John McCain Undergoes Surgery For Brain Cancer

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
While being examined for a blood clot over his eye, doctors found a glioblastoma and removed the tumor.

A glioblastoma is a particularly aggressive cancer, and the long-term outlook is seldom positive.

This is quite sad. Now I feel sorry for mocking him over his occasional confused ramblings – it may well have been in part from the effects of the tumor.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/health/gupta-mccain-glioblastoma/index.html
 
Last edited:

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Lucky for John McCain he's a member of Congress and doesn't have to worry about his healthcare coverage.

If only his constituents were so lucky.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,833
Reaction score
6,594
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Lucky for John McCain he's a member of Congress and doesn't have to worry about his healthcare coverage.

If only his constituents were so lucky.

Not just medical insurance but a "Mayo Clinic care team."

No. 1 Hospital in Arizona: 2016-2017 U.S. News & World Report

Mayo Clinic in Phoenix is ranked the No. 1 hospital in Arizona and is nationally ranked in 10 medical specialties.

The Mayo Clinic will work with under and uninsured patients as long as they cooperate and file for Medicaid or whatever else is available. And AZ accepted the expanded Medicaid under the ACA.

Now let's see if McCain has a real conscience about the ACA repeal.

Repeal Of Health Law Could Force Tough Decisions For Arizona Republicans

Now is the time to remind him of this reality. There is a chance he will understand things a little better now.

McCain, Flake not ready to commit to Senate Republican health-care bill
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
248
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
Lucky for John McCain he's a member of Congress and doesn't have to worry about his healthcare coverage.

If only his constituents were so lucky.
he's old enough for Medicare which has good coverage (but not free); supplemental policies are reasonable affordable and fill in many of the gaps that Medicare doesn't cover.
 

ShaunHorton

AW's resident Velociraptor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
590
Location
Washington State
Website
shaunhorton.blogspot.com
I'm torn. Part of me wants to wish him the best for a speedy recovery. A brain tumor would certainly explain his moments of confusion that has had people questioning him the last couple years.

At the same time, I still despise him as a spineless party man in spite of running his mouth. He makes all the claims about being for people and being against what the GOP is trying to do right now, but when it comes down to the vote, we can only rely on him to take the party line.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
he's old enough for Medicare which has good coverage (but not free); supplemental policies are reasonable affordable and fill in many of the gaps that Medicare doesn't cover.

Oh come on, Gregg. He's a U.S. Senator. He has complete free medical coverage, doesn't he?

Now, I have a significant degree of respect for John McCain, even though I don't agree with most of his political views. I certainly don't wish him ill. But it is more than a little illuminating that when Donald Trump voiced his concern about McCain, it was explicitly because "we need his vote" on the health care bill. Way to be concerned, Mr. Prez.

caw
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
The accolades are pouring in for McCain.


Barack Obama @BarackObama John McCain is an American hero & one of the bravest fighters I've ever known. Cancer doesn't know what it's up against. Give it hell, John.

Sarah Palin @SarahPalinUSA
John McCain is one tough fighter - we know he'll face this diagnosis with courage and strength. Our family... http://fb.me/2bgk6CmBZ

Gabrielle Giffords @GabbyGiffords Hang in there @SenJohnMcCain. You're tough! You can beat this. Fight, fight, fight! I am proud to call you my friend.

Paul Ryan @SpeakerRyan .@SenJohnMcCain has always been a warrior. It's who he is. All of us, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, are behind him.

Nancy Pelosi @NancyPelosi
.@SenJohnMcCain is a hero, a patriot and a fighter. I am privileged to call him a friend. Paul & I pray for his recovery and his family.

Vice President Pence @VP
Karen & I are praying for @SenJohnMcCain. Cancer picked on the wrong guy. John McCain is a fighter & he'll win this fight too. God bless!

Bill Clinton @billclinton

As he’s shown his entire life, don’t bet against John McCain. Best wishes to him for a swift recovery.

Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton

John McCain is as tough as they come. Thinking of John, Cindy, their wonderful children, & their whole family tonight.


Elizabeth Warren @SenWarren
Just 2 weeks ago, @SenJohnMcCain & I were trekking thru Pakistan & Afghanistan. Trust me, John's in fighting shape & we're rooting for him.

John Dingell @JohnDingell

My friend @SenJohnMcCain is a dogged ole S.O.B.

Sharp as hell and tougher than a $2 steak.

I look forward to catching up with him soon.




 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
248
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
Oh come on, Gregg. He's a U.S. Senator. He has complete free medical coverage, doesn't he?

Now, I have a significant degree of respect for John McCain, even though I don't agree with most of his political views. I certainly don't wish him ill. But it is more than a little illuminating that when Donald Trump voiced his concern about McCain, it was explicitly because "we need his vote" on the health care bill. Way to be concerned, Mr. Prez.

caw
I agree that Congress has way too many perks and too many days off.
My point was that if McCain wasn't a Senator he'd still have good coverage at reasonable cost due to his age.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I agree that Congress has way too many perks and too many days off.
My point was that if McCain wasn't a Senator he'd still have good coverage at reasonable cost due to his age.

I'm on Medicare. You might be surprised at how much it doesn't cover, and just how much a "supplemental" policy really costs.

And there are many in the GOP who are itching to reduce/terminate Medicare.

caw
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
I'm on Medicare. You might be surprised at how much it doesn't cover, and just how much a "supplemental" policy really costs.

And there are many in the GOP who are itching to reduce/terminate Medicare.

caw

I'm on Medicare, too. Grateful for it, but if I weren't fairly well off and didn't have excellent primary insurance, I would be struggling.

There's a reason Congress keeps exempting themselves from the so-called healthcare system they want to inflict on the rest of us.
 

regdog

The Scavengers
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
58,075
Reaction score
21,013
Location
She/Her
I wish John McCain well
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
248
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
I'm on Medicare as well. My supplemental policy costs about $200 per month (as does my wife's). Prescription drug policy is about $75, but they pay for my gym membership at teh YMCA.
My wife recently went to the ER (she's fine) - the bill was $983.00 - we paid $20.00. We have no co-pays when we go to the clinic.
When I was working 6 years ago, our health policy cost about $1300 a month, plus $2500 annual deductible, then 20% of costs, plus clinic co-pays.
Medicare isn't free and for some not cheap, but much better than conventional insurance.
Medicare may need some changes but I doubt they'll change much for those on it or close to qualifying.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I'm on Medicare as well. My supplemental policy costs about $200 per month (as does my wife's). Prescription drug policy is about $75, but they pay for my gym membership at teh YMCA.
My wife recently went to the ER (she's fine) - the bill was $983.00 - we paid $20.00. We have no co-pays when we go to the clinic.
When I was working 6 years ago, our health policy cost about $1300 a month, plus $2500 annual deductible, then 20% of costs, plus clinic co-pays.
Medicare isn't free and for some not cheap, but much better than conventional insurance.
Medicare may need some changes but I doubt they'll change much for those on it or close to qualifying.
So, here's a question. Consider that Medicare insures older Americans, who obviously have many more health problems then the young, and does a better job than conventional insurance. (Especially when you get a supplemental Medicare program which usually runs about $150 a month – not bad for insurance at all)

It would seem that if we had Medicare for all, there would be a much larger pool which would include all the young healthy people. Medicare costs per person would then be significantly lower than they are now. It could be paid for by a surcharge on income tax, a payroll tax addition, or numerous other ways. The tax burden would be far less for anyone who ever has to spend a day in the hospital or go to the emergency room, or possibly even see a doctor occasionally.

So why are conservatives so adamantly against this, claiming it would bankrupt America? ( not to mention it hasn't bankrupted any of the economies of Western Europe who basically use a similar system to cover everyone)
 
Last edited:

Catherine

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
285
Reaction score
35
Location
US
I wish Senator McCain well. My step-dad died of the same type of cancer about two years ago. It certainly explains his confusion during his questioning of James Comey.

I would like Medicare for all. I did a little research and according to the Kaiser Family Foundation

"Medicare is funded primarily from three sources: general revenues (41%), payroll taxes (38%), and beneficiary premiums (13%)"

I'm not sure the percentage of Americans who are currently on Medicare. I'm assuming there is a much smaller percentage than those who are working and paying the payroll tax. From that same paper, it looks like a much larger percentage of Americans will be on Medicare in the next few years. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2017 Medicare accounts for 13.9% of the federal budget at a cost of $562 billion. By 2024, Medicare will be 15.2% of the federal budget at a cost of $866 billion.


 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
248
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
Medicare pays hospitals and Doctors about 80% of what private insurers pay. Would they survive if their revenues dropped by 20%? Many wouldn't. I've seen estimates that Medicare for all would cost between $2.5 and $3.5 trillion in addition to money already spent on Medicare and Medicaid. Let's say there will be some cost savings by having more younger, healthier people in the program and the cost is $2.0 trillion. That's still more than a 50% increase in total Federal expenditures. How do we raise that kind of money? If we can't do we cut services or ration care?

here's an opinion about Medicare for all:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-07/why-not-try-medicare-for-all-glad-you-asked
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Medicare pays hospitals and Doctors about 80% of what private insurers pay. Would they survive if their revenues dropped by 20%? Many wouldn't. I've seen estimates that Medicare for all would cost between $2.5 and $3.5 trillion in addition to money already spent on Medicare and Medicaid. Let's say there will be some cost savings by having more younger, healthier people in the program and the cost is $2.0 trillion. That's still more than a 50% increase in total Federal expenditures. How do we raise that kind of money? If we can't do we cut services or ration care?

here's an opinion about Medicare for all:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-07/why-not-try-medicare-for-all-glad-you-asked
Sure, that's the opinion from a libertarian view point, rife with assumptions. The author is adamantly opposed to government involvement in the health industry as a matter of ideologic principal, including the ACA.

What it comes down to this whether healthcare as a for-profit industry is a good idea. Libertarians are all in favor of it, progressives ( and even some conservatives) not. (The famed Mayo Clinic, for example is a nonprofit organization)

Certainly universal healthcare cannot be instituted overnight for nothing. But right now, Americans are paying trillions of dollars for healthcare, at a rate nine times higher adjusted for inflation, than they were in 1960. We currently spend more on health care than any other developed country and receive considerably less.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html

Again, every other country has figured out how to provide universal healthcare without bankrupting their economy – only in the US, for some reason, is it considered impossible.

Can it be done without raising taxes? Obviously not. But with the average American currently spending around $10,000 a year on health care and insurance costs, one must consider how removing that expense would balance against a tax increase to fund universal coverage.

Starting from scratch, I would say that increasing taxes and changing the healthcare model would result in considerable savings – not to mention the lives that universal coverage would save. And the benefits of increased productivity created by a healthier population.

"We can't afford it" has got it backwards. We can't afford not to do it.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,833
Reaction score
6,594
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Sure, that's the opinion from a libertarian view point, rife with assumptions. The author is adamantly opposed to government involvement in the health industry as a matter of ideologic principal, including the ACA.

What it comes down to this whether healthcare as a for-profit industry is a good idea. Libertarians are all in favor of it, progressives ( and even some conservatives) not. (The famed Mayo Clinic, for example is a nonprofit organization)....
The evidence is clear, better outcomes for less cost, that national health care systems are superior to the free market.

The ideological belief that somehow innovation would be stifled without huge profits is also not borne out by the data. Both public and private investment in research occurs outside of for-profit production settings. And for-profit production settings thrive just fine under national health care systems.

If only people went by the evidence instead of by their ideological beliefs.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,833
Reaction score
6,594
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
This is disturbing: Team Trump Used Obamacare Money to Run Ads Against It
The Trump administration has spent taxpayer money meant to encourage enrollment in the Affordable Care Act on a public relations campaign aimed at methodically strangling it.

The effort, which involves a multi-pronged social media push as well as video testimonials designed at damaging public opinion of President Obama’s health care law, is far more robust and sustained than has been publicly revealed or realized....

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declined repeated attempts to discuss its PR efforts. But more than half-a-dozen sources at various agencies and on the Hill outlined the scope of the anti-Obamacare push in conversations with The Daily Beast.

Under Secretary Tom Price’s stewardship, HHS has filmed and produced a series of testimonial videos featuring individuals claiming to have been harmed by Obamacare. Those “viral” videos have had decidedly limited reach, often gathering somewhere between 100 and 200 views each. But the Department has made a heavy investment in them nonetheless. To date, it has released 23 videos. A source familiar with the video production says that there have been nearly 30 interviews conducted in total, from which more than 130 videos have been produced.

Each testimonial has the same look, feel, and setting, with the subjects sitting before a gray backdrop and speaking directly to camera about how Obamacare has harmed their lives. They were all shot at the Department’s internal studio, according to numerous sources who worked for or continue to work at HHS. Under the Obama administration, it was customary that such videos were recorded and edited by an outside contractor who then billed the department for its work. One former official said that the contractor would charge roughly $550 an hour.

Funding for those videos would come from the Department’s “consumer information and outreach” budget, which was previously used for the purposes of advertising the ACA and encouraging enrollment.