Colonoscopy is an invasive medical procedure that involves both sedation and surgical risks, which weren't really addressed in the article. Those risks aren't high, but may not be justifiable in...
Colonoscopy is an invasive medical procedure that involves both sedation and surgical risks, which weren't really addressed in the article. Those risks aren't high, but may not be justifiable in the absence of preliminary evidence, e.g. family history and/or positive results from non-invasive tests like occult blood, immunochemical or DNA screenings.
As always, talk to your doctor, but there's a decent basis for personal decision-making here.
Anecdata: Spouse's colonoscopy got him sent to PT for a while to rehabilitate a stasis shoulder injury from being left on his side for too long. I went with the Cologuard test. OTOH, spouse has a sibling with colon cancer, and going straight to colonoscopy was probably justified.
Occult blood sounds like it would be something entirely different, and I had to look it up to see if it really was a thing. I'm just imagining doctors standing around a bloody pentagram and saying...
Occult blood sounds like it would be something entirely different, and I had to look it up to see if it really was a thing. I'm just imagining doctors standing around a bloody pentagram and saying "well, the test looks clear but we could put in an order for some bird entrails to be sure".
Those blood tests cause a bit of confusion. There are two main types: Faecal Occult Blood testing, and Faecal Immunochemical Test. The FOB can find any blood, including blood that you've eaten....
Those blood tests cause a bit of confusion.
There are two main types: Faecal Occult Blood testing, and Faecal Immunochemical Test. The FOB can find any blood, including blood that you've eaten. The FIT test knows the difference between human blood and animal blood. Blood in stool is always concerning but it could be ulcers or polyps or fissures or haemorrhoids or IBD or a few other things.
Let me share a little story. I had a colonoscopy scheduled for early 2020 that got cancelled as we entered lockdown. I never rescheduled because we were caregiving for elderly family with...
Let me share a little story. I had a colonoscopy scheduled for early 2020 that got cancelled as we entered lockdown. I never rescheduled because we were caregiving for elderly family with compromised immune systems. Last year I was rushed to the emergency room with severe abdominal pain that turned out to be a tumor blocking my intestine. Histology indicated colon cancer. After surgery to resect a section of colon, a temporary ileostomy, chemotherapy, and another surgery to reverse the ileostomy, I can say I am doing fine. (Just got scans that show no evidence of disease). I consider myself lucky having caught the tumor before it metastisized. There was never blood in my stool, so unlikely to be detected with a poop kit. I dodged a bullet. I don't like to play the what if game, but always wonder whether I could have been spared all of this, if I had had that colonoscopy. I am now a big advocate for getting a colonoscopy. I know my experience is anecdotal (and a sample size of one) and your results may vary, but get that colonoscopy - especially if there is any family history for colon cancer.
Anedoctal history here too and I'll be brief because I already told here somewhere. My grandpa died of intestinal cancer so a doctor said that after my 40s I should start checking for safety, I'm...
Anedoctal history here too and I'll be brief because I already told here somewhere.
My grandpa died of intestinal cancer so a doctor said that after my 40s I should start checking for safety, I'm 37 still.
My brother who was 53 died this year.
He was having a feeling of fullness in his insides and going to the bathroom a lot.
He got a colonoscopy and they found a polip there. Not cancer, but big enough that needed to be removed.
He was so afraid of surgery that he didn't use the health plan's doctor who was young and opted to pay from his pockets.
Surgery went fine and he was recovering, but he got an infection in his brain. Probably from surgery or one of the procedures he did after. He was quite paranoid and did a few invasive exams.
Anyway, he got a headache that didn't go away and after some days just taking painkillers he started to vomit and be lethargic. They thought it could be a stroke.
Went to emergency and next day he is hooked into machines with a tube draining his brain. He didn't wake up anymore. The abscess ruptured in his brain and he died of septic schock.
This was in March and my mother is still not eating.
They don’t consider the enjoyment both parties derive from the act. All kidding aside, it’s interesting to me that the US populace prefers a feeling of security over getting a scope stuck in your...
They don’t consider the enjoyment both parties derive from the act. All kidding aside, it’s interesting to me that the US populace prefers a feeling of security over getting a scope stuck in your pooper. I guess the fecal blood test isn’t really speaking to y’alls imagination: ‘A doctor is going to look at my poop with a microscope? And then decides if they want to investigate further? Just look with your damn eyes at my entire colon, to see if there’s cancer!’ Secondly, a fecal blood test is probably cheaper and a medical microbiologist or clinical chemist is the one that benefits from ordering the test. A colonoscopy is an diagnostic intervention, only to be done by medical professionals with specific expertise, i.e. gastroenterologists. Gastroenterologists would definitely not enjoy the cut in reimbursements for less colonoscopies. And the patients are probably distrusting other tests than what they’ve come to accept as the only way to do adequate screening. And so it goes.
I got a colonoscopy and an esophagogastroduodenoscopy during the same "session," so I figured they were going to skewer me and try to get the cameras to touch in the middle. They said they weren't...
They don’t consider the enjoyment both parties derive from the act.
I got a colonoscopy and an esophagogastroduodenoscopy during the same "session," so I figured they were going to skewer me and try to get the cameras to touch in the middle. They said they weren't going to do that, which made me fear that they were gonna get their kicks by going ass-to-mouth.
Not that it woulda mattered since that prep really cleared me out. And the prep wasn't that bad. The magnesium citrate had a really strong taste but when I watered it down, it was basically just a lemon drink. And once the prep really started in force, I just sat around playing video games and just had to get up probably every 30 sec - 15 mins to go pee out my butt, which isn't fun but I don't remember it being painful at all.
The real problem was when the nurse told me it was time to go home and I apparently just popped up and whipped off my gown with no warning. The funny thing is that I remember what I said when I did that but I have no memory whatsoever of actually baring myself to the world (or at least to my recovery room).
Not painful but holy cow was it deeply and disturbingly uncomfortable! Im old enough that I should be getting a colonoscopy every 3 to 5 years now, but unless a fecal matter test turns up...
...and just had to get up probably every 30 sec - 15 mins to go pee out my butt, which isn't fun but I don't remember it being painful at all.
Not painful but holy cow was it deeply and disturbingly uncomfortable! Im old enough that I should be getting a colonoscopy every 3 to 5 years now, but unless a fecal matter test turns up something odd, I would highly prefer NOT to drink that horrid liquid and go through hours and hours of turbocharged hydroblasting on the great white throne. It was deeply uncomfortable. I might have a different opinion if there was a history of colorectal cancer in my family but the highest risk factors include smoking, obesity, alcohol, family history, diabetes and diet which aren't my risks.
The people I know who had the procedure here in Brazil really hated the prep and it's considerably different. The diet changes two or three days before and it starts being horrible then. They...
The people I know who had the procedure here in Brazil really hated the prep and it's considerably different. The diet changes two or three days before and it starts being horrible then. They really make sure that your insides are clean and clear.
I started in the afternoon the day before. Used magnesium citrate and a couple laxative pills, I believe. I wish I knew how to access the procedure I followed because it was fairly simple and I...
I started in the afternoon the day before. Used magnesium citrate and a couple laxative pills, I believe. I wish I knew how to access the procedure I followed because it was fairly simple and I was surprised by how well it went. I thought the experience was going to be much worse.
The liquid made me so nauseous that I was worried things would come out of both ends. I still sometimes get this phantom taste in my mouth and it makes me shudder. I am truly dreading the prep...
The liquid made me so nauseous that I was worried things would come out of both ends. I still sometimes get this phantom taste in my mouth and it makes me shudder. I am truly dreading the prep work that’s ten years away.
It was "polyethylene glycol" and it was salt flavored with a hint of lemon. and it was terrible. And the taste was only 50% of my issue with it. It came in basically a gallon (I think) jug and I...
It was "polyethylene glycol" and it was salt flavored with a hint of lemon. and it was terrible.
And the taste was only 50% of my issue with it. It came in basically a gallon (I think) jug and I had to drink 8 oz every 10 minutes interspersed with 8 oz of water over the course of 2 hours and then wait and do that all over again 7ish hours later. It was just SO MUCH Liquid!
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm glad I was checked out, but I will definitely be asking if there is some other less heinous tasting or a less voluminous option.
I'm sure there a bunch of great options that doctors have shared online. When I did mine, the scheduler basically told me not to follow the "proper" prep and gave me a different routine.
I'm sure there a bunch of great options that doctors have shared online. When I did mine, the scheduler basically told me not to follow the "proper" prep and gave me a different routine.
Having had what turned out to be a cancerous polyp removed during a routine colonoscopy, my answer is, yes, colonoscopies are absolutely worth it. I would get one every year if my health insurance...
Having had what turned out to be a cancerous polyp removed during a routine colonoscopy, my answer is, yes, colonoscopies are absolutely worth it. I would get one every year if my health insurance covered it.
Colonoscopies are also preferred in Australia for people with family history of bowel cancer, such as my wife. I’m not sure any other method was offered. The preparation for a colonoscopy is...
Colonoscopies are also preferred in Australia for people with family history of bowel cancer, such as my wife. I’m not sure any other method was offered.
The preparation for a colonoscopy is horrible. However, I suspect it’s less annoying than cancer.
I'm in the US, and I've had one sigmoidoscopy and some fecal blood test screening. I'm ok with my treatment. Incidentally, the doctor asked if I wanted to watch the sigmoidoscopy. I said yes, and...
I'm in the US, and I've had one sigmoidoscopy and some fecal blood test screening. I'm ok with my treatment. Incidentally, the doctor asked if I wanted to watch the sigmoidoscopy. I said yes, and he projected the camera view onto a large screen on the side of the bed I was lying on. So I got to see the inside of my intestines.
This was really interesting, especially as I'm approaching 45 and this becomes directly applicable in a few years. Sidenote: I was very amused by the author's use of the phrase "your tubes"...
This was really interesting, especially as I'm approaching 45 and this becomes directly applicable in a few years.
Sidenote: I was very amused by the author's use of the phrase "your tubes" throughout the article to refer to the entire gastronomic system.
Something about this doesn't surprise me. Like if colonoscopies weren't common here, it would totally make sense that it would be some weird poop thing the Germans do. But I digress. actual study...
they are rarely used for cancer screening outside the United States and some parts of German-speaking Europe.
Something about this doesn't surprise me. Like if colonoscopies weren't common here, it would totally make sense that it would be some weird poop thing the Germans do.
Anyway, I would really like to see the numbers for the the people who actually got the colonoscopy vs those who didn't. The intention-to-screen thing feels wrong in this case. First, in a society where colonoscopies are rare, people will be more likely to decline just because they don't want something shoved up their butt. Hell, that could be common in the US, too.
But secondly, yes, acceptors are different from refusers, but ya coulda just randomly divided the acceptors into one group that actually got the colonoscopy and one group that didn't! I know there would be other confounding factors (those who accepted but didn't receive a colonoscopy might seek them out on their own) but there are certainly ways to design your study to work around this. I am very curious if the intention-to-screen thing was just a workaround for something the researchers didn't consider until it was too late.
I'm lowkey annoyed at "some parts of German-speaking Europe" -- there are 3 (4 if you squint) German-speaking countries in Europe. Just say which ones!
I'm lowkey annoyed at "some parts of German-speaking Europe" -- there are 3 (4 if you squint) German-speaking countries in Europe. Just say which ones!
I think you're confusing this study with a medical trial? Sending people a letter offering a colonoscopy and then saying "no actually, you can't get one" isn't something a real health care system...
but ya coulda just randomly divided the acceptors into one group that actually got the colonoscopy and one group that didn't!
I think you're confusing this study with a medical trial? Sending people a letter offering a colonoscopy and then saying "no actually, you can't get one" isn't something a real health care system would do.
Either approach has its strengths and weaknesses, but doing a study of what happens in a real medical system is pretty directly relevant to other medical systems.
I guess I am confusing it if you say I am...not sure what it would be called otherwise. I suppose if it's not a study in the way I was thinking, that would make sense, but I would have expected...
I guess I am confusing it if you say I am...not sure what it would be called otherwise.
Sending people a letter offering a colonoscopy and then saying "no actually, you can't get one" isn't something a real health care system would do.
I suppose if it's not a study in the way I was thinking, that would make sense, but I would have expected them to say they're soliciting for a study that will provide a limited number of colonoscopies so they can know who is volunteering without being obligated to provide a colonoscopy to everyone who accepts.
Clinical trials typically test experimental medicine that people don’t have access to yet. This was… not that. How you describe it would be a typical way to do a trial. There’s a recruiting phase...
Clinical trials typically test experimental medicine that people don’t have access to yet. This was… not that.
How you describe it would be a typical way to do a trial. There’s a recruiting phase and you get people’s consent to be in the trial, which biases the results but it can’t be helped. In this case, there are people who are pretty sure they want a colonoscopy (perhaps due to family history) and who wouldn’t agree to be in the trial, and that would bias the outcomes.
An interesting thing about this study is that it didn’t require consent due to how medical records work in some countries:
The other two-thirds of people were not contacted and seemingly never knew they were in the trial. The researchers then followed everyone (invited or not, colonoscopy or not) for a median of 10 years and checked government records to see who had been diagnosed with colorectal cancer, died from colorectal cancer, or died from any cause.
Yeah, I did think that government records thing was interesting. Why wouldn't a clinical trial style be appropriate? Yes, we've been doing colonoscopies for decades, but the point was that there...
Yeah, I did think that government records thing was interesting.
Why wouldn't a clinical trial style be appropriate? Yes, we've been doing colonoscopies for decades, but the point was that there haven't been tests of their value.
I believe the idea is that you should compare with the current “standard of care” rather than asking people to go without health care for a study. So, a new experimental medicine is fine, since...
I believe the idea is that you should compare with the current “standard of care” rather than asking people to go without health care for a study. So, a new experimental medicine is fine, since people didn’t get to use it before. Colonoscopies aren’t new. In a way, it would be trial of going without a colonoscopy and seeing if results are any worse.
Anecdotal: my grandmother died of colon cancer. One of my childhood heroes died of colon cancer, another from another gastro cancer. I showed some signs of possible disease and didn't get myself...
Anecdotal: my grandmother died of colon cancer. One of my childhood heroes died of colon cancer, another from another gastro cancer. I showed some signs of possible disease and didn't get myself checked until my heroes talked about it before he died.
After that I got one done which found I have crohns disease and eventually led to finding out I have fibromyalgia as well. I probably still wouldn't have checked if not for his encouragement and would probably be living an even more comfortable life for doing so. Thank you TB
This is all true but I do think it's worth remembering that prior to this, there were people in the US who could not get health insurance for any amount of money. The current system is still...
The healthcare improvement plan forced insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and some preventative care but it wasn't nearly the boon that politicians claimed. For one the deductible is fairly high and on plans with a low deductible the monthly cost is high.
This is all true but I do think it's worth remembering that prior to this, there were people in the US who could not get health insurance for any amount of money. The current system is still woefully inadequate but forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions was incredibly important.
Colonoscopy is an invasive medical procedure that involves both sedation and surgical risks, which weren't really addressed in the article. Those risks aren't high, but may not be justifiable in the absence of preliminary evidence, e.g. family history and/or positive results from non-invasive tests like occult blood, immunochemical or DNA screenings.
As always, talk to your doctor, but there's a decent basis for personal decision-making here.
Anecdata: Spouse's colonoscopy got him sent to PT for a while to rehabilitate a stasis shoulder injury from being left on his side for too long. I went with the Cologuard test. OTOH, spouse has a sibling with colon cancer, and going straight to colonoscopy was probably justified.
Occult blood sounds like it would be something entirely different, and I had to look it up to see if it really was a thing. I'm just imagining doctors standing around a bloody pentagram and saying "well, the test looks clear but we could put in an order for some bird entrails to be sure".
Those blood tests cause a bit of confusion.
There are two main types: Faecal Occult Blood testing, and Faecal Immunochemical Test. The FOB can find any blood, including blood that you've eaten. The FIT test knows the difference between human blood and animal blood. Blood in stool is always concerning but it could be ulcers or polyps or fissures or haemorrhoids or IBD or a few other things.
Let me share a little story. I had a colonoscopy scheduled for early 2020 that got cancelled as we entered lockdown. I never rescheduled because we were caregiving for elderly family with compromised immune systems. Last year I was rushed to the emergency room with severe abdominal pain that turned out to be a tumor blocking my intestine. Histology indicated colon cancer. After surgery to resect a section of colon, a temporary ileostomy, chemotherapy, and another surgery to reverse the ileostomy, I can say I am doing fine. (Just got scans that show no evidence of disease). I consider myself lucky having caught the tumor before it metastisized. There was never blood in my stool, so unlikely to be detected with a poop kit. I dodged a bullet. I don't like to play the what if game, but always wonder whether I could have been spared all of this, if I had had that colonoscopy. I am now a big advocate for getting a colonoscopy. I know my experience is anecdotal (and a sample size of one) and your results may vary, but get that colonoscopy - especially if there is any family history for colon cancer.
Anedoctal history here too and I'll be brief because I already told here somewhere.
My grandpa died of intestinal cancer so a doctor said that after my 40s I should start checking for safety, I'm 37 still.
My brother who was 53 died this year.
He was having a feeling of fullness in his insides and going to the bathroom a lot.
He got a colonoscopy and they found a polip there. Not cancer, but big enough that needed to be removed.
He was so afraid of surgery that he didn't use the health plan's doctor who was young and opted to pay from his pockets.
Surgery went fine and he was recovering, but he got an infection in his brain. Probably from surgery or one of the procedures he did after. He was quite paranoid and did a few invasive exams.
Anyway, he got a headache that didn't go away and after some days just taking painkillers he started to vomit and be lethargic. They thought it could be a stroke.
Went to emergency and next day he is hooked into machines with a tube draining his brain. He didn't wake up anymore. The abscess ruptured in his brain and he died of septic schock.
This was in March and my mother is still not eating.
They don’t consider the enjoyment both parties derive from the act. All kidding aside, it’s interesting to me that the US populace prefers a feeling of security over getting a scope stuck in your pooper. I guess the fecal blood test isn’t really speaking to y’alls imagination: ‘A doctor is going to look at my poop with a microscope? And then decides if they want to investigate further? Just look with your damn eyes at my entire colon, to see if there’s cancer!’ Secondly, a fecal blood test is probably cheaper and a medical microbiologist or clinical chemist is the one that benefits from ordering the test. A colonoscopy is an diagnostic intervention, only to be done by medical professionals with specific expertise, i.e. gastroenterologists. Gastroenterologists would definitely not enjoy the cut in reimbursements for less colonoscopies. And the patients are probably distrusting other tests than what they’ve come to accept as the only way to do adequate screening. And so it goes.
I got a colonoscopy and an esophagogastroduodenoscopy during the same "session," so I figured they were going to skewer me and try to get the cameras to touch in the middle. They said they weren't going to do that, which made me fear that they were gonna get their kicks by going ass-to-mouth.
Not that it woulda mattered since that prep really cleared me out. And the prep wasn't that bad. The magnesium citrate had a really strong taste but when I watered it down, it was basically just a lemon drink. And once the prep really started in force, I just sat around playing video games and just had to get up probably every 30 sec - 15 mins to go pee out my butt, which isn't fun but I don't remember it being painful at all.
The real problem was when the nurse told me it was time to go home and I apparently just popped up and whipped off my gown with no warning. The funny thing is that I remember what I said when I did that but I have no memory whatsoever of actually baring myself to the world (or at least to my recovery room).
Not painful but holy cow was it deeply and disturbingly uncomfortable! Im old enough that I should be getting a colonoscopy every 3 to 5 years now, but unless a fecal matter test turns up something odd, I would highly prefer NOT to drink that horrid liquid and go through hours and hours of turbocharged hydroblasting on the great white throne. It was deeply uncomfortable. I might have a different opinion if there was a history of colorectal cancer in my family but the highest risk factors include smoking, obesity, alcohol, family history, diabetes and diet which aren't my risks.
The people I know who had the procedure here in Brazil really hated the prep and it's considerably different. The diet changes two or three days before and it starts being horrible then. They really make sure that your insides are clean and clear.
I started in the afternoon the day before. Used magnesium citrate and a couple laxative pills, I believe. I wish I knew how to access the procedure I followed because it was fairly simple and I was surprised by how well it went. I thought the experience was going to be much worse.
The liquid made me so nauseous that I was worried things would come out of both ends. I still sometimes get this phantom taste in my mouth and it makes me shudder. I am truly dreading the prep work that’s ten years away.
Which liquid was it? I used magnesium citrate and it just had a strong citrus/acidic flavor but wasn't bad once I watered it down.
It was "polyethylene glycol" and it was salt flavored with a hint of lemon. and it was terrible.
And the taste was only 50% of my issue with it. It came in basically a gallon (I think) jug and I had to drink 8 oz every 10 minutes interspersed with 8 oz of water over the course of 2 hours and then wait and do that all over again 7ish hours later. It was just SO MUCH Liquid!
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm glad I was checked out, but I will definitely be asking if there is some other less heinous tasting or a less voluminous option.
I'm sure there a bunch of great options that doctors have shared online. When I did mine, the scheduler basically told me not to follow the "proper" prep and gave me a different routine.
Having had what turned out to be a cancerous polyp removed during a routine colonoscopy, my answer is, yes, colonoscopies are absolutely worth it. I would get one every year if my health insurance covered it.
Colonoscopies are also preferred in Australia for people with family history of bowel cancer, such as my wife. I’m not sure any other method was offered.
The preparation for a colonoscopy is horrible. However, I suspect it’s less annoying than cancer.
I'm in the US, and I've had one sigmoidoscopy and some fecal blood test screening. I'm ok with my treatment. Incidentally, the doctor asked if I wanted to watch the sigmoidoscopy. I said yes, and he projected the camera view onto a large screen on the side of the bed I was lying on. So I got to see the inside of my intestines.
Getting some kind of screening seems important.
This was really interesting, especially as I'm approaching 45 and this becomes directly applicable in a few years.
Sidenote: I was very amused by the author's use of the phrase "your tubes" throughout the article to refer to the entire gastronomic system.
Something about this doesn't surprise me. Like if colonoscopies weren't common here, it would totally make sense that it would be some weird poop thing the Germans do.
But I digress.
actual study
Anyway, I would really like to see the numbers for the the people who actually got the colonoscopy vs those who didn't. The intention-to-screen thing feels wrong in this case. First, in a society where colonoscopies are rare, people will be more likely to decline just because they don't want something shoved up their butt. Hell, that could be common in the US, too.
But secondly, yes, acceptors are different from refusers, but ya coulda just randomly divided the acceptors into one group that actually got the colonoscopy and one group that didn't! I know there would be other confounding factors (those who accepted but didn't receive a colonoscopy might seek them out on their own) but there are certainly ways to design your study to work around this. I am very curious if the intention-to-screen thing was just a workaround for something the researchers didn't consider until it was too late.
I'm lowkey annoyed at "some parts of German-speaking Europe" -- there are 3 (4 if you squint) German-speaking countries in Europe. Just say which ones!
I think you're confusing this study with a medical trial? Sending people a letter offering a colonoscopy and then saying "no actually, you can't get one" isn't something a real health care system would do.
Either approach has its strengths and weaknesses, but doing a study of what happens in a real medical system is pretty directly relevant to other medical systems.
I guess I am confusing it if you say I am...not sure what it would be called otherwise.
I suppose if it's not a study in the way I was thinking, that would make sense, but I would have expected them to say they're soliciting for a study that will provide a limited number of colonoscopies so they can know who is volunteering without being obligated to provide a colonoscopy to everyone who accepts.
Clinical trials typically test experimental medicine that people don’t have access to yet. This was… not that.
How you describe it would be a typical way to do a trial. There’s a recruiting phase and you get people’s consent to be in the trial, which biases the results but it can’t be helped. In this case, there are people who are pretty sure they want a colonoscopy (perhaps due to family history) and who wouldn’t agree to be in the trial, and that would bias the outcomes.
An interesting thing about this study is that it didn’t require consent due to how medical records work in some countries:
Yeah, I did think that government records thing was interesting.
Why wouldn't a clinical trial style be appropriate? Yes, we've been doing colonoscopies for decades, but the point was that there haven't been tests of their value.
I believe the idea is that you should compare with the current “standard of care” rather than asking people to go without health care for a study. So, a new experimental medicine is fine, since people didn’t get to use it before. Colonoscopies aren’t new. In a way, it would be trial of going without a colonoscopy and seeing if results are any worse.
Maybe it could be worked around, though?
Well if colonoscopies aren't common in those countries, it's not exactly the standard of care.
Anecdotal: my grandmother died of colon cancer. One of my childhood heroes died of colon cancer, another from another gastro cancer. I showed some signs of possible disease and didn't get myself checked until my heroes talked about it before he died.
After that I got one done which found I have crohns disease and eventually led to finding out I have fibromyalgia as well. I probably still wouldn't have checked if not for his encouragement and would probably be living an even more comfortable life for doing so. Thank you TB
Doesn't Obama care health insurance pay for cancer treatment?
This is all true but I do think it's worth remembering that prior to this, there were people in the US who could not get health insurance for any amount of money. The current system is still woefully inadequate but forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions was incredibly important.
Not my area of expertise, but this says that annual and lifetime limits on what insurance companies pay are no longer an issue in the US. https://www.webmd.com/cancer/health-reform-cancer-treatment-coverage
Copays and deductibles are a problem but not as big a one as what you were talking about.