What Dreams May Come
d4l3.com
d4l3.com
For those of you who haven't seen the 'Bucket List' post, here's what it says at the very top:
As I try to deal with the reality that is my impending death I can't help but wonder how many things I might have been able to accomplish given just a little more time. When I was diagnosed, I had only one thing that I wanted; to live long enough to see my children grow up. The reality is that the odds of me living long enough to see my children grow are quite slim. The only available treatment will eventually stop working and then it's just a matter of time.
This is the list of things that I want to accomplish while I still have time. Many of them aren't for me. They are for my family. They are meant to provide security for my wife and kids so that they can celebrate my life instead of mourning my death when that time comes.
My priorities are taking care of my family just as they always have been. Sometimes, we just can't plan far enough ahead to deal with something like this. If you saw the original page you would also note that Trips and meeting celebrities is not high on my list of priorities. Those are things that would provide me with a small boost on an emotional level but I don't consider them something that must happen before I die.
Life Insurance: I changed jobs and don't have any and now that I'm terminal, the cost for obtaining it is prohibitive. I agree that this is poor planning on my part, however, I'm 35 and no one expects to find out that they are going to die at 35. We all think we have plenty of time and the reality is that we don't.
Health Insurance: Thank god that I have this or we would've been sunk from the beginning. Despite having insurance, there continue to be ongoing costs and once I go on long-term disability I'll be paying cobra rates to keep the same coverage. I have no idea how expensive this will be but I don't expect it to be cheap.
This really isn't about me or the money, this is about my family and trying to ease their pain. I know that I'm living on borrowed time right now and I could be dead at any moment. All I want to do is spend as much time as I can with my kids so that they know I loved them. You try telling a 6 year old that her daddy has cancer and will be dead before she turns 8. Hardest thing I've ever had to do and I would never wish it any one.
For those of you that have helped us, thank you is not enough.
[I'm 39, have daughters aged 5 and 7, and had a fist-sized brain tumor removed just over a year ago. So, though I'm doing fine right now (next MRI is tomorrow morning, hoping for another clean scan), I can certainly relate.]
If you have the strength, try to take up running. My world-class oncologist (at MGH in Boston) said he wished all of his patients were runners. Not occasional joggers, but real runners as in 3 to 5 miles multiple times per week.
Also avoiding refined sugars and red meat can't possibly hurt and there's a lot of evidence that it can make a huge difference.
More generally, I urge you to fight to stay alive. Anything is possible if you just hang on and keep alive. The pace of innovation and understanding in medical science is accelerating, and “incurable” diseases have been eradicated. HIV was once a death sentence; now patients live about as long as never-infected people. Just keep breathing, and hang on. Positive change is coming.
Sending all my positive vibes and loving best wishes your way. I know you're inundated with messages from strangers but if you read this and want to talk or I can do anything for you, please do reach out. I'm "cweekly" on twitter and gmail.
Love, Chris
PS This excerpt from Alan Watts -- "Think of Nothing" -- also helped me cope, when I thought my end was near. If you're a devout Christian you might find it offensive, but I (a humanist with zen buddhist leanings) found it comforting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ5upMz0_ig&index=35&list=FLf...
And I intend to fight until I have nothing left. I refuse to just give up and die. It's not in my nature.
me@jonathandale.com https://jonathandale.com/
PS: Very cool of you.
With regards to making it to Florida, I don't that this would ever happen even if someone stepped up and covered the cost of the entire trip. With my current health, every day is an unknown. When I got up this morning, I had no idea that I'd end up in the ER yet again nor that I'd be so exhausted I'd come home and sleep for several hours. This has become my unfortunate reality. Even if it was an all expenses paid trip it would likely kill me before it was over and it is for this reason that I consider this to be near the bottom of the bucket list. It's more for my kids than it is for me and it's meant to provide them with happy memories that will hopefully sustain them through my death. That said, if we make it to Florida I will at a minimum be in touch just to say thank you.
I don't want to tell you about your disease, but if you haven't yet, please find a way to get evaluated at md anderson. They're in Texas, and possibly the best (at least top four or five) place in the world to be treated for melanoma. And they're one of three hospitals in the country with trials ongoing in TIL therapy (sometimes referred to as ACT), which, having done as much research as a lay person can do, seems to the most promising avenue of treatment with long term response rates as high as 70%.
And just to give you some hope, as horrible a diagnosis as you've been given, there has never been a better time in history to receive it. There are literally new treatments coming down the pipeline every few months.
They have pretty absurdly high success rates.
I have hope but I'm also being realistic based on how my treatment has progressed. I have to plan for the reality that I may not have more than 9 months and hope that I'm still here in 15 years. It's a very difficult place to be emotionally.
With regards to MD Anderson, I've heard great things from them, however, I trust my doctors and they work with many of the doctors from MD Anderson. Before they did my gamma knife treatment they actually sent the MRI results over to a neuro-surgeon peer group to ensure that the right actions were being taken. They have taken no chances and are doing the right thing as far as I'm concerned. I continue to do my own research looking for the next best thing and will definitely consider MD Anderson should I find that they have something better available than the treatments I'm on.
Everyone should go to a dermatologist every year for an all-over skin check starting when you're in your 20s. That's what my wife did and it's what I started when I was in my late 20s. It's literally the difference between dying young and growing old.
To stay on the soapbox for a minute, everyone should really have at least $500,000 in life insurance when your wife is pregnant with your first child. I pay about $1,500 per year for $2.0 million in life insurance above what my employer supplies me (3x salary). You really, really need term life insurance outside of what your employer offers. Just think - if you get very sick and lose your job, you don't want to lose your life insurance as well. Don't get whole life - it's generally a rip off. Just get term life insurance. I have a ladder of 10 year, 20 year and 30 year policies that expire as I get older and need less life insurance. In fact, my 10 year term policy just expired a couple months ago (my oldest son is 9.5).
Also, get disability insurance outside your employer's policy as well. Policies supplied by employers are typically worthless. It's generally good to get an "own occupation" policy because otherwise you can be denied payment because you're able to work a McDonald's drive-through even though you've been a surgeon your entire life.
The sadness of early death is something way too many people have to embrace ... but there is also an element of preparation. For all the articles about preparing for a proper launch, preparing for VC, preparing for #whatever on HN, this is an element glossed over in most every circle I have ever been in.
To everyone: Get Term Life Insurance. To everyone: Get Disability Insurance.
Do your research, and be prepared - because life is coming regardless of your level of preparation.
Agree about the importance of getting term life. One thing to add, the Internet (or the society) is a life insurance! Help some one in need. One day the karma will come back to you.
Don't get whole life - it's generally a rip off
Yes, if purchased from a non-mutual, financially shaky insurance company, it's quite likely a bad idea.
However, when purchased from a financially strong mutual insurance company (Northwestern Mutual, Guardian Life, etc.), it can make a great complement to term life insurance (and can be beneficial to the overall financial plan for a number of reasons).
One wouldn't want to "fully" insure themselves with whole life (that'd be cost prohibitive and inappropriate from an asset allocation perspective), but again, as a small piece it can make a lot of sense.
Anyway, didn't mean to detract from your overall points. It's hard to put a specific number on peoples' insurance needs without knowing their situation, but the spirit of your points was spot on. Especially about "own occupation" disability coverage - which I think is especially relevant for programmers.
TL;DR on insurance: Talk to a professional that you trust, figure out what amount of protection makes sense, and get protected. Term life insurance is an affordable way to get a lot of financial protection for your family. Your ability to earn an income is perhaps your greatest financial asset (edit: assuming you have many working years ahead of you), so treat it as such. Think about protecting it with disability income insurance.
I'm heartbroken every time I read one of these deeply personal stories. The situation is already stressful enough - one shouldn't have to worry about how the family will keep the lights on.
[Source: I once worked in financial services]
-- someone who once got sold a whole life policy
$80,000 for cryonic suspension, which is most likely to be successful if you die of a terminal illness; which is most likely to happen when you're old enough that term life insurance is ridiculously expensive (but could happen when you're young, which is why to go whole life instead of just investing and then paying up front for the suspension).
The problem with whole life are the massive profit the company takes and the massive commission the salesperson takes. If:
A represents the value of a term life policy after costs
B represents the value of investing after costs
C represents value of a whole life policy after costs
In all circumstances I've evaluated but one, A+B comes out ahead of C. The only circumstance where C has a chance of coming out ahead from what I've seen is as part of an estate plan to minimize taxes.
If/when I get married, my plan will look like this: majority of life insurance via term, modest WL policy, disability income insurance, some index funds, and some stock of two or three companies that I know deeply.
What happens to folks who retire after a crash like in 2000? It'd probably be better if they left their investments alone, and instead drew some money from their WL policy. You could argue that their allocation should've been well tilted from equities at that point, but what if it wasn't?
In a perfect world of automatic 10% yearly returns, and diligent saving/investment, buying term and investing the difference (from WL) would smack the performance of WL. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Most people don't save/invest diligently, and the market isn't automatic.
From my experiences as the oldest of several kids, $1mm is really the minimum and it's worth a quick talk with an attorney to not only have (1) a will; (2) a written discussion ahead of time of what you want to have happen if you or your SO should ever be severely injured (see eg the Terri Schiavo debacle); (3) a discussion of who you would like to have raise your kids should both parents be injured; (4) tax avoidance strategies should someone die early.
These are all unpleasant things.
The other thing you may find shocking is how long it takes to get a death certificate issued / the challenges getting access to accounts held only in a single name. Maybe our experiences where unusual but you should not be surprised if it takes 3-6 months to get some of these things sorted. Not to mention the surviving family are usually an emotional wreck.
Cryogenics might be an interesting "hail mary" for someone without a dependent family, but it seems crass suggesting it in this context.
Then, I understand the odds are probably better if I'm frozen while alive, with minimum damage to brain tissue. It would be a hard choice to give up my last few couple hours with my family in order to undergo an uncertain procedure on the slim odds of getting resurrected decades from now.
This hits home hard for me. My father found out he had terminal cancer when my mother was 3 months into pregnancy. In the late 60's he didn't even know I was a boy. Medical science couldn't give him anything better than a less painful death. He never heard me cry and never got to hold me in his arms. He would be no better now if he were frozen when he died - he'd still be dead and would remain so for at least a good couple decades. I'm 46 and, with luck, I'll have another 46 years to live. He died at 40.
That was the only thing that really bothered me too, having a, at the time, 8 month old daughter who I might not get to raise. That of all things was my greatest regret and fear.
I had terminal life insurance already to cover loss of income and pay off the mortgage, etc. I'm not saying this to you, nothing you can do about it now, but people if you have a family you care about that relies on you for their well being in anyway, even if its just child care, and extra income, etc. Get some life insurance, insurance is for exactly this reason, highly unlikely events, but events that are financially devastating all the same.
I run a startup (around wishing & bucket-list) and I keep telling folks - life is short, fulfill every wish you have. Be strong bro, that is all I can say now.
1) cried a little, I'm your age, with kids, wife had Thyroid cancer, close to home
2) donated to your fund, hope many more will
3) read about Melanoma, was shocked how much I didn't know
4) made an appointment with a dermatologist, I'm in the risk group apparently
5) emailed my insurance company to increase my coverage
My thoughts and prayers are with you
Yeah it's weird how little people know about something so prevalent. People are shocked to find how many different types and sub-types of cancer are out there and how different the prognoses vary from one to the other.
I just got the diagnosis a month or so ago (26 y/o, a year after my dad dies of lymphoma... epic wtf's all around).
First response is "Oh, well at least it's only skin cancer. They just cut it out and you're good." -- heh... NOPE.
Also, I was walking around with it and a lump in my neck for months because Dr. said it was only a birthmark, probably just scarred node, etc. Until I pushed for a dermatologist.
tl;dr: Get checked. Be paranoid. Don't take "you're young, it's nothing" for an answer. Demand a biopsy.
Please also don't feel bad about taking advantage of this opportunity at the top of Hacker News and add a clear link in at the top of your blog post saying "You can donate here".
It's hard for someone scanning to see that they can donate and while there's a time and a place for being shy it would be a shame to lose out on the opportunity you have here.
Very best of luck (and please do clearly add the link) Peter
It's really expensive even for young, healthy guys. I would imagine this would be more than your mortgage payment.
Praying and pitching in as much as I can.
http://www.eloisewoods.com/index.html is one option - but there are many others - it comes with the advantage of being much cheaper - you could even dig.. well you know.
I hope you beat it dude, I really do, I'm 31 - 4 years ain't that much.
Have you or your doctors discussed the possibility of getting you on Yervoy (AKA Ipilimumab)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipilimumab)? It's an immunotherapy drug indicated for the treatment of late-stage, metastic melanoma.
I'm not a doctor, so I don't know if Yervoy could help you or not, but I figured I'd mention it just in case.
Please, if you have dependents (people that need your income) buy life insurance. It's cheap (if you're young and healthy) and death can happen to anyone of us at anytime for any reason.
/ end rant.
I feel for you though, this is super sad and I can't imagine not seeing my kids grow up. I wish you the best.
His donation page is at: https://www.giveforward.com/fundraiser/w704/beating-cancer-o... which can handle the load much better
Should have thought to put that up earlier
Someone noticed here but got a canned answer: http://help.giveforward.com/customer/portal/questions/124352...
Could anyone verify that this is fine? I'm going to donate if it is. Thanks!
edit: Looks like safari is fine with it, and a IceyEC mentions chrome is fine too. Probably firefox just being overzealous. Donate away!
Loading mixed (insecure) display content on a secure page "http://static.giveforward.com/favicon.ico?1394547964"[Learn More]
https://d4l3.com/blogs/darthclue/entries/treasure-good-days
"At around 5AM, I awoke to the sound of Michelle crying while staring at her phone and mumbling incoherently. She eventually calmed down enough to tell me that she was being spammed with Give Forward donation notifications. It took me a bit to figure out that somehow, my 'Bucket List' had been posted to https://news.ycombinator.com/, aka hackernews, and was the number 1 result"
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Mark 8:36 KJV.
Jonathan, you and your family must look to the Lord Jesus Christ. He is your judge. Through Him all things are possible.
The list seems material because he is worried about his family. They need to eat and they need a roof over their head. We are all a bit material. I notice you are using hacker news which suggests you must have some kind of an income and access to technology. He is dying. He is worried. Would you not feel the same?
How about, instead of quoting bible bullshit to help you not so silently judge a man with cancer, you shut the heck up and donate a tiny bit to the man so he can live the rest of his days with that much less worry?
Jonathan : Find solace where you can. My heart goes out to you.
Don't try to talk to me about God until you've taken the time to actually read and understand who it is you're talking to and what it is you're saying.
I get that he wants to take care of his finances and spend time with his family. But everything that he listed can be done for 1/5th of the cost. Get cremated, travel by bus, put everybody up in a 1 bed motel room, etc.
I grew up poor. Really poor. My friends in the neighborhood had to live without electricity some times because they got shut off because their parents couldn't pay the bill. I thought we were pretty well off because we could afford a car and we could afford to keep the lights on. I thought of a car (any car) as a big luxury item when I was a kid because so many families around me couldn't afford one. I realize now we were also very poor, just not as poor as some of my peers. I believe because of that experience I have a much different outlook on what is actually needed and what one can live like happily if you get out of a certain mindset.
When I see people begging for "donations" to pay off their 19,000 car loan, I am very put off. He could sell his van and buy an older (but still nice) van and save thousands. Ever single financial blog will tell you the first thing you do to save money is downgrade your car. Of course instead of going without or making sacrifices he needs to ask other people for money. He already has a lot more than most of the kids I grew up with will ever have and yet none of us felt entitled enough to beg. I drove a beat up car that was 13 when I retired it for years when I could technically afford a newer one. Why? I'd rather spend that money on life experiences, weekend trips, and visiting friends and family. When I bought a new(er) car (1 year old with 30,000 miles) I was able to pay cash for it freeing me of having a car payment. It is insane that "car payment" is part of our lexicon, especially for someone claiming to have money problems. You can do a real lot without a car payment.
Look up any research on happiness. That van doesn't make you happy, in fact it does the opposite. What makes us happy is not the items in our life but the life experiences we have. When you are sacrificing life experiences for a van you're doing it wrong. He clearly owns a van he can't afford.
As I said before, nobody needs to spend even close to 10K on a funeral. That's a big luxury item.
I currently have two hard working friends with two children who are struggling to make ends meet and making actual real sacrifices (like Internet). Their kids will never have half of what this guy "needs."
I remember going on a trip where we stayed in a cabin at a campsite because it was cheaper, and we packed a cooler full of food for the duration of the trip so we didn't have to spend money on eating out. This trip was a good time for very cheap. They also have all included bus tours/trips which are cheap, I went on a couple of them as a kid too.
Funny thing is my parents are no longer poor. My mom worked a civil service job so she was able to eventually move up to a better paying job and get a pension at retirement. She is now retired.
I think the mortgage is about reasonable though, that doesn't seem too excessive. Expensive but not overly so.
I do feel sad he is dying at 35 and his family has to live without him. However, his sense of entitlement puts me off completely. I thought this was going to be an interesting article not some self entitled guy begging for money.
Boy we are really dialing it up to 11 in this thread.
I don't know what branch of psychology castigating people that have more than you falls under, though.
My point was he's putting material objects before time with his family.
I've worked my ass of to get where I am and while you may find our expenses excessive I would point out that they are what meet our needs and keeps us financially secure. Do I like asking for help? Hell no. As a matter of fact, this has been one of the hardest parts of this whole process. As I've been forced to accept that I will die and will likely leave my wife with debts that cannot be repaid I have to consider what will really happen. Without a home, she moves in with her parents. This isn't a bad scenario but it's also not the best scenario. Without the van, she has no way to provide for the basic needs of our children like taking them to the doctor. Note, her parents live in the boonies, there is no public transportation. The cost of a funeral? Have you priced these recently? They aren't cheap no matter how you look at it. And there are far more decisions that go into this than how cheap it is. This has long-lasting emotional impact on my wife, my kids, my mother, my grandmother and a host of other relatives. I can only hope you have people in your life who you care about enough to actually think before you act in the event of your death.
And the moment you begin to think you know anything about how anyone grew up or how hard they've worked to get where they are or how happy they are, you need to stop and rethink your own priorities and happiness. This isn't about things or happiness, this is about security and easing the pain of my death. Memories will make them happier than anything else I can do and we have memories in this house and in that van. And the moment you think I have a sense of entitlement is the moment you need to go down to the nearest shelter and volunteer. You'll soon discover just how entitled you think you are and realize just how wrong you are.
May you find peace and experience true humility before it's too late.
Yes, I have. We spent 10 grand on my grandmas funeral and she had per bought her plot. Still a luxury item. If it were my choice I would never do that, but it wasn't my choice. Nobody needs an expensive funeral, come on. Wedding and funerals are now overrun by their respective industries trying to sell sell sell. Inventing new things you "need."
See these for more:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/525561.The_American_Way_o...
http://funeral-tips.com/how-to-plan-an-affordable-funeral-2/
>Without a home, she moves in with her parents.
Or you know, rent.
>Without the van, she has no way to provide for the basic needs of our children like taking them to the doctor.
You don't need a $20,000 van to take your kids to the doctor, you can do it in a $10,000 van. You however don't want to downgrade. My point was you're putting the expensive van (which requires a car payment) over spending your money on experiences with your wife and children.
>need to go down to the nearest shelter and volunteer
I do my volunteer work, though not at a homeless shelter. I also donate lots of toiletries to our local homeless shelter on a regular basis. In my adult life I've also been around, befriended, and talked to many many homeless people and people with significant health problems due to the places I've been.
>I can only hope you have people in your life who you care about enough to actually think before you act in the event of your death.
I made my wishes very very clear. I would like to be cremated as soon as possible. No embalming. I don't want onlookers gawking at my dead body and no stupid funeral home upgrades. I've said it here in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7391663 I think my friends and family should then throw a party honoring my life if they choose to.
I did something similar with my wedding and stayed out of the wedding industry almost completely. I had an out of touch friend say "You have to spend over $20,000 on a wedding and I was getting the base packages!" um... no... If you stop with the consumerism then you realize that isn't the case at all.
A family friend died while his kids were out of the country. They cremated him right away and waited for the kids to get back to have an event to celebrate his life. It was in a park and it was a wonderful tribute.
>this is about security and easing the pain of my death
Cutting back your lifestyle will provide much more financial security now and in the future.
>we have memories in this house and in that van
They are just things. Objects. Stuff.
It is sad that we all think we are entitled to a piece of the earth for eternity. Not only is it a huge waste of money but a huge waste of land. If everyone who ever lived had a marked grave reserved for them forever, there would be no land left for the people who are living right now.
It is the ultimate sense of entitlement.
By the way caskets cost like 5 grand or something too. I was there when we were picking one out for my grandma I think that was the price of hers and it was on the cheaper side. My grandma pre bought her plot, but it still cost 10 grand to do a funeral that really wasn't elaborate or anything, mainly the basic stuff. If it were up to just me, things would have been different.
I live next to a graveyard - the stones often are so decayed after 100 years as to be unreadable. Graves get reused eventually or the graveyard gets reused as a whole (at least that's how things have happened in my country thusfar).
Funny half the people ITT seem to be saying we've got loads of resources.
Also FWIW a graveyard isn't wasted space - it's basically a park with memorial stones. People use it to walk, jog; it's a good space for wildlife, trees prosper.
My wife had her father's body donated to science. It cost $200, and several months later she got an urn of her father's ashes by mail.
We then rented a boat and spread his ashes in his favorite harbor. It turned out to be a solemn and yet mildly joyful occasion as each person talked about fond memories and spread some ashes in the water.
I want students to cut my corpse up and learn things. I want my body to contribute to society for a little while longer after I am gone.
Cheap cremation or donating my body to a medical school (there's one at the U across the lake). I'd much rather not give money to some funeral parlour shyster -- one of my uncles ran one of those things, and while I like to think he was one of the honest ones, that industry is all about taking advantage of vulnerable people, worse than being in used car / camel / spacecraft sales.
$20k actually sounds low to me, last time I looked into a burial situation.
I have told my children that if I should lose this fight that there will not be a funeral, there will be a party, a celebration with music and cake and ice cream and friends and family and dancing and laughing and singing.
I thought nearly the same. But my thought went more along the lines of "it's sad that this person's highest priorities are all about money".
If it's not in the face of death that you set your priorities on your own accord, then when is it?
That said, I can totally understand not leaving the family behind in debt.
So run it all onto credit cards, by all means.
Though in the case of a mortgage, losing the debt also means losing the house. I totally understand wanting your family to be able to keep the house. Losing your dad/husband and also having to leave the house with all the memories of him, would suck double.
why couldn't you (as the inheritee?) "throw away" all assets prior to dying, then let your benifactors refuse the debts (which is all that's left)? Who actually enforces that you can't dispose of your assets (in a way that benefits your son/daughter/spouse), then refuse the debt?
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_tax_in_the_United_States#N...
Whenever you take a loan for your house, a bank will want to add a note to the registry that it has first claim to your property in case of not paying, premature death, and so on. So one cannot just give his house to his relatives, as the court will block the transfer when it will see in the registry that the bank has primary claim to it. To do something like that, one must make a deal with the bank that new owner will either pay up the loan or take it on his name.
Also, that's different for married couples. Of course that depends on countries and whether you have a prenup or not, but married couple usually share their assets and their depts. Which means that if one of the spouse take a debts, the other is responsible for it too.
Either way it's very likely his mortgage was a joint debt. In France you're forced to take a life insurance for a mortgage, so it's unlikely someone will get in his situation. Even when it's not mandatory everyone should take one, because even if dying young sucks, it can happen.
You make it sound like it's his fault, or he wants money to hoard it or spend it.
He wants it for his family. His highest priorities are having them secure.
and in some sense, it is. When you do something as big as buying a house and taking on a huge mortgage, a premature death simply is something you have to think about. You can chose to insure your family against that (live insurance), or you can chose to take the risk. Or you can not think about it, and let life chose for you.
Even now, selling the house and/or car (and worrying less about money) is an option. It's not a popular option, but my point is that there are options, and that means that there is also choice in the order of priorities.
> or he wants money to hoard it or spend it.
That's totally not how I see it, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
Even if it wasn't for the mortgage or the van, you would want your partner to have sufficient resources to make rent.
A level term policy can often be had for as little as $30/month and it would have been more than adequate to cover the $250,000 in debt and final expenses. The service (assuming 4% and 30/5 years for the house/car) on this debt is probably about $1500, which means he should probably be able to afford an extra $30.
It's not a bad thing.
... if your 'metric for value' happens to be high enough.
I'd say that worrying about money isn't completely bad thing.
If you live in a society where the government, or church, or ... whatever entity, provides everything for you, that still requires someone else to do work for your benefit so you can exist.
A great many of us feel we're being driven by someone else's metric for value.
I, for one, don't find that a good thing at all.
Rather than dwelling on sadness, maybe we should ask if there isn't something we can do, as a group, to make that day arrive sooner. What would it take to cure, or at least treat, cancer(s)?
The WHO produces a report on causes of death wordwide[0]. Heart disease and stroke are the biggest killers, but these are, like cancer, really quite complex. Diarrhoeal diseases and respiratory infections kill a ridiculous number of people, but these are largely solved problems in the western world. Organisations like the Gates Foundation are doing great work exporting what we know about these diseases to the developing world, but governments do a pitiful amount. A number of chronic lifestyle diseases are rising: lung/throat cancer (due to smoking) and diabetes (due to eating sugar). My suggestion is that we should prioritise disease research and treatment based on how many people are dying and how easily those problems could be solved. But because funding bodies are all human, and all in the developed world, the disease they most fear is cancer.
Regarding food security, there is technically enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, if we could solve the distribution and storage problems and prevent rich governments' protectionist interference in agricultural markets and corruption in developing nations' governments. But a large amount of that wastage is also not really suitable for human nutrition. Probably the fastest way to alleviate hunger is to enable each part of the world to feed itself with food produced nearby. Because we've reached the limits of arable land in much of the world, this means making more land suitable for food production, finding new ways to provide water, and making crops be able to grow better in different conditions. The FAO's State of Food Insecurity report[1] is a good summary.
Life sucks sometimes, but there's so much more we could be doing to make it suck a lot less for a lot of people.
BTW, same thing with researching "illness related to malnourishment": Avoid malnourishment and then, there is no need to cure anything.
Everything is made with corn or corn byproducts and its not healthy at all.. not only that were feeding it to all our animals.. its a bad bad situation how our food supply is treated, and the more we push "lab grown food" the worse its going to get.
Anyway there are many other risk factors, and evidence for corn itself being one is scant. Alcohol intake, smoking, red meat consumption, lack of dietary fibre, high salt levels in one's diet and obesity are much more concerning, given the correlative evidence.
You can taste the difference in a cow that's been fed a corn diet and a cow thats been grass fed. Problem is if you see those cattle lots they have so many head of beef(far to many for the acreage) it's just dirt. Then it's dipped in a bath of ecoli killing shit, and squished up with a bajillion other cows.. it's disgusting. I'll stick to raising my own food.
If you want to invest in anything, buy land.
If science has shown anything, it's that this is the wrong way to think. Leave the answers to those who do the science, feelings are a terrible way to come to conclusions. Blaming corn based on your feelings is irrational and very likely completely wrong.
Yes, the trigger for carcinogenic mutations is mostly environmental influence - some of which can be controlled and some of which can't - but that's no reason to cease funding research into the actual cellular mechanisms of cancer.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/world...
Also, as we are eliminating competing risks, cancer is emerging as a huge source of death in developing economies.
For other diseases - malaria, dengue, hepatitis, typhoid etc., not to mention malnutrition - global spending is massively disporportionate in favour of cancer.
"We haven't found a solution to this problem" is possibly the worst reason I've ever heard to cut back on research.
HIV is a relatively easy problem when compared to cancer.
Earth is full. Our population has doubled in the short time I've been alive. Doesn't that scare the shit out of anyone else?
Imagine what would happen if you suddenly cured all forms of cancer. People would live even longer. Population would shoot up. Lack of housing, lack of jobs. More pensioners...
edit: Downvote brigade... why am I wrong? What's going to save us from our own 'success'? How many more billion people can the planet take?
Even if we accepted that Earth is full, surely we don't just let all the poorest people die? And extending that reasoning, why treat any diseases at all?
The fact is that we could feed everyone and cure some of the biggest killers in the world today. These are not insoluble problems, they just aren't priorities for the richest nations because they're happening elsewhere.
But cancer when you're over 60? That's basically just dying of old age...
1) Despite your disclaimer you are sounding unfeeling.
2) It seems convenient for a (presumably) relatively healthy and youthful person to be advocating large sacrifices that will hit others first.
3) Many of us don't share your pessimistic view of human progress. If we can figure out how to thwart death from disease, we can probably figure out how to deal with overpopulation.
4) And of course the obvious, and entirely heartless rejoinder: if you're so keen on death to reduce overpopulation, isn't it a bit selfish of you to keep on living?
This is a slippery slope and the only solution is not to go down it.
A quick google search shows that whilst population was pretty stable in UK in the 80s, since then it's been steadily rising. Growth is now 0.75% a year.
But that growth rate is deceptive. Look at
https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
But that growth rate is deceptive - it "looks" low. But if you check the absolute numbers:
In the UK, population has grown by around 10% in the last 20 years, and it's on an increasingly upward trend.
https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
Just anecdotally, if you live in the UK, you'll know how many new homes they're building all over the countryside.
World population: https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
I'm glad you can see that graph levelling off, but I can't see it...
The US has a similar story, fertility rate below 2.0 plus migration from the third world results in net population growth, even though the population of the US is no longer "exploding".
Population growth is not really exponential, it's rather an S-curve. As soon as the quality of life reaches a certain threshold, that growth stagnates. And btw, we have long surpassed the need to be healthy in order to reproduce. Assuming somebody that dies at 35 for various reasons, by then that person could have given birth to 10 children already, something which happens quite often in the impoverished populations of third-world countries.
At this point, what we really need to do in order to survive as a species is in fact to eliminate premature death, to raise the quality of life for everybody and to find ways to drop the cost of energy and food to zero - a long shot, but in such a future money wouldn't be needed anymore to simply live, the economy wouldn't depend anymore on birth rate and maybe we would stop feeling the need to destroy our environment for profit. And maybe we won't feel the need to give birth to children in order to survive.
Besides, unless you're a selfish jerk (and selfish jerks don't contribute much to our species btw), you should agree with me that nothing is more valuable than human life.
Your comment is also unfeeling (as you suspected), especially in the context of this thread. I think that if you or a loved one were dying of cancer, it's unlikely that your overwhelming emotion would be gratitude that you/he/she are doing your/his/her part to help with the overpopulation problem. That may, in fact, be one point that's earning you the downvotes.
Would a subsequent increase in the population present challenges? Perhaps. But, there are other, more humane ways to deal with the problem than just letting people die of cancer. I mean, where does the logic end? Should we let known carcinogens stay in the food supply? Encourage people to smoke again?
And, the issues you cited (housing, jobs, pensions) are all fixable immediately. That is, we are not suffering from a lack of wealth or resources in these regards, but rather the distribution thereof. So, you happened to pick some really bad examples that nod to implications of economic injustice. That may be another point that is earning you downvotes.
Hans Rosling, "What Stops Population Growth?" http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth...
In Malthus's model, new people only consume food and breed. But we do this other cool thing, too, we also think about human problems and how to solve them. We all add resources to the computer of humanity.
Some really cool, like Norman Borlaug, go around the world and teach people how to grow more reliable crops, stopping famines, increasing the reliability and scale of the food supply while lowering the resources it takes to produce the food. It's sometimes said he's saved a billion lives. He did so without increasing the strain on others, but by spreading knowledge and increasing efficiency, maybe even lowering the strain on the planet.
Humanity's ability to solve problems isn't in a flat linear relationship with how many people we have either. If we just have 100 people, they all have to farm all the time, and can't stop and think about much. With a billion people, we get economies of scale, so we just need 40% to be farmers, and we can have, say, 20% work on logistics, 10% work on massive aqueducts and public infrastructure, and 10% be scientists and inventors.
At a certain point, every additional person makes it easier for more people to survive on the planet. And yes, there is some raw physical limit to population on this rock... but visit the Russian Taiga, Wyoming, Namibia, or Mongolia. We're nowhere near that point yet, it's several orders of magnitude away. And if you note Rosling's points, we probably won't keep growing anyway.
He notes that population growth is really a switch towards health systems with lower infant mortality. You have previous generations that keep having 10 kids because only one or two of them will survive, then the health conditions improve and suddenly all of them survive. The next generation or so reverts to normal family planning, having just one or two kids. Malthus was wrong to suggest that people just breed as much as humanly possible.
All that said, I don't think you should be downvoted for asking a question. If we buried every premise we disagreed with, we'd never get a chance to lay out the reasons we believe the opposite, we'd never convince anyone. We'd just be insisting on dogmatic agreement, rather than any actual understanding of the complex issues.
As well as a whole host of other problems, such as people switching to profitable crops to export rather than to feed the local population.
1. oil and gas are strictly "required" as an energy source
2. energy consumption of these methods is higher per yield than traditional farming
3. oil/gas will run out in any meaningful time frame
4. peak oil/gas will be sudden or catastrophic
5. adaptation to new conditions is impossible
6. exporting profitable crops is a net social loss for a local population (or even the stronger corollary, that locovorism is ever beneficial)
Some of those are contentious areas, matters of continuing study. Some are probably hyperbole, and we'd likely agree on more moderate formulations. Some I'm pretty firmly convinced are incorrect. Even if they were all just mildly suspect, though, it's a lot of shaky steps for me to take all at once. So I remain cautiously optimistic, skeptical that food insecurity due to Borlaug's methods and oil shocks will have any meaningful impact for the next fiftyish years. I guess there's some chance, just seems exceedingly unlikely to me.
That said, I think you laid out your criticism of his methods in a clear and concise way, and while I disagree with some of the premises, they're not radically unreasonable or anything, I can see how one would stand by that conclusion. Have an upvote for a well formulated dissenting view, something we should all encourage whenever possible.
You might find Jevon's paradox interesting.
Even in developing countries such as Bangladesh the average family now as 2 children due to education and great progress in women's rights.
I don't have the figures off the top of my head, but population peak will be more than manageable.
The problem will providing energy when everyone on the planet wants a washing machine.
World population. Up and to the right.
UN projects the population to peak in 2075, at a bit over 9 billion, with yearly growth rates having dropped to 0.33% in 2050 based on current trends. Post 2075 they project a population drop as many more countries will have dropped below "maintenance" birth rates, like large parts of Europe.
Hypotheses and projections are constantly refined. But in comparison to estimates on things like coal or climate, the population growth models are almost trivially simple, and while the numbers are adjusted up and down regularly to account for actual data, all data we have show the population growth consistently slowing down.
For starters, one of the things that make the population models straightforward compared to a lot of other things we might try to model, is that we can compare countries, and as it happens there are patterns that have consistently applied to countries as they develop, and that we have detailed data on: As life expectancy increases, growth rates drop to near or below maintenance rates.
Unless the remaining countries with rapid growth are somehow drastically different, it would take massive, earth-shattering changes for the population growth not to stop. It's not realistically a question of if it stops, but when and how high the peak will be, and how much the population will fall back afterwards before growth resumes (the expectation is that it will fall back because we get a "bulge" similar to what we're seeing these days due to the baby-boomer generation, and eventually the people in that bulge will start to die off).
Even many developing countries have long ago entered into the phase where it is not birth rates that is the cause of ongoing growth, but improving life expectancy, which means that their growth will eventually stop.
And with countries like China heading rapidly towards contraction as early as 2030 (with net growth now down to around 1/3 of its peak in the mid 80's, driven by a fertility rate far below maintenance), even the remaining high growth countries would have to dramaticall raise their population growth if we are to continue seeing overall growth.
Population growth is usually expected to be exponential. The fact that the graph looks linear we could interpret as a positive sign.
Also, if we check out the Earth's growth rate [1], the percentages have indeed slowed down. The left part (1965 - 1970) peaking at 2.10% looks like Generation X, the children of the baby boomers. The latest datum at 2012 returns 1.15%, and is still trending slightly negative.
The growth rate charts become more interesting as you isolate specific regions and countries. Sub-Saharan is the only region which is mostly trending positive [2]. Japan has received some press in recent years because its growth rate has actually crossed the x-axis[3] .
[1] https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
[2] https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
[3] https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
- The growth rate is slowing. The growth in absolute terms is still sufficient to make the line look near linear when you look at it over such a long time span, especially given that life expectancy is also increasing almost everywhere (see my last point below).
- The growth rate is fairly low. E.g. around 2005, the growth rate was about 1.1%, and the decline is slow (e.g. it's projected to get to around 0.33% or so around middle of the century), so seeing the change on a graph that plots billions of people against a period of decades gets tricky.
- There are large temporal distortions due to changes in life expectancy, and the size of generations. To give an extreme example: Consider if a population to begin with was static - births and deaths were perfectly matched. Now consider if this population stopped having children, yet at the same time, everyone started living 40 years longer. In this (totally impossible of course) scenario, it would take 40 years from the birthrate collapsed until the population size would start dropping. While something that extremely obviously would not happen, less extreme variations are. E.g. some areas of China has a birth rate of well below 1 child per woman, and the country as a whole is well below 2, while you need somewat more than 2 to maintain a population (to account for men + people who never procreate), but the population is still increasing because population is still young on average due to the massive population growth in the 50's and 60's coupled with rapidly increasing life expectancy.
This last point means that we're still seeing a combination of the effect of birth rates going as far back as at least 1950's and all increases in life expectancy since, that correctly reflects current growth, but gives us a very distorted idea of where the population size is headed.
Most projections have the worlds population set to start reducing again within a few decades, and then likely stabilise well below the projected peak.
Here is UN's latest revision of their "World Population to 2300" report: https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/Wo...
This report presents a main scenario with a peak of 9.22 billion in 2075, followed by a drop and slow resumption of growth towards 8.97 billion by 2300. It references older UN projections that indicates a range from 7.4 billion to 10.6 billion for 2050 depending on scenario.
This current report assumes 8.9 billion for 2050, and projects annual increases in population sizes down to 0.33% in 2045-2050, vs. 1.22% in 2000-2005
This comes as more and more countries sees rapid decline in birth rates equivalent to those that the developed world has already seen.
Particularly look at pages 6-8 in the report, where you can get an idea what we would expect to see if cancer was "cured": Life expectancy and fertility mirror each other closely. As we live longer, we put off having children, have fewer children, or opt not to have children at all.
Even if we were to cure all forms of cancer, people would continue to die of other causes eventually. At most a cure would lead the population size to level out at a somewhat higher level because we might have children proportionally earlier in a life span so generations would overlap more. But we have to deal with these population numbers without a cure for cancer too, to deal with the bulge around the peak population sizes expected.
While pension-age might be a problem, if people remain healthier longer there's little reason not to increase the pension age, as some countries have already started doing.
Many of us in the sidelines have survived cancer, have cancer, or have close family dying of cancer. There is a time and place for personal soapboxes. This is not it. Have some compassion.
Point taken though...
From what I can find, it seems like the method they are using is incredibly inefficient.
I find it really sucky that it hardly gets any traction anymore. Our combined computing powers are vastly growing every day, yet these efforts are not reaching mainstream. Bigger companies who'd love to show they are involved with the world, would rather post donations.
Maybe donations are more effective, who knows. I have a feeling we are missing out. I've been thinking of ways to have the system get more traction, or something that would stimulate development/improvements of a distributed computing grid for world problems, but can't figure it out.
If anything I would love to contribute my time and efforts to promote such a thing. I think being able to prolong the live expectancy of many patients, cheaper cures, or right-out curing some types of cancer is a very viable platform that could get some traction down these lines, and a very important one at that.
I can see why the idea of looking for ET or analyzing gamma ray bursts to map neutron stars is a bit distant for people.
I think this proves once again that scientists suck at marketing. Maybe we can help out, start a combined collaboration project to improve the efficiency of distributed workloads in this specific field to start with.
As I'm writing this, more and more I want to do this. But I'm just a webdev with the powers of Google at my disposal.
Something something about the largest risk of poverty for middle class people in China is medical expenses.
Source: WHO speaker at a longevity conference I attended.
I mean the average time to pay of a loan is something like 15 years, and given his situation he could probably try to apply for a better deal from the company where he took his loan (decrease monthly amortization costs but increase loan period for example?).
Personally, I will not get hooked by this story and give him money. But point me to the nearest cancer research institution that has made tangible results and I would be happy do donate.
But also, out of personal reasons due to the crappy humans nature we all have, I guess I'm kind of jealous that this guy will be making tons of money on something so bad. I'm a young guy, my girlfriend (my first real love) died last year, and honestly, noone gave a fuck about that.
That's the reason I cannot do both.
I would rather say realist. We live in a society based upon democracy and free will right? I'm not ashamed for my statements.
If you feel that your money is better spent donating to a cancer research center, then please do. But your jealousy is seriously mis-placed and you are seriously confused with regards to my motives. I'm not any more worthy of this than the next guy. That's the simple truth. And asking for help of any kind is the last thing I want to do. But I also can't just die and leave my family to suffer and fight for themselves. My human nature tells me that I should do everything I can to take care of them and to take care of those around me. I can't count the number of times I've done something for a complete stranger, like paying for their meal, just because I felt that I had been blessed that day and there was a need to pass it on.
Even as I sit here and look at what happened with this today I am torn between actually using the donations to pay off our housing and transportation debts along with my final resting place or just giving the money to someone else who needs it more than I do. It is not easy being in the position where I know what my family needs and knowing that there are others who deserve so much more.
I'm sorry that no one was there when your girlfriend died. That is truly sad and shouldn't happen to anyone. I can only hope that you find it in your heart to give something to someone and realize that when you need it most someone will be there for you.
"Even as I sit here and look at what happened with this today I am torn between actually using the donations to pay off our housing and transportation debts along with my final resting place or just giving the money to someone else who needs it more than I do."
Yes, you should be.
If you are really in a dire situation maybe you should look into getting money from the government by participating in research and stuff like that. That's what I would do if I were in your situation.
Hope your last time on this planet is good. This is a process everyone will have to experience eventually I'm afraid. No matter if you are young or old. Crazy thing is that everything will just keep moving on, your kids will grow up, maybe have kids of their own and eventually, in a long time, themselves face the same situation. It's an endless cycle these lives. Even if we can't recognize that because we're stuck in the middle of it trying to make money for our future or something else we aren't sure about.
This is a really good book by the way. Helped me get through the hard times. Although im not sure the english translation is that good.
http://www.amazon.com/Inger-Christensen/dp/0811215946
Good luck. Hope your funding goes well and that it will make you happy.
If someone is too lazy to click and read - Anita healed herself completely from stage 4 cancer by dropping all fears out of her system. Then her body completely healed itself in a few weeks.
Worth spending some research dollars teaching people how to clean their inner emotional states and eliminate debilitating fears that causes sicknesses and so many deaths.
Given my current condition, I can't return to work. I don't know what tomorrow holds. I could wake up and need to be hospitalized yet again or I could be pain free and enjoying every moment I have with my children or I could be dead. It's no longer a choice as to what I do with my life because it is no longer mine. I am living on borrowed time and for every second I can borrow I will be spending it with my children trying to prepare them for my death to make that process easier. No child should have to lose their parent at such a young age and no spouse should find themselves a widow with young children either. Anyone who thinks this is just another sob story should try living it for just the first week and tell me how it feels. Trust me, your tune will quickly change, mine did.
Forgive me for asking but doesn't health insurance cover costs of cancer treatment even in the USA? I really don't want to sound like a narcissist and I'm not trying to judge in the least, but I'm curious why the OP wasn't more diligent about planning ahead in terms of health insurance given he made a decision to have/raise four children.
Do people really not take into account stuff like children's education, cost of living expenses per additional member of family, emergencies, black swan events? I know my parents decided to have only X number of kids because they knew that they wouldn't be able to provide well for more than X children. This was a conscious decision given that my father grew up with 7 siblings and my mom says she would have had more children if they would have been able to provide for them.
Also I'm genuinely curious whether $20,000 for a final resting place seems like a good amount to put on a list of priorities given all the other costs involved? Mortgage and transportation seem like good goals, but minus the cancer, if some one else decided to raise money from the internet to spend it on traveling, I'm not sure a lot of the comments would be so positive?
I'm really sorry for being so negative, but these are general questions that I have and they are in no way directed towards the OP. Cancer sucks. Period.
That said, it sounds like he's not looking for money for treatment, but for things like paying down the mortgage and car before his income is lost. This is what life insurance is meant to cover, but again, there's a wide range of coverage options and many people don't think about how much to buy, especially when they're young.
If you've just bought a house and a car and had a kid you're probably in a lot of recent debt, with the assumption that you'll have a lifetime to pay it down. All it takes is one bad accident to turn that assumption upside down. Get life insurance, folks.
Out of self discipline I bought a life insurance at the same time my home loan was approved; the insurance amount being same as loan amount.
I have always wondered why don't Government have regulations in place that forces a borrower to purchase a life insurance. Or at least make the borrower opt into insurance by default with the option of opting out.
Left to themselves borrowers are not likely to think about insurance at the time of taking loans. I think by nature we underplay risks to our life because of which our loved ones end up suffering financially over and above emotionally.
Life insurance is to protect the people that rely on your income, not pay off your debts (I don't think this is a deep insight, I just think it is the sensible way to talk about it).
If you have children and only insured the value of your house, you probably need to buy more (but of course you might have discussed a simplified version of your situation or whatever).
It's the old "nanny state" debate... In France, life insurances are mandatory when you get a mortgage. However, one still has to be particularly careful with insurance policies. My mother died to a cancer, a few years after she contracted a loan. However, the insurance company refused to pay off the loan. The contract was nullified as she didn't mention a disease she had 15 years before (unrelated the the cancer that killed her).
Because that's literally an unfair subsidy for insurance companies off the backs of homeowners. Insurance isn't a scam, but it is trading some reward to decrease risks. Probabilistically, you're better off saving the insurance money. I'm not saying that's the best choice for everyone, but it should be a choice.
Personally, as a single adult I'd never consider life insurance——nobody would be financially ruined if I died, so I'm much better off rolling all excess money into the stock market.
That's the reason I'm fairly confident the insurance company will take care of everything.
If you have a life insurance policy, and Aflac, you'll get a ton of money from having cancer. Aflac will pay cash for every hospital visit, every procedure, transportation (not pay FOR it, your health insurance will do that, but give you cash on top of that) and then the life insurance policy will cash out when you pass away.
Your family will miss you but at least they won't have to worry about paying for stuff.
If you have to spend the last of your days worrying about money, society is broken.
There are very simple guidelines that can help prevent melanoma, especially for people at risk: - Avoid exposing your skin to the sun, especially when it's high. Use high SPF (30+) sun screen (water resistant if you'll be swimming); wear longsleeves, hats and sunglasses. (Good sunglasses are important, as you can have ocular melanoma) - Obviously, don't use tanning booths. - Plan a visit with a dermatologist at least once per year. This is very important. Just like you'd get your tooth, eyes, etc... checked every year, take the habit to see a dermatologist. - If you're especially at risk, regulary check your skin for signs of changes. Nowadays it's easy to take pictures with a digital camera (or phone) so that you can see how the spots and moles evolve.
How do you know if you're in the population at risk? If you have moles, OR are fair-skinned / haired, OR have freckles (all of these are usuall signs of an overall general sensitivity to sun exposure), you are at risk. Obviously, if there are family antecedants of skin cancer, you are at risk. Also, if your work or hobbies expose your skin regularly and for prolonged periods of time to the Sun, you are at risk.
Personal story: I have a friend who has had a mole removed in the knee, and which proved to be ultimately (after testing) malignant. Fortunately this was caught early. And I've had personnally a mole removed in the back, though it was found to be benign. Skin cancer risk can be greatly reduced by these simple precautions, so please people, try to follow these.
In terms of his house and the like, I was always led to believe that life insurance was specifically for cases like his? Is life insurance a big thing in America? My parents have always had a lot of cover, but I'm pretty sure that was because of my Dad being a civil engineer and foreman, so his work was sort of dangerous. I don't know much about how life insurance works, mind you, so I'm sort of guessing here, for all I know Jonathan doesn't have any or if he did he's not covered for something like this (and to be would require premiums that are huge, or something). Anyone shed some light for me?
Good luck Jonathan. I'm not a religious person, but I can hope for the best to occur, however unlikely.
Usually an employer will give you an additional survivor's benefit, usually between 10K to up to a year's worth of salary.
(For example)
The numbers are particular for a young woman in Illinois, but it won't be egregiously higher for young men.
(because other policies sort of mix in an investment product)
From the limited sample size I've gathered with sadness thus far: For serious cancer, terminal or not, the system seems designed for the cost to be "everything you have" whatever that happens to be.
Although I'm open to a demonstration as to how I'm wrong about that. Last time I checked, health insurance typically can't even cross state borders due to hyper regulation. I don't think you can get further away from Capitalism than the US health system.
Be in a welfare state is somewhat a good thing even if you pay more taxes.
For some people this may be true. My mother died of breast cancer at 59 and it really didn't cost her anything thanks to the fact she had health insurance through my father's work. My parents were probably lower-middle-class but the fact that my dad worked the same job for 39 years and had steady health insurance throughout kept them from this fate.
We also both have additional personal life cover for at least 6x annual salary.
This doesn't seem excessive cover to me - maybe because we are in our 40s with kids (and knowing people who have died and having close relatives who are terminally ill) makes you worry about these things more - I certainly didn't in my 20s.
But when I bought a house, I was advised to get insurance cover specifically for the amount of debt remaining on the house; the policy lasts the length of the mortgage and pays out whatever is debt is outstanding.
Any case similar to OP will become problematic. When you get terminally ill you will eventually lose your job. Thanks to COBRA you can keep health insurance, but not the life, disability and long-term care insurance plans. And getting new term life policy at this stage is not really an option.
I found the "Pay off our mortgage" part a bit strange. Living in Poland I don't know anyone who managed to get a mortgage without mandatory life insurance which makes the bank the first beneficiary. You die, they get the money, mortgage is paid off, family keeps the house. Pople like to bitch that it's a scam, hidden cost, extra money for the bank etc, but it's designed for situations like this (it protects the bank as well as the customer).
And, yes, they likely make money on that money while it's not being paid out.
Here is an actuarial table that lays out the likelihood of dying and how long you're expected to live at every age.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html
So, say they collect $7200 from each healthy 30 year old male (when they signed up) over the 20 year term. They just need 70 people to sign up in order to pay out one $500K benefit. Many fewer than 1 in 70 people who sign up will die during the term.
Having 4 kids, big house and car, expensive grave, need to travel, meet celebrities screams greed, irresponsibility and entitlement.
You could have not had 4 kids and had 2. You could have rented a place and bought a used car. The problem isn't wanting something better, the problem is that you decided to buy those things without earning it and with money you did not have. All these are choices you made as a person. And to take your family down with you is selfish and irresponsible.
Definitely won't be donating.
What? Most people don't pay cash for a house or save up the full 18-year cost before having a kid. He made these choices before he was diagnosed and they weren't unreasonable given their salaries at the time.
If you make it this way, please contact me, I'd love to help!
But hey, you're the one who didn't buy life insurance like a responsible parent, so a non-sad sob story is your only chance of paying off your SUV. Great. Why do I care about your SUV? Also, why do I care whether you get a pricey funeral rather than a county funeral? Also, why are you more important than all of us who are born to die?
Also, why was this posted?
With regards to funeral costs, have you even looked at what these cost now? It's obvious to me that you haven't or you wouldn't have bothered to mention a county funeral.
With regards to importance, I'm no one. I'm not worthy of the attention this has gotten, but I am human. And that's the point. This is about being human and caring about fellow humans, period. There are people who deserve this far more than I but that doesn't change the fact that someone felt this was worthy of attention and to that person, I say thank you.
Thank you for seeing that this isn't about me, it's not about a pricey funeral, it's not about trips. It's about providing for my family as best as I can given the circumstances. It's about giving them peace of mind when they have lost something important.
May you find your heart before experiencing the loss of a loved one. May you realize that this has nothing to do with frivolous capitalism and everything to do with being human and doing everything you can to provide your family even after you're gone.
Very meta of you. Who are you to judge what someone likes? If you don't want to donate, fine, but do you also have to spit on the beggar as you walk past? Your post is vile.
Check out my new app its X for Y New Agile Ruby Framework..
Or any other number of buzzword compliant posts.
Beyond that, my mom took me to Disneyland when I was about 9 - while I could tell it was a constructed environment, it's a very very pretty one, and I make life experiences I still think about now, some 22 years later.
I'm 31, and while I don't have kids, I dont have life insurance either, beyond a small 10k policy - no one expects to die younger than 40, and really, if you'd read, you'd see he recently changed jobs, hence the lack of insurance - beyond that, if you hadn't noticed its been a hard couple of years recently when it comes to the job market and economy, many parts of the country have only started to recover in the last 18 months.
After all, I wish them all the best!
I can't find a fault with taking on a mortgage at 35 when you have a family. Particularly if you can afford the payments. I'd argue given the historically low cost of mortgage debt today, the cost of renting + trying to save to one day buy a house for your family, is a worse choice.
Good luck to everybody facing similar timelines.
[Edit: I can't spell]
I'm not here to bash, but with so much money problem why do people want to spend so much money on their death? If I die I just want people to get rid of my body in the cheapest way possible. Just burn me or give me to science.
It's considered to be a one last sign of generosity to nature when you no longer need your body. Also, it was probably started because the land is too hard and tough to dig up in the mountains of Tibet (a.k.a. cost effective and practical).
Also, your family and friends might want to see you before science does whatever with you, and that will cost more than any of us would like to think it will. Funerals aren't cheap, and I was told when buying life insurance to expect all funeral expenses (viewings, whatever is done with the body) to easily be $20k.
I have told my children that if I should lose this fight that there will not be a funeral, there will be a party, a celebration with music and cake and ice cream and friends and family and dancing and laughing and singing.
This is a little strange to me. Unless he was a freelancer, every tech job that I'm aware of has decent life insurance options that would easily cover this. If you add a few more dollars it covers college as well.
I definitely can't stress the importance of getting life insurance from a reputable company.
You can purchase $500k for <$20/month for most people.
About a third blame the guy, as if buying a house at the age of 32 is crazy.
About a third just use his tragedy as a soapbox to knee-jerk blame the American health care system, as if people dying of cancer in other countries don't face a loss of income.
The remaining third give me some hope for humanity.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/525561.The_American_Way_o...
Of course the funeral industry exists to make money. To convince you you need the expensive casket, the flower arrangements, and even the plot of land and headstone.
Reminds me of the wedding industry as well, which invented new "traditions" that one needs and also needs to spend money on.
Like anything, you don't need to spend 10 or 20 grand on a funeral, just most people want to for some reason. Perhaps a display of status? Social obligation? I don't know.
Personally, it is important for me when I go to be cremated as fast as possible. No embalming or viewing of the body (needless and creepy). If my family chooses to honor me by throwing a party, that would be nice, but that should only be a few hundred dollars. I don't want my body to be there though.
...just to give a representative example, last September my Dad died. 1) We had his remains cremated. 2) We got said remains without anything fancier than the cardboard box they came in. 3) We scattered his ashes ourselves as a family without any visitation, funeral ceremony, or anything.
No gravestone, no casket, no wake, no ceremony, no officiant.
Total cost: $6,000.
$20,000 is absolutely realistic if he wants to be buried with an average casket, average headstone and average ceremony.
I'm not saying that the story isn't genuine, but there's no evidence or proof that it is and yet people are donating. That's amazing. Or maybe not.
Be warned.
Major diseases are the most important reason for health insurance to exist.
But in the US, if you get a major disease, you lose your job, then within 18 months your coverage, and then the insurance is gone.
Is this correct?
Said that, wouldn't it be cheaper for him and his family to move to an European country, and get therapy there?
In most europeans countries you just pay a low and flat rate (around 100€ a month) and you can get Cancer treatment or whatever is needed.
I really want to help him, but I hate that at the end all the money will go into the greedy american health industry.
Males: 43.92%
Females: 38.00%
Memento mori - deepest thanks for a wakeup call.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, you reminded me of my own vulnerability and that we all have to be prepared for the worst case scenario.
Best of my sincere wishes.
You can eat the sopaipillas though.
Having someone in his last months of life begging for money to not leave his family screwed up seems like a waste of those precious last weeks.
It doesn't appear that health care costs are a major issue in this scenario. Even with universal healthcare, a dead breadwinner is going to significantly impact a family's financial situation.
Someone once asked a sage, "Why do we fear death and cling to life so much?" The sage said, "We fear death because we have prepared nothing for it while we have constructed for ourselves a comfortable, familiar life. Why would you look forward to going to something for which you haven't prepared anything and why would you look forward to leaving something for which you invested all of your time and effort?"
Love your story and your priority list!
Capitalism is beautiful.
How about posting on facebook "I'm dying, here's a fund we started to help support my wife and children in my absence" and leave it at that. This comes across as entitled and unrealistic.
That being said, his situation is extremely shitty and it is probably worthwhile for anyone with the means to help him out for that reason alone.
1) paying off debt so his currently income-less wife has some breathing room
2) spending time with family.
He's not snorting cocaine off a dead hooker's ass here.
Yes, I'm all about financial responsibility, but experiences can't be bought later, a little debt can be paid later.
That part did seem odd to me. If they're true family (ie. worth visiting), why isn't he staying with them?
I can't think of a place I've lived that can't support 6 extra people, 4 of them being kids.
It may not be comfortable but its probably less comfortable than not seeing your family because you can't afford a hotel.
I wish we had Capitalism. All we have is an extraordinarily misdirected, poorly run welfare state.
Oh, and welfare state is not a bad word. Some of the most prosperous and equitable countries in the world are welfare states[0].
Some of the worst functioning countries on earth are also very poorly run welfare states. Feel free to point out several poorly functioning, free market Capitalism countries though.
Socialism is what gives rise to Corporatism. The intrusion of government into the economy - rather than the proper separation of the two - through regulation and bribes, opening up a flood gate of protectionism, lobbying and special favors.
I'm well aware of the arguments on the nordic model. Most of them had to reform their poorly functioning welfare models over the last few decades (see: Sweden).
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0803/international-invest-...
Corporatism is a legal construction of the state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#Formation
And your comparison isn't accurate at all. There are obvious and often massive differences between America's economic models of 1825, 1910, 1960, and 2014. 2014 isn't in any respect similar to the 1825 or 1910 versions. To argue that America in 2014 is highly Capitalistic, is to argue that Capitalism is compatible with a government system taking 40% of the economy through taxation, massive wealth redistribution, government interference in essentially every sector, nationalization (quasi or total) of core economic segments, welfare programs sprawling to hundreds of billions in cost, tens of thousands of regulations covering every field, and on and on - basically it's like saying that Capitalism can be anything. It can't, it's a specific type of model.
Total government expenditure of USA 2013: 3.45 trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...) GDP of China in 2013: 8.3 trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...)
If I am not mistaken, the federal spending budget includes military spending as well.
And maybe he was thinking of a China GDP number from a year or two ago. When I google "China GDP" it gives me $7.3 billion from 2011.
And "nearly" is subjective.
And most military spending is welfare, either to defense contractors or otherwise.
Welfare for the rich. Naked social darwinism for the poor.
Capitalism is the reason there will be a hotel with a room available when he goes to visit family. It's the reason there will be gas at the gas stations along the way. It's the reason Disneyworld will still be operating when he gets there.
Most important of all, Capitalism is the reason why so many of his peers are wealthy enough to afford the basic survival needs of themselves and their own families that they are able to donate some of their surplus to help this family in need.
That said, I agree that consumerism and living beyond one's means and not saving for a rainy day and distorted markets are problems.
No, I think it's more we are so selfish. Which has always been the case in history. But now we are better educated and more informed so should be pushing for a more compassionate, logical and less racist society over the current owning stuff society.
It is a philosophy that might be possible for at least part of the population.
Bill Gates is doing it. He's helping the worlds real poor. We need part of the population to start to realise people in the 3rd world are as human as the people down the road even if they seem different.
And for a lot less cost than a fancy funeral one could actually save lives. A family could get to keep their father or mother or child.