Thursday, December 07, 2006

Amazing post on MySpace

Since I was made aware of these things called "Google Alerts", I set one up to notify me if anything about Neuroblastoma is posted on someone's blog or web page. So I found this person's MySpace page and I absolutely agree with everything he said.

I have pasted his entry here and here is the direct link : CHILDHOOD CANCER

Well, scratch that! I just tried to copy the text on his site and it won't let me. So please, take a moment to go to this site and read what he had to say. I wish I could post it here. =(

Thank you to all my Internet buddies out there who take the time to mention our little Isabella on your own blogs. I can't express how much it means to me that you take the time out of your day to inform others about this horrible disease that affects so many young kids out there.

I have many links on the side bar that will take you to many of the Neuroblastoma fighters, survivors and unfortunately our brave NB angels.

Thank you again and don't forget to check out that link!!! =)


T-girl said...

Intersting article! Very informative except I disagree with one point he made. He said it would cost more in the long run- to be honest I don't believe so and here are my reasons why. One- and this is a duh one- you can not put a price on a life! Two- the cost to fight cancer is extreemly high. If you find something at a later stage it actually doubles or triples that cost because it takes more to fight it. The treatments for cancers- any cancers- vary depending on when they are initally caught and treated. The treatment options are also greater, giving both patients, doctors and insurance agencies more inexpensive and productive options if it is caught early. I believe that in the long run they would also save money in man power. Lets face it, insurance companies don't want to pay things- if you are at a later stage pateints spend a lot of time on the phone arguing with half a department just to get something paid correctly, on time or at all. If their protocol is for earlier detection treatments (and most are) then the later detection treatments can add up real quickly and become more expensive. Also if a test is being run in mass- it is actually cheaper. The equipment needed to run the test ect is paid off rather quickly AND can be obtained at a lower price because you are buying in bulk/it is more readily availiable, therfore cutting costs. The ONLY issue I see is: who the hell is going to take a URINE sample from a 65 month old? THAT must be a REAL fun job! LMAO You would have to cath them and what a pain in the butt that would be BUT... agian if it is being done in the doctors office- the cost is mimimal because it becomes part of standard procedure!

Sorry... I ran off at the... uh... finger tip... didn't I? Told you I like to talk, plus you got me to thinking! LOL

T-girl said...

uh... how old is 65 months? LMAO That is suppse to be SIX month old! LOL

I forgot to add something else- treatment options at a early detection are less invasive to the patient to themselves usually. This does not mean no surgery ect. but the comfort and recover ect (I am not sure I am wording this right) is better and quicker because it is less invasively so. I know I said that wrong but I hope you get the drift.

I should open my own HMO... I would go broke though because I would make it make sense and be customer orientated... although I probably would end up with so many customers I could make it work! LOL I spent way to much time working in healthcare can you tell???

BTW- I forgot to say... you are welcome and I WAS personally touched by someone... you and Isabella! Your story touched me very much and if I can get only one person to donate well then at least I tried to help you in anyway I can! Besides who is to say it won't benifit me or my family at some point? The odds are sadly that it WILL effect my family at some point, maybe a cousin, maybe a child, grandchild, greatgrand child but it will at somepoint. :( Why not do what I can now and pray that if my kids kids never have to face this? Just what we do!

Michelle Ugarte said...

You know, actually I couldn't agree with you more. David and I were talking about this yesterday when we were eating dinner. He said the only thing that would probably stop this from happening is the cost. And that's where I said, you know, cost wouldn't be an issue because if they find it early, costs of treatment, surgeries and so forth would go down tremendously. Or he said, what if the insurance company doesn't want to pay for the urine test. Lab work is one of the most inexpensive things to get done at a doctor’s office so why wouldn't the insurance company want to pay for that instead of long term treatments like stem cell transplants, radiation treatments, and the ever dreaded clinical trials. This simple test could potentially save the lives of sooooo many of our little ones that wouldn't otherwise have a chance if symptoms didn't show up until they were over 5 years old. This IS the case most of the time. The chances of survival decrease soooooo much when the cancer is not found until the child is 5 years old. Had there been mandatory testing on babies, parents would have found out years ago and wouldn't have to go through the horrible process of seeing their child suffer.

I work for an insurance company right now and I hate the fact that they are for profit companies. You shouldn't be out to make money if you are honestly trying to better the lives of the people in this country. I wish I could get with the Chief Medical Officer of the company and stress how important this early testing is and get it implemented in the system. We are spending soooo much money on researching new drugs and while that is good to do, if we could eliminate the use of those expensive drugs with just a simple urine test, we could improve the lives of so many kids out there!