Economic impact if cancer was curable

[Sir Mohamed]

If cancer was curable and each diagnosis no death sentence anymore, I always wondered what economic impact this would have? Obviously life expectancy would be significantly higher than it is already and therefore cause people getting social security benefits for a much longer timespan in the average. Inevitably this causes a moral dilemma: It would be great for humanity, but confront governments and people with a tremendous fiscal problem.

I read about conspiracy theories that cancer has actually been curable for a long time, but I don't buy such nonsense since there is no evidence at all. Simply because I doubt governments have the capability to cover such a thing up for a longer period of time.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If cancer was curable and each diagnosis no death sentence anymore, I always wondered what economic impact this would have? Obviously life expectancy would be significantly higher than it is already and therefore cause people getting social security benefits for a much longer timespan in the average. Inevitably this causes a moral dilemma: It would be great for humanity, but confront governments and people with a tremendous fiscal problem.

I read about conspiracy theories that cancer has actually been curable for a long time, but I don't buy such nonsense since there is no evidence at all. Simply because I doubt governments have the capability to cover such a thing up for a longer period of time.

Yes, if this was curable, but kept in secret, people on the top like McCain would be cured long time ago.

[Sir Mohamed]

If cancer was curable and each diagnosis no death sentence anymore, I always wondered what economic impact this would have? Obviously life expectancy would be significantly higher than it is already and therefore cause people getting social security benefits for a much longer timespan in the average. Inevitably this causes a moral dilemma: It would be great for humanity, but confront governments and people with a tremendous fiscal problem.

I read about conspiracy theories that cancer has actually been curable for a long time, but I don't buy such nonsense since there is no evidence at all. Simply because I doubt governments have the capability to cover such a thing up for a longer period of time.

Yes, if this was curable, but kept in secret, people on the top like McCain would be cured long time ago.

I agree, but it's notable that no recent prez died from cancer. I read about the possibility that FDR and Lincoln had a brain tumor, but there is no proof to that. Reagan and Carter were cured from cancer. U.S. Grant died from lung cancer, but he was a chainsmoker.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I read about conspiracy theories that cancer has actually been curable for a long time, but I don't buy such nonsense since there is no evidence at all. Simply because I doubt governments have the capability to cover such a thing up for a longer period of time.

It's not even government. The scientific incentive to produce a cure for cancer is so huge that it's impossible to keep a cure under wraps. Nobody who discovers a cure is going to bypass the fame, prestige, future funding, and future research directions just to keep it exclusive to rich people. And that's of course ignoring the research ethics aspect of withholding a cure from public knowledge (not that the scientific community is always known for its outstanding ethical conduct).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Degenerative diseases like Cancer and Alteimers could have been cured with stem cell research. the impact would give people a longer than expected lifespan of the Moses, days of 120 years.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If cancer was curable and each diagnosis no death sentence anymore, I always wondered what economic impact this would have? Obviously life expectancy would be significantly higher than it is already and therefore cause people getting social security benefits for a much longer timespan in the average. Inevitably this causes a moral dilemma: It would be great for humanity, but confront governments and people with a tremendous fiscal problem.

I read about conspiracy theories that cancer has actually been curable for a long time, but I don't buy such nonsense since there is no evidence at all. Simply because I doubt governments have the capability to cover such a thing up for a longer period of time.

Yes, if this was curable, but kept in secret, people on the top like McCain would be cured long time ago.

I agree, but it's notable that no recent prez died from cancer. I read about the possibility that FDR and Lincoln had a brain tumor, but there is no proof to that. Reagan and Carter were cured from cancer. U.S. Grant died from lung cancer, but he was a chainsmoker.

Upon looking up the wiki it seems Grant was the only President ever to die from cancer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_date_of_death

[DC Al Fine]

I wonder if it would make healthcare more expensive. Let's consider two scenarios:

1) Bob gets lung cancer at 55. He has a go at chemo for several months, but is unsuccessful. He accepts his fate, eventually enters palliative care and dies 18 months after diagnosis.

2) Bob gets lung cancer at 55. He undergoes *insert new cure here* for several months and is in remission. Bob spends the next fifteen years dealing with aging and some minor ailments before being diagnosed with Alzheimer's at 70. He then spends the next decade requiring extensive care before finally dying at 80.

Obviously #2 is preferable, but it seems like i would cost more. Perhaps Medicare and health insurance rates would have to go up (or taxes in single payer countries).

[Del Tachi]

The CDC estimates that only 3.2 years of added life expectancy would be achieved if cancer was totally eradicated.  That's because, as pointed out above, most cancer deaths are elderly so its eradication would still leave a host of other age-degenerative diseases, like Alzheimer's, to kill those who would have otherwise died of cancer.  The most promising prospect for life-extending medicine lies in treatments that slow the age-degenerating process itself, like Metformin.   

[pbrower2a]

Smoking would make a huge comeback, as cancerweed use is one of the strongest contributors to early deaths from cancer. In many respects, cigarettes were a wonderful business. They were easy add-ons to any retail business; even restaurants were selling them.  Smokers were wonderful customers due to brand-name loyalty, so that did wonders for advertising. We would again see tobacco ads everywhere -- including on television as they used to be.

In television alone America had only three commercial networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) from 1956  to 1986, between the demise of the DuMont TV network and the entry of FoX. DuMont did not vanish due to the ban on cigarette ads, as the TV market was effectively limited to three channels in most cities -- but people who disliked the triopoly of ABC, CBS, and NBC for commercial television were slowed in getting a fourth channel available on UHF in such modest-sized cities as Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati because the advertising revenue was not enough to support a fourth nationwide network until 1986. FoX did not get to rely upon cigarette advertising.

[darklordoftech]

Smoking would make a huge comeback, as cancerweed use is one of the strongest contributors to early deaths from cancer. In many respects, cigarettes were a wonderful business. They were easy add-ons to any retail business; even restaurants were selling them.  Smokers were wonderful customers due to brand-name loyalty, so that did wonders for advertising. We would again see tobacco ads everywhere -- including on television as they used to be.

In television alone America had only three commercial networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) from 1956  to 1986, between the demise of the DuMont TV network and the entry of FoX. DuMont did not vanish due to the ban on cigarette ads, as the TV market was effectively limited to three channels in most cities -- but people who disliked the triopoly of ABC, CBS, and NBC for commercial television were slowed in getting a fourth channel available on UHF in such modest-sized cities as Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati because the advertising revenue was not enough to support a fourth nationwide network until 1986. FoX did not get to rely upon cigarette advertising.

The Fairness Doctrine was key in the end of cigarette advertising. The FCC demanded that for every cigarette ad, an anti-smoking PSA had to be aired, so the tobacco companies gave up on tv and radio advertising.