 9.28.11 @ 2:06PM

DRed;

You are right, Obamacare is not single payer, state run health care.

What it is is an inescapable regulation that will in very short time make private health care insurance absolutely non-economic and unavailable. No one providing it will be able to make any profit under Obamacare; private health care insurance will be permanently 'out of stock.' No one will offer a product that costs them more to make than they are allowed charge for it, the price being set by the government.

Inevitably, private insurers will fail or exit the market, leaving only government- funded Medicare and Medicaid available.

Voila! Single payer becomes the law of the land without ever becoming the law of the land...you will have no one to complain to and no way out.

Sort of like legalizing abortion without ever troubling a single Democrat to vote in favor of it, using Roe v. Wade.

So your thought that Obamacare is not state run healthcare is correct, and completely in error. This is NOT an unintended consequence, it is their fervent desire and plan.

DTOM

DRed| 9.28.11 @ 2:48PM

Why are the private insurers going to fail under 'Obamacare'? Seriously-I understand the argument about the constitutionality of the requirement that everyone buy healthcare. But I fail to understand how that's going to bankrupt all private insurance. It's not like I'd have the option of going on Medicaid if my private insurer went out of business-I'd have to buy private insurance from someone else.

Dan Hirsch| 9.28.11 @ 3:15PM

DRed;

Because, amongst other things, they are not allowed to use more than 15% of their premiums to operate their businesses! In other words, they must spend no more than 15% of their revenues on their operations and profit.

All public companies compete for funding for their operations by selling their stock on the stock market. If you review the financials of any publicly traded company you will be struck (you should be, anyway.) that they all end up with about 8-10% profit.

If a company shows less profit, it will not be attractive to investors and will be starved for capital. It will die.

Again looking at most companies, you will see that their cost of goods, i.e. what they spend on making and delivering their products is usually 50-60% of their revenue. They spend somewhere around 30-40% on overhead, sales expenses, and other office expenses. Sure a health insurer does need not need a factory, but they do have a lot of costs, far in excess of the 5-7% that the regulations allow them.

Can't make a profit, can't get financing, can't pay debts? Voila! No more private health insurance companies.

Paging Dr. Sebelius, paging Dr. Sebelius...

DTOM

DRed| 9.28.11 @ 3:34PM

As I read the bill, it's 20% or 25%. But I could be wrong. This thing is a monster. (it's section 2178 in the bill, if you're interested) In any event, couldn't a future congress change or eliminate that if it turned out that all insurance companies started going out of business?

DKEN| 9.28.11 @ 3:25PM

Because no company can compete (maybe that is a foreign concept to you) with the Federal Government once they are providing the same type of service. The Government can come down hard on competitors with both feet if they so desire by, say, ordering the IRS to do a complete financial tax healthcare checkup. Look at Ford Motor Car Co. pulling their advertisment when it made the Government Motors Car Co. look like it was being financed by the Federal Gov. (it was). No one can compete with the 800# Gov. Gorilla with it's ability to throw inummerable paper obsticles in the way. It's time for a ballot box revolution!!

DRed| 9.28.11 @ 3:35PM

But the federal government can't compete with private insurers to provide my healthcare. I'm not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, so I have to have private insurance.

Jack London| 9.28.11 @ 5:59PM

Careful DRed - facts confuse these people. They get in the way of prejudice. Someone will be along in a minute to say: 'Get your thieving government hands off my Medicare'.

Occam's Tool| 9.29.11 @ 10:24PM

First there will be a disaster, caused by government, then there will be a government fix.

The concern with Medicare now is that fewer private practitioners will take new patients on it. Medicaid is usually ignored. Our population is aging, our doctor shortage willget worse. Price controls result in supply shortages. This is a painful conversation.

Occam's Tool| 9.29.11 @ 10:26PM

Painful because it's like talking to an idiot child who insists that 2+2=5, Jack.

(Why can't there be any nice Jacks on this website?)

JayDick| 9.28.11 @ 3:50PM

However, it is state controlled. The control is what's important, not whether the nurse is a government employee.

Obamacare will control the money, which means control over everything one way or the other.

DRed| 9.28.11 @ 7:00PM

How will Obamacare control the money if you're buying insurance from private companies?

Dan Hirsch| 9.29.11 @ 3:08AM

They are going to set coverage requirements, prices, payments to providers, who is eligible for what treatments, and who is NOT eligible.

And today Facebook came out and said that they track and save every url their subscribers go to, whether from Facebook's pages or not. Feeling safe, yet?

DTOM

JayDick| 9.29.11 @ 9:52AM

You nailed it. Thanks.

Dave| 9.28.11 @ 4:10PM

The solution is simple: Revolt. Toss out the government that has failed, get rid of all (or 99%) of the current politicians, instate statesmen who care and re-establish the republic we were given by the founders.

And don't be fooled by those who say pretty things in the hopes that you give them power.

Walking Horse| 9.28.11 @ 5:28PM

My wife took her treatment regimen into her own hands with my complete support. Leaving her care to bureaucrats and oncologists would have resulted in her almost certain death, because her situation didn't conform to the assumptions underlying the flowcharts in the standard of care for breast cancer.

She would have had none of the options she took available to her if ObamaCare had been fully instituted when she was diagnosed. If you value your personal autonomy, kindly note that ObamaCare renders you a subject of unelected health care bureaucrats who will inevitably replicate third-world standards of medical effectiveness in the U.S.

My dear spouse is still standing and is spreading the word that one must take full responsibility for one's own health care decisions.

betty withers| 9.28.11 @ 5:29PM

Apparently he told several lies. He apparently had colon cancer which spread to the liver, a totally different and less deadly disease than liver cancer. And he certainly did not speak accurately about his insurance options but that was probably ignorance. It really disgusted me because I had liver cancer surgery this year; no I never met or talked to a bureacrat. Having liver cancer is bad enough; Cain's trying to scare people is inexcusable.

Nite| 9.28.11 @ 10:06PM

You had better be afraid about Obamacare. The regulations for Medicaid/Medicare are being written by an unelected unconfirmed recess appointment Donald Berwick, who loves the British healthcare system. They have much higher cancer death rates than the US. The actual bill was bad enough, but the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations will be a nightmare. The elderly, disabled, very young, severely injured, or very ill should be very frightened about this nightmare being foisted on the american people by the Democrats.

David Thomas | 9.28.11 @ 5:37PM

Contrary to "blind assignment" consider this openness as excerpted from the above blog.

"If the importance of wealth warrants a truth-in-lending law, then surely, health warrants a truth-in-mending law.

If you are in a health plan receiving care from a doctor who has contracted with your plan, what feature of that contract should not be available to you? Those contracts definitely abridge the total dedication of the doctor to his patients. Your very existence in that “approved” doctor’s office is dependent on his having contracted with, and having accepted the features of, the plan. He has a continual awareness of the desires of the plan that conflicts with total allegiance to you when you are seeing him as a doctor on an approved list."

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.28.11 @ 5:40PM

WOW!
Governor Perry addresses his so- called fumbles in the debate.
This is a good guy, folks.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headlin...../id/412594

VBMax| 9.28.11 @ 9:17PM

Ken, I think if he'd said that SS was similar to a Ponzi scheme he'd have gotten a pass.

Nite| 9.28.11 @ 10:08PM

The object of the liberal moderators was to knock off Perry. It seemed like Bachmann and Santorum were running interference for Romney. I am a Perry supporter, but even if I wasn't, I would not choose a candidate based on those so called debates.

somnolence| 9.28.11 @ 5:50PM

Suppose you're 60 years old, don't have any income coming in(but you have savings in 6 figures) and have been healthy all your life? So if you have no income what then? Or does savings count as income? That will have to be cleared up.

POST American| 9.28.11 @ 10:30PM

----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------

--And speaking of cancer, its now becoming
common knowledge that the Rockefeller EUGENICS
crowd discovered cancer was,
in fact, a live virus ---back in the 1920's.

It was kept quiet so that virus could later
be used in a host of 'vaccines'.

Look around you at those in their 40's,
50's and beyond. People who never smoked,
lived clean, had families, live in the country.
----People who obediently got all their shots.

TAKE A GOOD LONG LOOK.

-----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012---------

Notary Sojac| 9.29.11 @ 12:57PM

What Americans appear to want is a system in which:

- they have access to a doctor's office for every sniffle and migraine.

- they have access to the latest advances in health care, every technological milestone is theirs for the asking.

- the health care system has sufficient excess capacity to ensure that no one ever has to wait for anything.

- at the end of their lives, ensure that no therapy, no device, no surgery which might keep the ICU monitor ticking for a few more hours goes unused.

- they pay no more than a few hundred dollars a month for all their health coverage.

The only way to give Americans what they want is to somehow hire a magic dwarf who can spin straw into gold. Or into pacemakers, cancer drugs, and hip implants.

Purpleguy| 9.29.11 @ 7:13PM

And, yet, anyone on Medicare loves Medicare which belies your opinion that Obamacares would be something less than we have today. Obamacares doesn't go as far as Medicare (a public option would have), but it does improve on today's Insurance company review and decision of their support of your care. A corporation out to make a profit is better than non-profit? I don't think so ...

Occam's Tool| 9.29.11 @ 10:25PM

They will love Medicare less as it starts to ration and as more providers refuse it or retire.

It will start to resemble Medicaid, which has painfully few providers.

Notary Sojac| 9.30.11 @ 11:01AM

No matter who sets the rules, there will be more and more rationing. Obama wants a government panel to do it - Ryan wants the insurance industry to do so.

Considering the aging of the population and the inherent labor intensiveness of healthcare, it's inevitable.

We will come to look upon the '70's and '80's as the Golden Age of American healthcare.

supra | 10.18.11 @ 1:35AM

very interesting post! i liked it! thansk for sharing this information with us! appreciate your efforts!