Genetic Marker For Aggressive Prostate Cancer 36
hairygenes writes "Northwestern University researchers have found a genetic marker associated with aggressive forms of prostate cancer. Previously characterized mutations in markers at 8q24 are associated with a broader population than previously reported and with much more aggressive tumors. deCODE genetics, who originally characterized these mutations, noted a 60% increase in risk of prostate cancer, but this study finds more concrete linkage to inheritance and disease severity."
That's dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The doctors and nurses are the ones who treat you. None of them would refuse to treat you because of a pre-existing condition, or because your being dumb is what got you there in the first place. I've yet to hear about anyone working in the ER turning away a stroke patient because it was some pre-existing condition, or someone with a cracked skull because, hey, they shouldn't have climbed on the house in the first place.
2. Then there are the guys who have to pay for that kind of treatment. I.e., the insurances. These aren't doctors, these are MBA and accountant types. For them it doesn't matter if you live or die, for them it matters if they make money. If it doesn't make more money than the interest at the bank/investment-fund/whatever, they're going to take their money and put it there. For them it's all down to statistics. If there's a 1% chance that you'll need a $40,000 operation in the next 40 years, they'll factor that in as an extra $10 per year on your insurance. Make that $11 or $12, because they want to make a profit too. If it's a 50% chance, they might not insure you at all.
It's completely different professions, lemming.
And more importantly, it's not like that everywhere. On most of continental europe, and IIRC Canada too, the state stepped in and created a fund for everyone. Basically everyone pays for everyone else. It's not perfect, but noone ever ends up denied medical care _because_ it's known that they'll need it.
There you go, the medical profession has no problem with that kind of setup either. They just need a salary, and someone has to pay for all the machinery and equipment. If the state enforced a more fair way of paying for it, the doctors have no problem with it. In fact, I think most are for it.
Unfortunately, that won't go that easily in the USA, where a whole cult of the psychopaths is the default culture. There's a whole caste repeating to everyone that the american dream is to shaft someone on the way to the top, and that all that matters is the Holy Dollar. As Queensryche put it, "gotta make a milion, doesn't matter who dies." Caring for your fellow man is outright communistic and undermining the very fundament of the whole socierty. (Yeah, right.)
So if anyone did try to implement a fair system where everyone has access to medical care, _especially_ if it's known that they'll need it, I'm betting on an _avalanche_ of the following two responses:
1. Noooo, it's _my_ money! I'm healthy, why should I pay for all the bums with pre-existing conditions? Papa needs a car with a wing, not to subsidize all the cripples and retards. (Until they themselves discover that they do have some genetic condition that didn't become obvious until old age. The it's "why the fuck don't I get free healthcare from everyone else... and still keep all the money I saved by not paying for everyone else???")
2. Noooo, it's a communistic plot! Wtf of an anti-american and anti-capitalist idea is that to take from everyone according to their means, and give to everyone according to their needs? The free unrestricted market solves everything by itself! If that gets implemented, we're all _doomed_. All those lazy bums will stop working and live off medicare! People will stop working hard for a promotion if they get their medical needs covered anyway! The whole economy will collapse! (Never mind that it didn't collapse in, say, Germany, where exactly such a system is in place.)