National Cancer Fund Act Case Study

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ chemical land farming operation near their homes that are polluting the air violates Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 and Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Plaintiffs contend that these human rights violations are demonstrated by the fact that, (1) the Defendants failed to operate their pollution control equipment and (2) the Defendants did not acquire a permit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to store hazardous waste in Alsen, Louisiana.

But instead of finding ways to prevent or cure cancer they pour all their funding into treating cancer. Why would they want to get rid of this money machine? The “Cancer Machine” rakes in loads of cash from chemotherapy drugs, radiotherapy, diagnostic procedures, and surgeries. The typical cancer patient will spend around 50,000 dollars fighting the disease, but if the cancer industry allows a cure then their patient base goes away along with all their funding. It makes more sense for them to keep their patients alive, but sick and coming back for more. A crazy statistic points out that “two out of three cancer patients will be dead within five years after receiving all or part of the standard cancer treatment…” It makes you wonder as to how well is this “cancer treatment”

Rising medical costs are a worldwide problem, but nowhere are they higher than in the U.S. Although Americans with good health insurance coverage may get the best medical treatment in the world, the health of the average American, as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality, is below the average of other major industrial countries. Inefficiency, fraud and the expense of malpractice suits are often blamed for high U.S. costs, but the major reason is overinvestment in technology and personnel.

Cherry, B., & Jacob, S.(1997). Chapter 7 Paying for Health Care in America: Rising Costs and

In an article written by oncologist Lacie Glover, her concern was about the rising cost of cancer treatment, newly approved cancer drug costs of an average of $10,000 per month, and therapy costs averaging $30,000 per month. A patient typically pays 20-30% out of pocket for drugs. Therefore, the year’s average cost of new cancer medications would $26,000-$36,000, in addition to their health insurance premiums. If you wonder why insurance premiums are constantly on the rise, reflecting on the illnesses and costs to treat them.

It is terrifying to discover that you have terminal cancer. What is more terrifying is being left uninsured. This is what happened to one Californian. He lost his job due to recession cuts and tried to get onto his wife’s insurance coverage. However, she too lost her job and insurance. So now this man is left at home writing in pain because he cannot access pain killers. With his economic background, it is difficult to access federal coverage. There are problems like this occurring every day. I believe that we need to improve not only the amount of people covered by health insurance, but the quality as well. To illustrate this, I look to Kaiser Permanente, who I have both volunteered and been a patient with, for the model of

According to statistics published by the American Cancer Society, there will be an estimated 1.5 million new cancer cases diagnosed each year over the next decade. What factors contribute to the yearly incidence

This topic has struck close to home for me as I have had three very close relatives pass away with cancer in the last 5 years. I lost my closest cousin, my aunt and my mother to different types of cancers in the space of this past five years. Each one had not sought treatment until the illness was advanced due to multiple reasons including financial stability (vague symptoms, etc.). However, at the time that the illnesses were found and determined to be cancerous, each one of them had issues with affordability for treatment. I have found from my own personal experience that it is a sad fact that only the very wealthy can afford the more expensive and complicated treatments. The average person with the

Statistics were used from Illinois and Georgia between 2000 to 2003 because of the large data pool that was extensively documented, low to no copayments, and minimal capitated to uncapitated care plans (Tangka et al., 2015). The researchers used Medicaid patient data from two non-cancer patients (7024) to one cancer patients (3512) for their data pool using multivariable regression analysis (Tangka et al., 2015). The data was organized by age, sex, race, diagnosis, and costs for treatment of the patient’s last four months of life. For the cancer patients, the researchers further organized the information by the primary cancer site, stage, and the amount of time from diagnosis to death (Tangka et al., 2015). A generalized linear model was employed to address the inflated expenditures for cancer treatments and to estimate costs for cancers with a low data pool (Tangka et al., 2015). All the data was presented in tables comparing all of the outlined criteria for both Medicaid cancer and non-cancer

With cancer requiring colossal amounts of money from society to attempt to treat and cure the disease, it has become an important and relevant social issue in the United States. In 2016 alone, there will be an estimated 1,685,210 cancer diagnoses along with approximately 595,690 deaths in correlation with cancer in the United States (Cancer). Although with the United States having a population around 318 million, only approximately 5% of the population will be affected by cancer. With this only affecting a small portion of the total population, the topic of cancer can create a social issue and source for debate

According to the Canadian Cancer Statistics (2015), “about 2 in 5 Canadians will develop cancer in their lifetime, and about 1 in 4 Canadians will die of cancer” (p. 6). In 1971, President Nixon and Congress declared a war on cancer. Since then, the U.S Federal government has spent over 105 billion on the effort. Dr. Spector and Dr. Kolata, a noted professor of medicine, pharmacology and biochemistry, have noted that since 1950, the cancer death rate, adjusted for the size and age of the population has decreased by only 5%. They argue that there has been little progress on the war against cancer.

Cancer is figured to be the second leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. With approximately 14 million new cases and 8.2 million cancer related deaths in 2012, alone .Why are so many people stuck suffering with this deadly disease? Millions of dollars have been invested into cancer research, yet there is no cure. Are these pharmaceutical companies focus on finding a cure for cancer or concentrating on elongated treatments in order to lengthen their pockets? We must first understand that cancer is big business earning huge profits. Nonetheless, the cancer industry is spending virtually zilch of its multi-billion dollar resources on effective prevention strategies, like dietary guidelines, exercise, natural remedies and herbs proven to cure cancer. Instead, it pours its money into treating cancer, not preventing or allaying it.

Cancer. We all know someone who has suffered from it or has passed away because of it. Cancer now affects one in every three people, and is the second highest cause of death in the United States. For decades, the medical community has been on the hunt for a cure for cancer, and have been subjected to intense ridicule from the public because of a lack of progression toward a possible cure. In recent years, many scientists, doctors, researchers, and the general public have come to believe that the cure for cancer is being suppressed because of this lack of progress. Those who say it is suppressed claim that the drugs used to treat cancer actually cause cancer, making a patient sicker and sicker. As a result, the patients are forced to spend

It can affect people of all genders, ages, races, and ethnicities, but the risk of most types of cancer increases with age, also some individuals have a higher or lower risk due to differences in exposure to carcinogens (such as from smoking) and as a result of genetic factors. According to National Institutes of Health (NIH), the total costs for treating cancer in 2009 were $216.6 billion: $86.6 billion for direct medical costs and $130.0 billion for indirect mortality costs. In 2015, there are an estimated 1,658,370 new cancer cases diagnosed and 589,430 cancer deaths in the US, which is 22.52% of all the death together (Medical News Today). Overall there were 584,881 deaths: 307,559 males and 277,322

As one can see the price for one single child with cancer treatment that needs necessary care over multiple nights can be, on average, up to 6 figures in the United States (oeconline 2). Statistically, the national cost per child is about equivalent to $815,830 in 2007 dollars (oeconline 1). The average per day costs for pediatric cancer has increased consistently from 2000 to 2005 by over twenty percent, figuratively that is from $14,400 to $17,500 (Nagamine 2). Although the prices are already substantially high they are apparently still on the rise (Nagamine 2).