This American won the lottery and went to the doctor for the first time in years. Now he's dead from Stage 4 cancer

A New York lottery winner who used some of his million-dollar prize to pay for a visit to the doctor, was told he had stage 4 cancer, and died several weeks later.

Donald Savastano, who won $1 million playing the New York Lottery’s 'Merry Millionaire' game, said on collecting his prize that he had bought the ticket on a whim and was hoping the money would change his life for the better.

“Being a self-employed carpenter, I didn’t really have a plan for retirement,” Savastano told WBNG at the time. “The money will help with that. I don’t have any other extravagant plans. I’ll buy a new truck, pay off some debt and invest for the future.”

Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now

As well as thinking about using his newly found fortune to book a vacation and buy himself a new truck, the self-employed carpenter also took the opportunity to pay for a visit to the doctor—something he had previously not been able to afford.

But during his appointment the doctor told Savastano, who had reportedly been feeling unwell for some time, that he had stage 4 cancer in his lung and brain. The 51-year-old died just three weeks after winning the jackpot and getting his diagnosis.

http://www.newsweek.com/new-york-lottery-winner-dies-weeks-after-scooping-jackpot-796957

Ah, the joy of being free from any social safety net...

Yep...

Amerika, the home of the "free" and the broke...

Where 10% of the population have the "freedom" from any access to medical care..

And another 20% can't afford a proper level of minimum health care. And what was the homelessness rate like over there, again ?

"No noose is good news."

Poor man,its rotten for him.

Well that’s a cheery story.

I wonder how long he’d have lived had he not visited the doctor?

I rarely go to the doctor either.

Maddog wrote:I rarely go to the doctor either.  

I’m just wondering if he went because he felt unwell or simply to have a once-over to assess his health.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:I rarely go to the doctor either.  

I’m just wondering if he went because he felt unwell or simply to have a once-over to assess his health.

I would bet he had suspicions before he won the money.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:I rarely go to the doctor either.  

I’m just wondering if he went because he felt unwell or simply to have a once-over to assess his health.

I would bet he had suspicions before he won the money.

Perhaps, but he was still working. Sometimes it seems from people’s stories that knowing you have cancer seems to make you deteriorate faster.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I would bet he had suspicions before he won the money.

Perhaps, but he was still working. Sometimes it seems from people’s stories that  knowing you have cancer seems to make you deteriorate faster.

That too.

But as you age, you go along, yet you have suspicions from that internal pain, etc. You say, I should get that checked, but you never do, until you win the lottery. Then...poof! Of course he's still working, he's got not reason not to until he is told he's gravely ill.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:I rarely go to the doctor either.  

I’m just wondering if he went because he felt unwell or simply to have a once-over to assess his health.

It says he felt unwell. It's hardly unusual for men like him and me to just ignore stuff. That's why single men don't live as long as married men. We blow things off.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I would bet he had suspicions before he won the money.

Perhaps, but he was still working. Sometimes it seems from people’s stories that  knowing you have cancer seems to make you deteriorate faster.

And being over here, he probably couldn’t afford to go to the doctor despite feeling unwell for some time.

America doesn't have NHS like us, they have to pay. Many can't afford to visit doctors or hospitals.

magica wrote:America doesn't have NHS like us, they have to pay. Many can't afford to visit doctors or hospitals.

Yet, America has unlimited funds for the military...more toys for admirals and generals.    So frivolous.

Half of that money, or more, should go to fun a NHS for the US.  After all, cancer is a steadier killer than ISIS.  What are they defending these days?

magica wrote:America doesn't have NHS like us, they have to pay. Many can't afford to visit doctors or hospitals.

Everybody pays one way or another. No doubt Brits pay less.

Maddog wrote:

magica wrote:America doesn't have NHS like us, they have to pay. Many can't afford to visit doctors or hospitals.

Everybody pays one way or another.  No doubt Brits pay less.  

To be fair, that comment is not 100 percent accurate. Millions in the US get medical care without paying.

Maddog wrote:

magica wrote:America doesn't have NHS like us, they have to pay. Many can't afford to visit doctors or hospitals.

Everybody pays one way or another.  No doubt Brits pay less.  

We pay all our working lives into National Insurance. The more you earn, the more you pay. So if you earn a profit of say... .£100,000 a year you'll pay £4563.44 per annum. Technically, the NHS is only free to those who don't work.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Everybody pays one way or another.  No doubt Brits pay less.  

We pay all our working lives into National Insurance.   The more you earn, the more you pay.  So if you earn a profit of say... .£100,000 a year you'll pay £4563.44 per annum.    Technically, the NHS is only free to those who don't work.  

Correct. It's the same in the US. There is free medical care for those that don't pay taxes.

Maddog wrote:

Maddog wrote:

magica wrote:America doesn't have NHS like us, they have to pay. Many can't afford to visit doctors or hospitals.

Everybody pays one way or another.  No doubt Brits pay less.  

To be fair, that comment is not 100 percent accurate. Millions in the US get medical care without paying.  

EVERY American should get health care without paying; this is ridiculous and even libertarians like Hayek wrote:

"Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. ... There is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom."

We'd actually save money, that's the dumbest part. We could fund it with cuts to our massive military budget, and if that wasn't enough, we could try using lottery proceeds, perhaps a corporate windfall profits tax ... there are so many ways we could just give every American Medicare from birth.

This is why I say the rich (not all of them, but a lot of them) are out to get the rest of us -- they want us spending every cent we earn, in order for them to have it, and they treat this country like it's a get-rich-quick scheme. And every time they threaten to leave if we raise taxes, they prove how little they care about their country or their fellow citizens.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

To be fair, that comment is not 100 percent accurate. Millions in the US get medical care without paying.  

EVERY American should get health care without paying; this is ridiculous and even libertarians like Hayek wrote:

"Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. ... There is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom."

We'd actually save money, that's the dumbest part. We could fund it with cuts to our massive military budget, and if that wasn't enough, we could try using lottery proceeds, perhaps a corporate windfall profits tax ... there are so many ways we could just give every American Medicare from birth.

This is why I say the rich (not all of them, but a lot of them) are out to get the rest of us -- they want us spending every cent we earn, in order for them to have it, and they treat this country like it's a get-rich-quick scheme. And every time they threaten to leave if we raise taxes, they prove how little they care about their country or their fellow citizens.

Without paying? Where would we find doctors that didn't want to get paid?

Oh, and I don't totally disagree with Hayek. I'm flexible. Healthcare in Singapore works pretty damn good.

One of the reasons that healthcare is so expensive is the catastrophic illnesses. If the government covered everything over 100 grand, insurers from 5 grand to 100 grand, and the consumer from 0 to 5 grand, the system would be workable, cheap and most importantly, agreeable to me because I don't want to appear inflexible.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

To be fair, that comment is not 100 percent accurate. Millions in the US get medical care without paying.  

EVERY American should get health care without paying; this is ridiculous and even libertarians like Hayek wrote:

"Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. ... There is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom."

We'd actually save money, that's the dumbest part. We could fund it with cuts to our massive military budget, and if that wasn't enough, we could try using lottery proceeds, perhaps a corporate windfall profits tax ... there are so many ways we could just give every American Medicare from birth.

This is why I say the rich (not all of them, but a lot of them) are out to get the rest of us -- they want us spending every cent we earn, in order for them to have it, and they treat this country like it's a get-rich-quick scheme. And every time they threaten to leave if we raise taxes, they prove how little they care about their country or their fellow citizens.

Without paying? Where would we find doctors that didn't want to get paid?

Of course they'd be paid, don't act like an idiot.

Maddog wrote:Oh, and I don't totally disagree with Hayek. I'm flexible. Healthcare in Singapore works pretty damn good.

One of the reasons that healthcare is so expensive is the catastrophic illnesses. If the government covered everything over 100 grand, insurers from 5 grand to 100 grand, and the consumer from 0 to 5 grand, the system would be workable, cheap and most importantly, agreeable to me because I don't want to appear inflexible.    

Healthcare in the rest of the civilized world works better than ours, where we are wedded to the idea that it's okay to get rich off of sick people. The profit motive is the crux of the problem. Admit that and I'll allow that you're not inflexible

eddie wrote:Well that’s a cheery story.

I wonder how long he’d have lived had he not visited the doctor?

I suspect it would only be a matter of a few days either way...

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Oh, and I don't totally disagree with Hayek. I'm flexible. Healthcare in Singapore works pretty damn good.

One of the reasons that healthcare is so expensive is the catastrophic illnesses. If the government covered everything over 100 grand, insurers from 5 grand to 100 grand, and the consumer from 0 to 5 grand, the system would be workable, cheap and most importantly, agreeable to me because I don't want to appear inflexible.    

Healthcare in the rest of the civilized world works better than ours, where we are wedded to the idea that it's okay to get rich off of sick people. The profit motive is the crux of the problem. Admit that and I'll allow that you're not inflexible

I like a little profit motive in the people that serve me. I want the people that deliver the best services, to be the most profitable. I want those that deliver the worst service, to be the least profitable.

But I also acknowledge that what they do in Singapore at least intrigues me as it's mostly a private system.

Maddog wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

We pay all our working lives into National Insurance.   The more you earn, the more you pay.  So if you earn a profit of say... .£100,000 a year you'll pay £4563.44 per annum.    Technically, the NHS is only free to those who don't work.  

Correct. It's the same in the US. There is free medical care for those that don't pay taxes.

How many Americans pay "no taxes", whatsover ???

Direct income tax is less than 40% of the total tax revenue; business taxes contribute probably 20% or less; then there's sales taxes, local government taxes, various tariffs, "stamp duties", minerall exploration and royalties, and licensing fees..

And businesses are always passing on taxes down the line.

The only way to avoid contributing any taxes whatsover would be to live under a bridge and subsist totally on handouts..

The poorest people over there may be eligible for free healthcare -- but to actually get it, they need to be able to access a public hospital or clinic, and be able to find a doctor who sees public patients.. Access is a lot easier in Canada, Oz, NZ, Britain and France, in comparison...

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Without paying? Where would we find doctors that didn't want to get paid?

Of course they'd be paid, don't act like an idiot.

You said "EVERY American should get health care without paying".

You didn't explain how healthcare was going to be funded if Americans were not paying for it.

Then you accuse me of acting like an idiot.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Healthcare in the rest of the civilized world works better than ours, where we are wedded to the idea that it's okay to get rich off of sick people. The profit motive is the crux of the problem. Admit that and I'll allow that you're not inflexible

I like a little profit motive in the people that serve me. I want the people that deliver the best services, to be the most profitable. I want those that deliver the worst service, to be the least profitable.

But I also acknowledge that what they do in Singapore at least intrigues me as it's mostly a private system.

And, as I have pointed out before...

Private health funds and private hospitals in the USA are allowed to grab 50% of their turnovers as profit -- 4 to 5 times more than they make in other countries..

As a result, you pay much higher in medical insurance than any other Western country, while getting less for your money; And a day in hospital in the US costs twice as much as in comparable hospitals in countries with better regulated and fairer health systems.

As for Singapore, they use high levels of "indirect" taxation to make up for relatively lower levels of personal and business tax rates.. Singapore is not a cheap country to live in; and it's quite crowded, in comparison to places like the US, Canada, Oz, NZ, Brazil...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I like a little profit motive in the people that serve me. I want the people that deliver the best services, to be the most profitable. I want those that deliver the worst service, to be the least profitable.

But I also acknowledge that what they do in Singapore at least intrigues me as it's mostly a private system.

And, as I have pointed out before...

Private health funds and private hospitals in the USA are allowed to grab 50% of their turnovers as profit --   4 to 5 times more than they make in other countries..

As a result, you pay much higher in medical insurance than any other Western country,  while getting less for your money;     And a day in hospital in the US costs twice as much as in comparable hospitals in countries with better regulated and fairer health systems.

As for Singapore, they use high levels of "indirect" taxation to make up for relatively lower levels of personal and business tax rates..     Singapore is not a cheap country to live in;  and it's quite crowded, in comparison to places like the US, Canada, Oz, NZ, Brazil...

What do public health hospitals like the VA or our local county hospitals "grab"?

And are you saying our private insurance companies are paying far too much to hospitals and not holding down the costs enough?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Of course they'd be paid, don't act like an idiot.

You said "EVERY American should get health care without paying".

You didn't explain how healthcare was going to be funded if Americans were not paying for it.

Then you accuse me of acting like an idiot.  

What Ben should have said, is "paying any extra (in taxes)", as the US guvm'nts tax revenue is already more than enough...

If one quarter of the military budget was re-directed into a basic national 'universal' healthcare system, and another quarter into subsidised training, increased public-funding of education, and better unemployment aid, even then the USA would still have the biggest military spending in the world..

The main obstacle to America cleaning up the health system over there, is all those gigantic corporations intent on profiting from other peoples' misery.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


And, as I have pointed out before...

Private health funds and private hospitals in the USA are allowed to grab 50% of their turnovers as profit --   4 to 5 times more than they make in other countries..

As a result, you pay much higher in medical insurance than any other Western country,  while getting less for your money;     And a day in hospital in the US costs twice as much as in comparable hospitals in countries with better regulated and fairer health systems.

As for Singapore, they use high levels of "indirect" taxation to make up for relatively lower levels of personal and business tax rates..     Singapore is not a cheap country to live in;  and it's quite crowded, in comparison to places like the US, Canada, Oz, NZ, Brazil...

What do public health hospitals like the VA or our local county hospitals "grab"?

And are you saying our private insurance companies are paying far too much to hospitals and not holding down the costs enough?  

First off, your public hospitals (including the VAs..) make up less than 10% of the total -- by comparison, down here private operators only own less than 10% of the total hospital capacity..

Secondly, over in the USA your health fund insurers also happen to be the largest shareholder bloc in those corporations running those private hospitals -- so the profits are ending up in the same parasites hands at the end of the day, however they swing it...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What do public health hospitals like the VA or our local county hospitals "grab"?

And are you saying our private insurance companies are paying far too much to hospitals and not holding down the costs enough?  

First off,  your public hospitals (including the VAs..)  make up less than 10% of the total  --  by comparison, down here private operators only own less than 10% of the total hospital capacity..

Secondly, over in the USA your health fund insurers also happen to be the largest shareholder bloc in those corporations running those private hospitals  --  so the profits are ending up in the same parasites hands at the end of the day, however they swing it...

You dodged my question.

And most insurance companies don't own hospitals. Nice try though.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Oh, and I don't totally disagree with Hayek. I'm flexible. Healthcare in Singapore works pretty damn good.

One of the reasons that healthcare is so expensive is the catastrophic illnesses. If the government covered everything over 100 grand, insurers from 5 grand to 100 grand, and the consumer from 0 to 5 grand, the system would be workable, cheap and most importantly, agreeable to me because I don't want to appear inflexible.    

Healthcare in the rest of the civilized world works better than ours, where we are wedded to the idea that it's okay to get rich off of sick people. The profit motive is the crux of the problem. Admit that and I'll allow that you're not inflexible

I like a little profit motive in the people that serve me. I want the people that deliver the best services, to be the most profitable. I want those that deliver the worst service, to be the least profitable.

But I also acknowledge that what they do in Singapore at least intrigues me as it's mostly a private system.

First, if we were to implement the Singapore system you'd be howling about how heavily regulated it was; you only love it from a distance.

Second, the profit motive, when it comes to human needs rather than wants, tends to lead to quack cures, substandard buildings, tainted food, etc. far too often.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


First off,  your public hospitals (including the VAs..)  make up less than 10% of the total  --  by comparison, down here private operators only own less than 10% of the total hospital capacity..

Secondly, over in the USA your health fund insurers also happen to be the largest shareholder bloc in those corporations running those private hospitals  --  so the profits are ending up in the same parasites hands at the end of the day, however they swing it...

You dodged my question.  

And most insurance companies don't own hospitals.  Nice try though.

That's where you're wrong,  Maddog.   Yet again; but no real surprise there..

As I wrote, above  --   the largest single shareholder bloc in those corporations that own hospitals in the USA,  are the health insurance companies..

Those health insurance funds have to be spending their ill-gotten gains somewhere, when only around a quarter of their profits are being paid out to shareholders as dividends --  so where better than back into the health industry itself  ?