They should say so in their bio, and they should not speak for each other, and so on. It’s messy and unprofessional as it is, and big if true.

I don’t appreciate you jumping into the thread to dogpile either, but you do you.

Dang has told me more than once to let the mods do the moderating and to not hash it out amongst ourselves, as it steps on their toes and makes any enforcement by mods seem selective. Email and/or flag, and move along.

I don’t work here, and neither do you, so let’s both agree to disagree on it being on-topic or not, as it’s not my place to speak for dang or the other mods, and it’s not yours either, for that matter.

Did you copy and paste the numbered list from somewhere else? That isn’t how folks on HN typically format things here, and it seems reminiscent of AI output, which is not allowed under the HN guidelines.

> I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that.

We aren’t talking about population-level statistics in this thread, but rather a specific named individual meeting their personal healthcare costs, so your point is off-topic, not OP’s.

> Their aside is also false though.

You are drawing a conclusion that was not proven by your comment.

OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates.

Both of you could be correct: OP could be correct that many income-constrained folks delay treatment until they age into qualifying for Medicare, and you could be correct that on the whole, folks in the USA have better cancer treatment outcomes.

If you reread OP, they were speaking to there being more advanced cases of later stage cancers in the US, which you didn’t really speak to or refute, so to my reading, you are jumping to conclusions when you say that their aside is false per se.