American Cancer Society's Access to Care campaign. Your thoughts?

[thispego]

Access to Health Care
Many people are jumping to the conclusion that the ACS is pushing for socialized healthcare, which is'nt true at all. There are some pretty pissed off people who see this as a political move on behalf of ACS. What do you think?

[ashbeeigh]

As always, I can see how people would be upset and those are the people that read into the issue.

But I think the bigger issue is the disparity in access to quality health care. It's like any other social issue. Some people have access to good things others don't. The ACS is working towards bringing testing to those who don't have it. This isn't like a check-up in every backyard kind of thing. This is more of a get the quality care to everyone. I mean, I have insurance (my bank statement said so...) But I don't have vision and dental. And god forbid I find a lump in my boobs (save the jokes). That would be more then my $254 hospital bill I'm paying from this summer.

There's other programs that work for the above mentioned things (like social health care, check-ups for everyone, etc). They just aren't getting the attention because they don't have as big of names as the ACS.

And that's what I think.

[CubanMustGo]

What aggravates me is that the people who have to pay the most for medical care are those who don't have insurance. Stay with me here; I'm NOT talking about the fact that they have to pay 100% of the bill.

I have a traditional indemnity plan (an increasingly rare thing). That means I can choose my doctors and care without having to get anyone's approval. It's an 80-20 plan, they pay 80%, I pay 20%. But if I choose someone a "participating provider," they charge a whole lot less than someone who isn't.

Our GP is not on the plan, so each year's annual visit is nearly $1,000 by the time all the various tests are run. We like him a whole lot so we're OK with paying our $200 share. But the exact same services from a "participating" GP would be something like $300. Why should someone without insurance have to pay $1000 instead of $300 ?

[Поповић]

Access to Health Care
Many people are jumping to the conclusion that the ACS is pushing for socialized healthcare, which is'nt true at all. There are some pretty pissed off people who see this as a political move on behalf of ACS. What do you think?

The "Cancer Action Network" is a political organization as it is a 501(c)(4).

[2Blonde]

The "Cancer Action Network" is a political organization as it is a 501(c)(4).

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action NetworkSM (ACS CAN) is the sister advocacy organization of the American Cancer Society. Founded in 2001, ACS CAN urges elected officials to ensure that issues related to access to quality care, research funding, prevention, early detection, and treatment get the attention they deserve. ACS CAN also can help voters make informed decisions by serving as a trusted source of information about candidate positions on cancer-related concerns and on key issue campaigns like smoke-free workplace laws. **(from the website)**


But the original question in this thread was about the ACS and not the ACS CAN.

[Поповић]

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action NetworkSM (ACS CAN) is the sister advocacy organization of the American Cancer Society. Founded in 2001, ACS CAN urges elected officials to ensure that issues related to access to quality care, research funding, prevention, early detection, and treatment get the attention they deserve. ACS CAN also can help voters make informed decisions by serving as a trusted source of information about candidate positions on cancer-related concerns and on key issue campaigns like smoke-free workplace laws. **(from the website)**


But the original question in this thread was about the ACS and not the ACS CAN.

What is ACS CAN?

ACS CAN is the nonprofit, nonpartisan sister organization to the American Cancer Society. It was launched as a pilot in December 2001 to advance the Society’s advocacy mission. ACS CAN enables the Society to use a new set of advocacy tools and tactics, because of the way it is classified as an organization. The American Cancer Society is a 501(c)(3) (or “c3”) organization, and therefore is subject to restrictions on its advocacy activities. ACS CAN is a 501(c)(4) (or “c4”) organization, meaning it is free from many of those restrictions and can engage in more direct advocacy.

link

[Поповић]

Of course, I'm sure there is no relation between the ACS and the ACS CAN. Just like I'm sure the NRA, MoveOn.org, AARP, and what else are not political in the least.

Everyone has an agenda. Apathy is the way to go.

[Поповић]

I mean, who could be for cancer? Just like who could be against old people? or gun ownership?

[Поповић]

As always, I can see how people would be upset and those are the people that read into the issue.

But I think the bigger issue is the disparity in access to quality health care. It's like any other social issue. Some people have access to good things others don't. The ACS is working towards bringing testing to those who don't have it. This isn't like a check-up in every backyard kind of thing. This is more of a get the quality care to everyone. I mean, I have insurance (my bank statement said so...) But I don't have vision and dental. And god forbid I find a lump in my boobs (save the jokes). That would be more then my $254 hospital bill I'm paying from this summer.

There's other programs that work for the above mentioned things (like social health care, check-ups for everyone, etc). They just aren't getting the attention because they don't have as big of names as the ACS.

And that's what I think.

Let's guarantee everything to everyone. Of course nobody has to pay for it. It's free.

Sooner or later you guys will figure it out.

[ashbeeigh]

What aggravates me is that the people who have to pay the most for medical care are those who don't have insurance. Stay with me here; I'm NOT talking about the fact that they have to pay 100% of the bill.

I see you. That adds so much to the problem. Taxes and all that crap add a burden to those that do pay fairly towards their health care. It pisses me off.

Let's guarantee everything to everyone. Of course nobody has to pay for it. It's free.

Sooner or later you guys will figure it out.

no. There's always groups out there that think that their cause is more important then the others. And that's when lobbyists and everything come in. They fight for their programs and platforms. I don't agree with it, but that's how it is.

[Поповић]

So why do I have to pay for your health care because you were an idiot who did X your entire life?

[2Blonde]

So why do I have to pay for your health care because you were an idiot who did X your entire life?

I don't believe anyone in here is saying you should. On the other hand it doesn't look like ACS is trying to deny any link to ACS CAN. That's why they called it their sister organization.

I have spent my entire life paying my bills, doing the right thing and I think good things will happen but if they don't I have also spent that time paying my insurance.

I think the ACS/ACS CAN is saying that in order to come up with cancer cures at a more progressive rate, we have to support programs that further cancer research. If the price of my life span is funding an organization that finds a cure because there were certain gene markers in an unknown poor, uninsured woman Then I have absolutely no problem helping out with that. The people we educate and give a helping hand to today might be the doctor that saves my mom's life tomorrow. Or he/she might be the cancer patient that a new trial drug worked on and is giving my sister a chance at a new life.

I'm not talking about funding snake oil salesmen and I worked hard in my life for every penny I have so when it's spent, either by the government or me, I just want it to count. I don't want my money funding a study of how chicken hawks get laid if they bring home a food for the lady chicken hawk.

[boutons_]

"So why do I have to pay for your health care because you were an idiot who did X your entire life?"

A very good, and extremely difficult, question, esp since so many diseases today are caused by personal choice (smoking, drinking, bad diet, no exercise) and a toxic, sinister, aggressively marketed industrial food system rather than by genetics, accidents, etc. Then throw in all the diseases caused by business activity (pollution, harmful products). If you are expecting for people to take personal responsibility for their health and for businesses to self-regulate in the public interest, you will certainly be disappointed.

If you want to punish people (exclude from health insurance) because they live badly, then you should also shut down companies who produce absolutely (Frito-Lay, Coke, Pepsi, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, and all the on grocery stores shelves) that encourage people to up their health by what they put in their mouths.

100s of $Bs of our tax dollars are already paying for uninsured people who come to ERs way too late and way too sick. Are you also asking why you should pay for them? This is why Austin is offering free medical care to poor people, to get them treated earlier/cheaper rather than later/much more expensively.

The sacred "free market" and total absence of national leadership has produced a disaster of US medical care. We are inexorably heading towards "capitalistic" health care will be consuming 25% of GDP. Absolutely "sick".

Other advanced countries with nationalistic/"socialistic" health care systems spend way less that USA and deliver health care to everybody, while removing the anxiety of financial ruin and bankruptcy through medical catastrophe.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I see you. That adds so much to the problem. Taxes and all that crap add a burden to those that do pay fairly towards their health care. It pisses me off.

this from someone with no job.

[1369]

Anyone have an employer that provides an HSA?

After looking into them I think these will be the prevaling practice for health care in the future, and I also believe that empowering the individual to seek the best deal for their money will unlimately drive costs down.

[boutons_]

"seek the best deal for their money will unlimately drive costs down."

Dreamer!

The only solution is when the health care system switches its priority from maximizing its revenue while minimizing health care delivered ( tiest product for the hightest price, like any business), only to delivering health care at cost.

For-profit health care will always over the health care seeker.

TX's screw-the-victim tort reform was intended to put more money into doctors' pockets and reduce insurance company payouts, NOT reduce doctors' invoices to patients. Can anybody prove that TX's reform reduced TX's health bill?

[1369]

"seek the best deal for their money will unlimately drive costs down."

Dreamer!

The only solution is when the health care system switches its priority from maximizing its revenue while minimizing health care delivered ( tiest product for the hightest price, like any business), only to delivering health care at cost.

For-profit health care will always over the health care seeker.

TX's screw-the-victim tort reform was intended to put more money into doctors' pockets, NOT reduce their invoices to patients. Can anybody prove that TX's reform reduced TX's health bill?

The whole concept of "compe ion for consumer dollars" still eludes you, doesn't it?

[BigBeezie]

Anyone have an employer that provides an HSA?

After looking into them I think these will be the prevaling practice for health care in the future, and I also believe that empowering the individual to seek the best deal for their money will unlimately drive costs down.

I couldn't agree more.

If you make them compete, then they either drop their costs or seek some other compe ive advantage.

[ashbeeigh]

this from someone with no job.

What does that have to do with my opinion? Even without a job I'm paying $113 dollars a month for insurance and $58 dollars a month for a hospital bill because of an accident. so shut up.

[boutons_]

"compe ion for consumer dollars"

the whole nightmare of a sick person shopping for the cheapest health care eludes you, doesn't it?

the whole nightmare of an unemployed and/or sick person paying for private insurance (will be refused and/or the sickness waived as "pre-existing") eludes you, doesn't it?

The whole nightmare of trying to find a job when you have chronic illness (companies with group medical won't hire you (you're a higher cost employee). They try to get rid of employees over 50 because those employees' health costs are higher, so over-50 employees cause the companies' premiums go up.

The whole concept of being driven into long-term poverty and/or bankruptcy by a medical catastrophe escapes you, doesn't it?

The "free" market for health care isn't free, taking 16% of GDP and rising, and it sucks, doesn't it?

[thispego]

The primary objective of the campaign is to draw attention to the urgent need for quality, affordable health care for all Americans. The target audience of the advertising campaign will be adult voters, aged 35+ who are engaged in the political process and have been touched by cancer. The overall concept behind the advertising campaign is "More people than you know will have to choose between their health and financial ruin as a result of a cancer diagnosis – maybe even you." Real stories, obtained from callers to the American Cancer Society's Health Insurance Assistance Team, will be used to convey the message.

During the campaign, television, online, and print ads will run and will direct cons uents to cancer.org for additional information. The television commercials will be featured on major national networks including NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC, and BET on shows such as NBC's Today and Meet the Press, ABC's Good Morning America and World news Tonight, CNN's American Morning and Anderson Cooper 360. The print ads will be seen in national print publications including U.S News and World Report, Time, Reader's Digest and Oprah, the Magazine. The online banners will be featured on sites including Yahoo.com, MSN.com, CNN.com, AOL.com and USAToday.com; additionally, the ad will also be on youtube.com. Placements on National Public Radio (NPR) will also be done within its top programming, Morning Edition and Day to Day.

[thispego]

I don't believe anyone in here is saying you should. On the other hand it doesn't look like ACS is trying to deny any link to ACS CAN. That's why they called it their sister organization.

I have spent my entire life paying my bills, doing the right thing and I think good things will happen but if they don't I have also spent that time paying my insurance.

I think the ACS/ACS CAN is saying that in order to come up with cancer cures at a more progressive rate, we have to support programs that further cancer research. If the price of my life span is funding an organization that finds a cure because there were certain gene markers in an unknown poor, uninsured woman Then I have absolutely no problem helping out with that. The people we educate and give a helping hand to today might be the doctor that saves my mom's life tomorrow. Or he/she might be the cancer patient that a new trial drug worked on and is giving my sister a chance at a new life.

I'm not talking about funding snake oil salesmen and I worked hard in my life for every penny I have so when it's spent, either by the government or me, I just want it to count. I don't want my money funding a study of how chicken hawks get laid if they bring home a food for the lady chicken hawk.

good post 2blonde

you get it