Sorry, Canada. June 28, 2012 Caperton Breaking: SCOTUS upholds Obamacare. In other news: Thousands of Twitters vow to move to Canada to escape universal health care.
Dear Socialism-hating would-be American Ex-Pats. See that tree you’re barking up? It’s the wrong one. (although, if you give Steve-O a few more years at the reins we might just become a conservative utopia. Ugh.)
“I thought Canada has been an early adopter of a universal public health care system” Canada offers health care to both men and women. Obamacare does not.
Great, more base for Harper. đ And we were just starting to make progress with the current constituents.
I understand that you are celebrating, but keep in mind that this is a terrible blow to men. I hope commenters will show restraint.
I understand that you are celebrating, but keep in mind that this is a terrible blow to men. I hope commenters will show restraint. whut.
I understand that you are celebrating, but keep in mind that this is a terrible blow to men. I hope commenters will show restraint. …What?
Just what we need, an MRA troll posting twice in the first five comments. All I can say is, it’s great for young men (and women) who can now be on their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26. And for men (and women) with pre-existing conditions, who now can’t be refused insurance. I guess they weren’t the “men” this guy was thinking about.
This is a terrible blow to the leaders of the Republican party. The leaders of the Republican party are men. Therefore: This is a terrible blow to men. See, it really all does make sense!
I had never heard, even from the most right-wing sources, the “bad for men” line about Obamacare, but googling why it’s good for women may explain it: it forbids insurers for charging women more based solely on their gender, which I didn’t realize was something they did but yikes, glad that’s no longer allowed (the vast majority of plans that charge women more don’t provide maternity coverage, so the practice can’t even be explained by that). MRAs may also be angry that insurers must now cover preventive care for women (including pap smears, mammograms, and domestic violence screenings) and can’t treat pregnancy (or past c-sections) as a pre-existing condition. Because naturally, requiring health insurers to provide coverage for healthcare that women need is a terrible blow to men.
Hey, anything that requires that they acknowledge that “woman” is a perfectly normal model of humanity is a blow to MRAs.
Most of those tweets seem pretty obviously facetious to me. The new ones are, because now people are mocking. The originals weren’t.
it forbids insurers for charging women more based solely on their gender, which I didnât realize was something they did but yikes, glad thatâs no longer allowed (the vast majority of plans that charge women more donât provide maternity coverage, so the practice canât even be explained by that) It is (was) explained by women costing the insurance companies more because they used more health services. The companies were simply putting gender into their statistical risk analysis with all the other customer information. The non-discrimination clause is very similar to the current European situation where the for example car insurance companies can no longer charge men more than women even though men cause a lot more expensive accidents. (That was due to an ECJ court ruling)
> MRAs may also be angry that insurers must now cover preventive care for women (including pap smears, mammograms, and domestic violence screenings) No, but I am upset that insurers don’t have to cover the same or equivalent preventive care for men. 1) Free birth control for women, but NOT for men. 2) Free tubal ligation for women, but NO vasectomy for men. 3) Free anti-cancer vaccination for girls, but NOT for boys. 4) Free smoking cessation for women, but NOT for men. 5) Free STD treatment for women, but NOT for men. 6) Breast health for women, but NO prostate health for men. 7) Violence prevention for women, but NOT for men. In addition, the bill specifies seven offices of women’s health in the U.S. government, but none for men. I realize that these disparities are viewed as victories for women, but it doesn’t look like gender equality to me.
Yeah, Obamacare also covers contraception for women, which yes. Great. Awesome. Fantastic, but doesn’t cover contraception for men. Also.. 1) Free birth control for women, but NOT for men. 2) Free tubal ligation for women, but NO vasectomy for men. 3) Free anti-cancer vaccination for girls, but NOT for boys. 4) Free smoking cessation for women, but NOT for men. 5) Free STD treatment for women, but NOT for men. 6) Breast health for women, but NO prostate health for men. 7) Violence prevention for women, but NOT for men. So yeah.. this does affect men. Sorry Chaps, we’ll just have to wait for the next one.
Can those talking about this being a terrible blow to men and not covering male STD treatment and prostate health etc please offer some sources for this information?
Ah, I see we’ve been linked on the Reddit Men’s Rights board, with the title “Feminists gloat over Obamacare victory, mock the pain and neglect of men, and tell men to move to Canada.” The ignorance and self-pity is actually hysterical.
Ah, I see weâve been linked on the Reddit Menâs Rights board, with the title âFeminists gloat over Obamacare victory, mock the pain and neglect of men, and tell men to move to Canada.â The ignorance and self-pity is actually hysterical. Do they even know how to read?
I believe that the ways which Obamacare detriment men are, within the ranks of conservative MRA’s, conflated with ways in which Obamacare aids women, which are not extended to men. Allow me to list them. This is a copy/paste from a MRA forum, and these are the actual issues they’re worried about. 1) Free birth control for women, but NOT for men. 2) Free tubal ligation for women, but NO vasectomy for men. 3) Free anti-cancer vaccination for girls, but NOT for boys. 4) Free smoking cessation for women, but NOT for men. 5) Free STD treatment for women, but NOT for men. 6) Breast health for women, but NO prostate health for men. 7) Violence prevention for women, but NOT for men. The first is silly, because they’re expecting Obamacare to make provisions for birth control which doesn’t yet exist. I’m all for expanding it to cover male birth control once it comes out, but that’s a ways off. The second is a legitimate grievance. If tubal ligation will be covered, so too should vasectomies. I think anyone will have a tough time arguing to the contrary and still calling themselves egalitarian. Three is again, silly, because there are no vaccinations against CANCER just against HPV, which causes cancer in girls. Very, very recent research has shown some cancer can be caused by HPV in men as well, but I think it’s a bit much to expect a law drafted in 2009 to recognize this research. Four is, again, legitimate. Smoking cessation should be covered regardless of gender. Five is also legitimate. Six is tricky, because prostate exams are more prone to uncertainty than mammograms and pap smears. A great number of unnecessary procedures are done because of the faulty nature of the screenings. According to the WHO we’d need to do over 1,400 screenings to catch one actual case, and in the process would attain several false positives. So in this case, it’s not the law which is biased, but our understanding of science. The seventh is a legitimate grievance. So, striking the silly issues from the list, the problems MRA’s have with health care are that it offers STD treatment, violence counseling, smoking cessation, and reproductive cessation surgeries for women, and not men. I hope this clears up any misconceptions you all may have as to why MRA’s seem to have a problem with Obamacare. Personally, as one of those men mentioned above who is now able to be insured for the first time since I was under my parents’ plan, I’m quite stoked about the AHCA. I do think there’s room for improvement, and hope to one day see a single-payer system. Sorry for the rant, but after reading all the comments here I felt like I needed to make a decent representation of MRA’s and their issues on this topic.
We won’t let them in. You have to be employable, fluent in English or French, and not a criminal. I have my doubts about any of these people meeting even one requirement.
I’m not calling it a “terrible blow to men”. But it does provide inferior coverage for men. The following is a link the the government web site listing the preventative care that will be covered. Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act Note the very long list of additional services provided for women but not for men. Now obviously some of these don’t apply to men at all. But many also apply to men, including contraception, domestic violence, HIV, HPV, tobacco use, STIs. Breast cancer screening is covered; prostate cancer screeening is not. “Well woman” visits are covered, “well man” visits are not. In case you are wondering what a “well woman visit” is: Well-woman preventive care visit annually for adult women to obtain the recommended preventive services that are age and developmentally appropriate, including preconception and prenatal care. This well-woman visit should, where appropriate, include other preventive services listed in this set of guidelines, as well as others referenced in section 2713. “Recommended preventive services that are age and developmentally appropriate” should apply to men too, wouldn’t you think?
As President, I have made advancing gender equality in health care a top priority. Someone explain how is providing inferior care to men “gender equality”?
@Rhian The source is um…well.. the bill. The one just held up by SCOTUS. Which yes, again. GREAT. Awesome you folks finally have SOMETHING resembling healthcare (I’m Canadian, we have it already, it’s awesome. )
omg mra’s are so fucking stupid The ACA doesn’t cover anything, it only specifies the things that the insurance company MUST cover for no additional cost because they have a history of discriminating against women by charging them more for these basic things.
IF what wavevector is saying is true, then I too am outraged…I’d love some citations first though. But any law that provides for preventive care, STI screening, domestic violence prevention, etc. for one sex and not the other is just wrong.
um. why do mra’s have such issues with reading comprehension? To take just one example, the list that wavevector HIMSELF linked, gives, correctly, “Tobacco Use screening and interventions for all women”, but at the same time, you find “Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users” Dude.
@wavevector 1) Free birth control for women, but NOT for men. 2) Free tubal ligation for women, but NO vasectomy for men. 3) Free anti-cancer vaccination for girls, but NOT for boys. 4) Free smoking cessation for women, but NOT for men. 5) Free STD treatment for women, but NOT for men. 6) Breast health for women, but NO prostate health for men. 7) Violence prevention for women, but NOT for men. But if you actually read that same page that lists covered services and read under Adults and Children, you’ll see that HIV and Syphillis screenings and general STD counseling is included for everyone as are smoking cessation programs. Girls are currently vaccinated for HPV to prevent cervical cancer. There’s debate going on about vaccinating boys as well, but until there’s a consensus it’s not going to be normal practice. (The claim of anti-cancer vaccination makes it sound like we’ve a vaccine for all cancers which is false. Boys aren’t being vaccinated for something that doesn’t affect them — the horror.) Many doctors include PSA testing in bloodwork already being done, whereas mammography isn’t a component of a procedure already being done. And as to the violence questions, I agree this screening should be given to all patients. And in more and more communities it is. Many providers are using forms that include a question about family violence for ALL patients. This is relatively new in some communities, however, and will take time to become standard practice for anyone much less everyone.
Ok Shigekuni. The tobacco one is redundant. Now display your superior reading comprehension and show me how all the other items I mentioned are not unequal.
@wavevector: Your information is not correct. 1) Free birth control for women, but NOT for men. — There is no male birth control pill or IUD, and condoms aren’t prescription, so I’m not sure what birth control for men you think should be covered. 3) Free anti-cancer vaccination for girls, but NOT for boys. — Wrong. Vaccines recommended by ACIP are covered, and ACIP now recommends routine vaccination against HPV for girls and boys ages 11 and 12. 4) Free smoking cessation for women, but NOT for men. Wrong. 5) Free STD treatment for women, but NOT for men. Wrong. All adults get free HIV screening and STD counseling, and women have additional screening for STDs that affect fertility. No one gets free treatment. I agree that both women and men should receive domestic and interpersonal violence screening, but the ACA doesn’t rule it out, it just says it has to be covered at no cost to women. If you think it should include men, lobby your rep. http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html#CoveredPreventiveServicesforAdults
@ColoradoSal Pediatricians Recommend HPV Vaccination For Boys “The American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its guidance to parents and doctors in favor of routine immunization for boys against the virus.”
You can find the full text of Obamacare here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text You can find the USPSTF list here: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsabrecs.htm The word “women” occurs 134 times in Obamacare. The word “men” occurs 2 times in Obamacare. All of the services that are offered to women, but not men, are concerns for the MRM. The biggest concerns are the big seven offices of women’s health, which inform the USPSTF, which in turn determines the health services that are covered, and those that are not. Here they are: 1) Office of Womenâs Health in the Department of Health and Human Services. 2) Office of Womenâs Health in the Office of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 3) Office of Womenâs Health in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. 4) Office of Women’s health and Gender Based Research in the Office of the Director. 5) Office on Women’s Health in the Office of the Administration of the Health Resources and Services Administration. 6) Office of Womenâs Health in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 7) Office of Research on Womenâs Health (ORWH) in the National Institutes of Health. Obamacare does nto establish any offices of men’s health. These are the most important of the 138 anti-male discrimination clauses within Obamacare.
@ Katya, “but the ACA doesnât rule it out, it just says it has to be covered at no cost to women. If you think it should include men, lobby your rep.” I already have, but why should I have to? This was advertised as a gender equal bill. Obama himself said “As President, I have made advancing gender equality in health care a top priority.” Thanks for the clarification on the other points.
Dear Anthony Zarat, Men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men. HTH and HAND.
@Katya My only issue with the STD treatment is that women also receive screenings and treatment for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, which I would think should also be extended to men. It’s nothing so significant that I’m not still dancing my pants off over here as a liberal, but it should probably be addressed at some point. @Shigekuni Thanks for pointing that out! Make that three total grievances which actually matter. So, what we have left are as follows: Gonorrhea and Chlamydia screenings for women and not men, violence prevention for women and not men, and reproductive cessation for women and not men. Honestly, I just do not see what my fellow MRA’s see as such a blow, this seems like 99% win with a slight aftertaste of “could be better”.
@ Katya, âbut the ACA doesnât rule it out, it just says it has to be covered at no cost to women. If you think it should include men, lobby your rep.â I already have, but why should I have to? This was advertised as a bill that was equal to all. Thanks for the clarification on the other points.
I started doing a search on “men” in the Affordable Care Act, just because I was tickled by the precision in Anthony Zarat’s post, but I got worn out after 1 “women” (tobacco cessation for pregnant women on Medicaid) and 0 “men” by all of the men in amendment, government, requirement, payment, and so on. This is probably also part of the great anti-men conspiracy.
Obamacare does nto establish any offices of menâs health …you understand that the ENTIRE REST of the CDC, FDA, HRSA, AMHA, and many other partners of the USPSTA have resources dedicated to men’s health, right? Right?
About the specific list of discriminatory health coverage (eg tubal ligation but not vasectomy, etc): Most items on this list are not a big concern. One exception would be de-listing PSA testing, since many men can be expected to die as a result of this cost-saving measure. The big concern is, where do we go from here? The USPSTF is advised by seven extremely powerful offices of women’s health, with no men’s health counterparts. MRAs believe that the result of this will be increasingly assymetrical and one-sided coverage which addresses the needs of women, but not men. The process has already begun. The OEM recommendations to the USPSTF, and the USPSTF mandates, have both been entirely one-sided.
Primary care partners include: American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) American Academy of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA) American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) American College of Physicians (ACP) American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) American Osteopathic Association (AOA) National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNAP) Policy, population, and quality improvement partners include: America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) AARP National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Federal partners include: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Indian Health Service (IHS) National Institutes of Health (NIH) Veteran’s Health Administration (VHA) Department of Defense/Military Health System (DoD/MHS) Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP) Office of the Surgeon General Just look at all those evil anti-male agencies!
@ Fang: “âŚyou understand that the ENTIRE REST of the CDC, FDA, HRSA, AMHA, and many other partners of the USPSTA have resources dedicated to menâs health, right? Right?” And they all have resources for women’s health too. These offices of women’s health are additional resources available for women but not men. A neutral approach would be to either have no sex specific offices but ensure equal attention to both, or have symmetric offices for each sex. “Anthonly obviously thinks that anything for women is anti-male.” Well, if it is discriminatory in the sense that it is a benefit provided for women that would be relevant to men but is denied them, then yes, it is anti-male. That appears to be the case here. When I reviewed what services the various Offices of Women’s Health provided, they went well beyond female-specific gynecological and reproductive health.
I did not come here to be adversarial. Government discrimination against men is not the fault of women. Denial of life saving medication and services to men is not the fault of women. I came here to ask that you keep in mind that this ruling is a catastrophe for men’s health. The IOM and USPSTF will accept the guidance of the women’s health offices, and will offer more and more coverage for women. Insurance companies will pay for this with deeper and deeper cuts in men’s coverage. This will cost the lives of countless thousands of men and boys. This is our darkest hour.
@Fang Again, you confuse people searching for equality in services provided as being focused on gender lines. We don’t, we would like ALL people to have EQUAL services. How can you be against that? Isn’t it common sense?
For example, look at the CDC/ATSDR Office of Women’s Health. In 1994, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) established the Office of Women’s Health (OWH) to promote and improve the health, safety, and quality of life for women. A woman’s health encompasses all functions related to her mental and physical wellness from puberty through old age, the factors that affect wellness, and the activities and behaviors that promote it. (emphasis mine) There is no office at the CDC that attends to the mental and physical wellness from puberty through old age of men. Here’s another one: womenshealth.gov. Where is menshealth.gov? Oops! Google Chrome could not find http://www.menshealth.gov!
The IOM and USPSTF will accept the guidance of the womenâs health offices, and will offer more and more coverage for women. Insurance companies will pay for this with deeper and deeper cuts in menâs coverage. This will cost the lives of countless thousands of men and boys. This is our darkest hour. Hereâs another one: womenshealth.gov. Where is menshealth.gov? Oops! Google Chrome could not find http://www.menshealth.gov! I’m just gonna leave this here.
You people realize that basically general health service IS men’s health service. It’s a SAD sign that we need women’s health offices, because they have to counteract the sad fact that men are the default patients and women are secondary. This sucks, and you people might be right, it hurts men, too, because they might get overlooked on occasion, but mainly it’s a sign of how the system is slanted towards men as the basic default. When was the last time men were infantilized as women made law specifically targeting their genitals? See, thought so. Dude. Think.
There is a positive side of Obamacare act for men; more men than women are current uninsured, and will benefit from the expanded health insurance coverage. In 2009, 18 percent of nonelderly women (age 18â64) lacked health insurance, compared to 13 percent in 1984. For men, the percentage of uninsured rose from 16 percent to 24 percent.
Angel H. thats more a shot at people who don’t believe in Science rather then people who want equal care regardless of gender. I don’t frankly see how that relates to the topic at hand.
Must be nice to have “darkest hour” mean “being treated as the default and not needing extra protections”
oh my god I canât believe you are for real Of course, Fang, you’re obviously just not sensitive to Anthony’s needs. It is definitely the darkest hour for men, who can’t get vaccinated against a cancer for a body part they don’t have. We must be very sensitive to the fact that while women can get pills that stop their ovulation, men don’t ovulate, which makes Anthony have the sad face. Why oh why can’t men get tested for STDs that affect their ability to carry a fetus??? WHYYYYY!????? *shakes fist at sky* Let us all cast our eyes to the distant horizon and weep a bitter tear.
Must be nice to have âdarkest hourâ mean âbeing treated as the default and not needing extra protectionsâ This. A gazillion times THIS.
Jadey: Out of those 17 originals, 6 are obvious (to me anyway) jokes, 4 are “I’m moving to Canada because Obamacare doesn’t go far enough”, only 3 are definitely clueless wingnuts.
WHY do women need organizations to help them get the care they need? Itâs because medical students are taught how to treat white men. Except for when they talk about breasts or female sexual organs. Although the proportion of female students admitted to medical schools has been increasing from about 5 percent in the mid-1970s to 40 percent in the 1990s in America, the medical curriculum, however, does not “speak to womenâs health concerns”. Moreover, both lectures and clinical skills are more often than not taught by white men, about white men and for white men. Gender bias is apparent even in the teaching of basic science and biomedical subjects, such as normal human body and its functions. For example, lectures on male genitalia could be spread over three days but none on womenâs sexual organs, because “men and women are basically the same”. Medical textbooks still consider the male as the norm or reference point for all courses and regard women as exceptions to the male [E. Nechas & D. Foley, 1994, p 41]. The disregard for womenâs health in the medical curriculum is best reflected in the teaching of basic clinical skills, such as physical examinations. Medical students are taught how to examine the entire body, the head, neck, abdominal areas, the cardiovascular and neuromuscular systems, except the breast and pelvis. Instead, students have to resort to learning such basic skills vital to womenâs health care by practising on poor patients with breast illness who are already in pain. Alternatively, it has been alleged that students have been taught to do pelvic exams on anaesthetised patients who were undergoing a surgical procedure [E. Nechas & D. Foley, 1994, p.43]. I posted my main point, but you can read the whole paper here http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/integrate.htm
I am *shocked* that you don’t see the relevance of that picture, but let me try to explain: the healthcare system was, as a historical matter, built primarily by men, and it didn’t (and often still doesn’t!) do a particularly good job of listening to women or considering health issues that are unique to them. There are a lot of efforts to focus on women’s health right now because the system we had/have was not doing a good job of providing the things that women need in healthcare — like, for example, all of the services related to women bearing children and needing regular pap smears. And because so much of the research on health-related issues was centered on men historically, even efforts to address health issues that both men and women experience — like heart attacks — were often focusing on studying and treating how those diseases arise in men, which didn’t lead to particularly effective care for women. Given that Congress is currently about 80% male and that we have never had a woman in the White House, I don’t think you need to panic that some women’s health offices are going to trick the government into giving all of the healthcare to women.
Dudes, can you name what exactly will not be covered for men after the ACA goes into effect? So far we’ve got: 1. Violence prevention, which we all agree SHOULD be provided for everyone. 2. PSA, which is no longer recommended as a screening tool (this has nothing to do with ACA) and which, as others have pointed out, is already covered and routinely done with other blood tests… so not actually affected by the bill. I don’t see any chance of your fears that US health care will be exclusive to women coming true here. This act doesn’t directly do anything to deprive men of health care. Unlike female health services, male health services do not have a history of being refused coverage by insurance companies. And over 80% of congress is male; they’re not going to do anything to deprive themselves of health care. In short, chill out, and stop posting incorrect information! This is a good thing for everyone!
I did not come here to be adversarial. Oh the hell you didn’t. You’re in fact bragging about it on Reddit right now. Government discrimination against men is not the fault of women. Denial of life saving medication and services to men is not the fault of women. Oh, how cute. If you get busted when you blame it on women, you narrow your scope to blame it on “feminists.” And WHOOOPS this is a feminist site. I am sure that’s just an accident though. I came here to ask that you keep in mind that this ruling is a catastrophe for menâs health. You are demonstrably wrong and have proven so here and on Reddit several times. But don’t let your flaccid women-hatred deter you, Anthony! This will cost the lives of countless thousands of men and boys. Anthony, if I share with you my contact info and wager $1M spacebucks that this will not be the case, will you in fact pay me my $1M spacebucks in ten years? This is our darkest hour. This is our darkest hour? You mean the U.S.’s? Not invading a country that had no weapons of mass desctruction? Not letting an American city drown? Not watching the TV or computer screen with terror and disbelief as two planes crashed into large buildings? Not when members of our state and local governments actually lynched blacks? Not when it was found that priests through the U.S.A. participated in ritual molestation and rape of children? Not when the U.S. government determined that it was allowable to own other human beings, abuse them, and force them to work without pay? None of these things, and no others, but our darkest hour, you believe it to be, is when the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a provision determining that an individual health insurance purchase mandate could be a tax, and could therefore be legally levied by congress? You make me ashamed to be an MRA, you dipshit.
So your major source is a paper written at least 14 years ago using sources from 20 -30 years before that. Awesome. You nailed it.
There is no office at the CDC that attends to the mental and physical wellness from puberty through old age of men. You ARE aware that the medical establishment treats men’s mental and physical health as the standard, right? There’s no need for them to be mandated to provide equal treatment to the half of the population that’s already getting superior care.
Are there any feminists left who are genuine egalitarians? I was not expecting this kind of supremacist radicalism. I am genuinely shocked at the degree of celebration for discriminatory provisions regarding health care, where men already face far far far worse outcomes than women in every age bracket, for every disease, and in every situation.
Are there any feminists left who are genuine egalitarians? Have you actually read a single post in this thread?
Hit send too soon. Anyway, you may as well be arguing that mandating treatment for preexisting conditions “discriminates” against those who don’t have them, the logic is similar.
I was not expecting this kind of supremacist radicalism Anthony, please show me where there is any supremacist radicalism. You brought up a number of points, each one of which was false, except for exactly one (help for men in violence relationships), which everyone here has agreed should be included. We’re making fun of you because you’ve swallowed a bunch verifiably false claims, spit them out on a feminist website, and got horribly dramatic when you were proven wrong. Now you complain that we’re not being egalitarian? Good god man.
where men already face far far far worse outcomes than women in every age bracket, for every disease, and in every situation. You mean like myocardial infarction? oh…. wait…..
Title IX did not result in a decline in the number of men participating in sports, men’s athletic programs still receive significantly more funding than women’s athletics programs, and when schools do cut funding to men’s sports it is almost always so that they can fund other men’s sports — football and basketball — even more. But even if providing equal opportunities to female athletes had reduced the opportunities available to male athletes: you do realize that your complaint would be that it’s really unfair for any funding to be cut from men’s athletics programs and given to women’s athletics programs even though exactly that thing was done to women’s athletics departments for decades and decades and was the reason for passing Title IX in the first place.
Hmm, I seem to have stumbled upon a bit of a trolling party. Anyway, what I CAME here to say is… those right-wing Twitterers DO know that Canada has universal healthcare, right? Universal healthcare that’s paid for by tax dollars? Universal healthcare that covers abortion?
It is (was) explained by women costing the insurance companies more because they used more health services. The companies were simply putting gender into their statistical risk analysis with all the other customer information. The non-discrimination clause is very similar to the current European situation where the for example car insurance companies can no longer charge men more than women even though men cause a lot more expensive accidents. (That was due to an ECJ court ruling) Honestly, this is pretty dumb. If men get into more car accidents they should have to pay higher premiums for car insurance, and if women cost more to insure for health care they should pay higher premiums for health insurance. The idea that we should just nullify any sort of statistical model for predicting insurance costs threatens the underpinnings of how insurance works (which, actually, I’d be fine with- yay single payer- but we don’t seem to be there yet).
@ Shigekuni, Adaquinn, Esti, and Mike Crichton, You all made the point that men’s health is the standard and women’s health is overlooked, because most of the doctors have been men. In addition, most of the Congress is men, and why would they bias the health system against men? Both these claims assume that men will always favor their own well being over those of women, and have specifically done so in the area of health care. This is of course an assumption that needs evidence to support. I don’t know what the truth is, but I have some evidence that says this assumption is not true, and that women’s health has always been a major and even dominant area of medical practice and research. (to be continued)
1) Free birth control for women, but NOT for men. â There is no male birth control pill or IUD, and condoms arenât prescription, so Iâm not sure what birth control for men you think should be covered. Erm… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy In addition I’m pretty sure the law doesn’t say birth-control-that-can-only-be-gotten-with-a-doctor’s-prescription, but just birth control. I mean, I hope it covers plan B. So condoms should be covered as well. Secondly there IIRC, the law just uses birth control that has been approved without specifying specific types, so undeveloped forms of birth control are covered for women. They could have done the same for men just as easily. Oh and this ignores the fact that some men can use IUD’s and the like (such as trans-men.) So its discrimination. P.S. That said, on the whole the bill is wonderful for men, and I don’t see why anyone would think the few areas of discrimination could take it from a good thing to a terrible thing for men.
Just to jump further into the murky pools of controversial statistics: if I’m insuring people who are going to go traveling through malaria-infested swamps, I should be able to charge white people a higher rate than black people, who are statistically less likely to contract malaria. And so on.
A number of you have stated that the special offices of women’s health are necessary because women’s health concerns have been neglected by the predominantly male medical profession. That’s an assumption that needs evidence to support it. I have a number of references here that say that isn’t true. Did Medical Research Routinely Exclude Women? An Examination of the Evidence Study Estimates Gender Bias in U.S. Clinical Trials, Finds MenâNot WomenâUnderrepresented in Most Research The Sex-Bias Myth in Medicine Medical gender wars
A couple of quotes from the previous links: Contrary to longstanding public perception, women do not appear to be under represented or understudied in scientific clinical research trials in the United States, according to a new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. A review of sex-specific enrollments in medical research studies, and an examination of the number of epidemiologic studies and clinical trials that included men and women, point to two conclusions: 1) Historically, women were routinely included in medical research, and 2) Women have participated in medical research in numbers at least proportionate to the overall female population. If this is true, and women have not been neglected by the medical establishment, then the disproportionate emphasis we see in women’s health in the Affordable Care Act represents not a leveling of the playing field, but a decisive bias towards preferential and superior health care for women compared to men.
The best part of Anthony Zarat’s facebook is the link about a father being discriminated against in family court for being obese right next to a comment about how a woman is too fat to ever possibly be attractive to married men.
OH! Look I can find studies too! http://journals.lww.com/lww-medicalcare/Abstract/2006/01000/Gender_Disparities_in_Percutaneous_Coronary.4.aspx http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30339.x/full
Super funny on all counts. You do realize that women are traditionally expected (and forced in some instances such as papanicoula to get OC) to present for routine health appointments and cancer screenings much earlier and more often than men, right? You do realize this is a way to discipline their bodies & keep them “healthy” in order to breed (i use the derogatory term as that is the way health care treats it), as well as protect them from disease. Now, we’re just getting it paid for by insurance more evenly. But guys can complain all day. You want your DRE earlier and more often, be my guest.
The best part of Anthony Zaratâs facebook is the link about a father being discriminated against in family court for being obese right next to a comment about how a woman is too fat to ever possibly be attractive to married men. Poe’s Law….?
@Natalie, The difference is that your studies reference gender disparities in two specific cases, the second of which doesn’t appear to show a strong gender disparity at all. My references study the overall representation in all types of medical research, and are much more general. They show that women have not been neglected by the medical establishment, even when going as far back as the 1960’s.
Can someone open a window and let the troll stench out of the room? Hard to breathe here. Ahem. Now that Feministe has been contaminated with MRA toxic gas for the time being, I encourage regulars who want commentary on the decision to visit Lawyers Guns and Money. Probably nobody’s favorite site, but LGM has sensible things to say about both the politics and the reasoning (or not) that the Justices deployed.
You’re either derailing or getting confused. The ACA has nothing to do with medical research. It has to do with medical services. The only valid point the MRAs have made (which everyone here has agreed with) is that domestic violence screening is not, but should be, covered for both men and women. Let’s note that, with its lack of a requirement for abortion coverage, the ACA isn’t ideal for women either. There is absolutely no concrete evidence for “superior health care” for women encoded in the ACA–unless you have something else to discuss other than the incorrect list of issues you came in with. You all came to pick a fight, and since all your information was wrong and there’s nothing to fight about, you’re just pulling at straws to justify your righteous indignation. Give it up and go back to Reddit.
I’m sure it doesn’t need to be said, but I’m going to be another person here saying do not engage at all, EVER, with Anthony Zarat. He is a regular troll over on manboobz and while it may be surprising, so far he has been on his GOOD behavior here. He has in the past said many many heinous things about women and is not worth arguing with in any way, shape or form. The hostility he eventually devolves into on every post he involves himself in at manboobz gets downright scary and I’d hate to see this thread be even further derailed by attempts to engage in legitimate conversation with him.
The reason violence screening exists for women as part of this bill is because women 1. are at vastly greater risk of violence from male family members than vice versa (and gay men do not have adequate medical care, not that they are who mra’s are concerned about), and 2. women have fought like hell for years to call attention to dv and to involve the medical community in treatment and prevention.
@rhian, The ACA has nothing to do with medical research. It has to do with medical services. This is incorrect, as a perusal of the H.R.3590 – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shows. There is established within the Office of the Director of the Centers for Disease Con trol and Prevention, an office to be known as the Office of Womens Health (referred to in this section as the Of fice). … (2) establish short-range and long-range goals and objectives within the Centers for womens health and, as relevant and appropriate, coordinate with other appropriate offices on activities within the Centers that relate to prevention, research, education and training, service delivery, and policy development, for issues of particular concern to women; Did you see the word “research” in there? There is established within the Office of the Director, an Office of Womens Health and Gender-Based Research (referred to in this section as the Office). … (1) report to the Director on the current Agency level of activity regarding womens health, across, where appropriate, age, biological, and sociocultural contexts, in all aspects of Agency work, including the development of evidence reports and clinical practice protocols and the conduct of research into patient outcomes, delivery of health care services, quality of care, and access to health care; “Research” is right in the title of that one. The Secretary shall establish within the Office of the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, an office to be known as the Office of Womens Health. … establish short-range and long-range goals and objectives within the Health Resources and Services Administration for womens health and, as relevant and appropriate, coordinate with other appropriate offices on activities within the Administration that relate to health care provider training, health service delivery, research, and demonstration projects, for issues of particular concern to women; There it is again. All the other Offices of Women’s Health support research into women’s health too. So, I have supported my claim that women have not been historically shortchanged in clinical health care or health research and I have supported my claim that the Affordable Care Act provides additional resources for funding female-specific research and clinical care beyond that available for men. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, one must conclude that the ACA is discriminatory against men.
I give all the fucks about men’s “darkest hour” that the MRAs have given to the recent spate of legislative attacks on abortion access. Seems fair.
Congratulations from Australia. It must be a real relief for you. It’s so difficult to understand the dreadful fear of ‘socialist’ medicine. But I don’t want to derail. Those MRAs are priceless.
….so, WAIT: These people hate universal healthcare, so they want to move here…where we have universal healthcare? The stupid. It burns.
What. What is going on here. Why are there Republicans swarming my country. Go away. You’re disturbing the moose. Also you’re encouraging Harper. We frown upon that. Go away, moose-disturbers.
“You’re bad at reading comprehension” isn’t ad hominem. It’s a valid assessment of fact when you make a statement that would indicate you didn’t fully understand the assertion you’re purporting to dispute. It’s like “you’re bad at math” if you had an algebrafail. An argument is only ad hominem if it’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your arguments are not being dismissed because you’re bad at reading comprehension; your arguments demonstrate a failure of reading comprehension, and thus they are being dismissed. (Incidentally, I also got 800 on my SAT verbal, but since that was over a decade ago, I figure it doesn’t have a whole lot of influence on my debate capabilities these days.)
On topic, though, can I just say how chuffed I am that we’re over a hundred comments on a post that was 20 words long?
Hey, even my perfection isnât always perfect. I’m not sure how yet, but this is definitely problematic. And probably a dark hour for men.
Antz is all too serious. He’s the genuine article. 1: he realised how horrid the female oppression of men was when he saw anti-DV posters that didn’t blame women (they didn’t blame anyone; but they said that children were awaiting instruction). 2: he is terrified his “Foreign Bride” will leave him and “steal” his children. 3: he looks forward to the day when virtual reality makes everyone happy by giving them a non-human partner and marriage can be destroyed. 4: he thinks men and women should be moved to separate halves of the world, dividing it on the Mississippi. It’s possible he’s a poe but if so he has so thoroughly adopted the persona that it doesn’t matter. If you act like a troll, you are a troll.
Heh. Even the dudes in the Men’s Rights subreddit realize that Mr. Zarat is full of poop: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vpw1c/why_tomorrow_is_a_big_day_for_the_mrm/c56sxkm Anthony, you usually troll Man Boobz. Why have you forsaken us?
Did Medical Research Routinely Exclude Women? An Examination of the Evidence Study Estimates Gender Bias in U.S. Clinical Trials, Finds MenâNot WomenâUnderrepresented in Most Research The Sex-Bias Myth in Medicine Medical gender wars To be fair, I think these studies are pretty convincing. There’s not much to say against them, as far as I can tell.
I find it very amusing that Anthony uses the phrase “men’s darkest hour” to refer to an entirely different topic on his facebook. So much darkness! Does he live underground?
If people are concerned about paying for STI testing in women vs. men, they need to consider the presenting symptoms. Women and girls have no symptoms around 80% of the time. We find out we have STIs with testing. Men and boys often have painful and frankly visible symptoms, like burning during urination and odd discharge. Most dudes with those kinds of symptoms go to see a doctor. The lack of co-pay isn’t about preferencing women, it’s about public health and recognizing that paying for a full STI screen when a woman is asymptomatic isn’t going to be on her radar. As for domestic violence screening, no one in this debate has said that male victims don’t exist. But when you look at well-designed research studies, they show that women are more often victims of abuse with long-term health consequences. Often, those health effects are seen in reproductive health visits. Women and girls in abusive relationships are more likely to experience unwanted pregnacy and are more likely to contract STIs, including HIV/AIDS. A huge area of this involves pregnancy; abused women have poorer childbirth outcomes, which lead to higher long term health costs. Overall, women who have experienced abuse reprot higher health care utilization in general. Assessing and responding appropriately improves the health care system.
Did Medical Research Routinely Exclude Women? An Examination of the Evidence To be fair, I think these studies are pretty convincing. Thereâs not much to say against them, as far as I can tell. I’ve just looked at one of them, and surely your comment is sarcastic? Sorry, it’s morning here and my sarcasm detector is on the fritz. That, um, “study” is an absolute joke. It does not break the numbers down into whether individual studies may have a surplus of women for specific reasons, whether there are geographical factors or university related ones. It just adds up the numbers in three crude tables and that just isn’t enough. And the two sentences accorded to the cardiovascular disease issue >.< God on earth. Because I want to save myself the pain of reading more nonsense like that I'll go ahead and say the other studies are probably just as useless.
Good luck on immigrating legally to el norte. Most of you will have to try their luck at getting incountry illegally.
Hey, anything that requires that they acknowledge that âwomanâ is a perfectly normal model of humanity is a blow to MRAs. Hey, EG, can I tell you again how awesome I think you are? You’re awesome!
MRA to feminists: thank you for your restraint. by AnthonyZaratin My gratitute is genuine. The events of this day have left the MRM devastated. Other feminist sites are dancing on our graves. I appreciate that /r/feminism has shown restraint and compassion. Would I have shown the same compassion for you, if fate delt a crippling blow to you? I don’t know. You’re upset that feminists aren’t nice enough to you, but you freely admit that you probably wouldn’t show compassion to them if the tables were turned? Oh, an unethical, hypocritical MRA. How very, very new.
Iâve just looked at one of them, and surely your comment is sarcastic? Sorry, itâs morning here and my sarcasm detector is on the fritz. That, um, âstudyâ is an absolute joke. It does not break the numbers down into whether individual studies may have a surplus of women for specific reasons, whether there are geographical factors or university related ones. It just adds up the numbers in three crude tables and that just isnât enough. And the two sentences accorded to the cardiovascular disease issue >.< God on earth. Because I want to save myself the pain of reading more nonsense like that I'll go ahead and say the other studies are probably just as useless. No, I’m not being sarcastic. I’m just considering both sides of the issue. I’m mostly curious about the fact that these studies call the male-bias a myth yet this bias has been consistently reported by others. And it seems that the studies that claim it’s a myth don’t really address the other side’s position – they just present data and then make conclusions.
Goddamn, I came here to read people’s jokes about healthcare-hating wingnuts deporting themselves to the land of universal healthcare, and instead I’m rolling my eyes at the sheer level of ignorant stupidity in this thread. The ACA has nothing to do with medical research. It has to do with medical services. This is incorrect, as a perusal of the H.R.3590 â Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shows. Nope, the ACA funds research into medical service delivery, not biomedical research (which is what you obviously meant by bringing up sexism in clinical trials). I’m amused you think you have superior knowledge about women’s healthcare on a blog where a huge chunk of us are health professionals, who’ve faced men with so much sheer hatred for women’s equal access to healthcare that they’ve harassed and murdered us at our day jobs. So far I haven’t seen any such violence against men’s health professionals. But hey, nice try at pearl-clutching! By the way, just to amuse myself at your expense, here’s some scientific research on how HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, written by a renowned researcher who claims AIDS is actually caused by gay drug use: http://www.springerlink.com/content/066p418212x82001/ This totally means we should reconsider the universally accepted facts about AIDS! Oops, no — the scientific literature overwhelmingly concludes HIV causes AIDS, just as it concludes clinical trials discriminate against women patients. Posting a few links to outliers doesn’t change a bleeding thing, dear!
So much darkness! Does he live underground? It’s dark under the bridge. Good luck on immigrating legally to el norte. Most of you will have to try their luck at getting incountry illegally. Too much border for Canada to build a wall. “Sorry, Canada,” indeed.
RE Zarat and the darkness he sees everywhere – so many things about him would make sense if he was a Morlock. He’s just mad because, unlike Eloi, feminists tend to protest if you try to harm them (or other women).
Excluding vasectomies is blatant discrimination. If sterilization is free for women, it should be free for men as well. How is this not a valid complaint?
Excluding vasectomies is blatant discrimination. If sterilization is free for women, it should be free for men as well. How is this not a valid complaint? FOR THE LOVE OF FSM. The reason “Obamacare” didn’t legislate coverage of vasectomies is because VASECTOMIES ARE TYPICALLY COVERED BY INSURANCE. No legislation is necessary. There’s also the fact that vasectomies are far cheaper and typically and outpatient procedure…but hey! why work with facts when you can stick with manufactured outraged about things you know NOTHING about.
Since vasectomies are cheaper, it makes all the more sense to require insurance companies to cover it. The same goes for condoms (with obamacare, female condoms are free with a prescription, so the same could be done for male condoms). Regardless of what rationalization you come up with to support it, it is wrong for a law to give rights to only one gender. I certainly expect more personal attacks and shaming tactics in your reply but that will not stop me from advocating for equality.
I certainly expect more personal attacks and shaming tactics in your reply but that will not stop me from advocating for equality. Fact 1: Vasectomies are covered by insurance. Fact 2: Tubal ligations are not covered by insurance. Fact 3: Legislation requires that tubal ligations be covered by insurance. Conclusion 1: Legislation creates equality. Conclusion 2: You fail at logic.
Vasectomies are not always covered (particularly at 100%) by insurance, meaning the legislation does not create equality. If the law required vasectomies to be covered as well, it would always be covered. Therefore, I am arguing for equality and you are not. It doesn’t look like I am the one who is failing at logic.
The reason âObamacareâ didnât legislate coverage of vasectomies is because VASECTOMIES ARE TYPICALLY COVERED BY INSURANCE. Kristen, that was my line! I was looking forward to putting this genius in his place by pointing out that 1) more insurers cover vasectomies and… penile implants (yep) than they do contraception, and thus 2) Obamacare is intended to force parity in treatment of women and men. You know why we have hate crimes against killing gay people but not straight people? It’s mostly because… most people aren’t murdered for being straight. But hey, I suppose this is an attack on straight people, huh? Yeah, let’s have legislation to address a nonexistent problem… what a wise investment in resources! Seriously, some of these commenters have the logic of 10-year-olds, with apologies to the 10-year-olds…
female condoms are free with a prescription, so the same could be done for male condoms SWEET BABY DINOSAURS. Condoms do NOT require a freakin prescription and you can get them for free at places like Planned Parenthood. There is no need for your insurance to cover condoms, just like there is no need for your insurance to cover aspirin or band-aids.
Nope, Obamacare doesn’t cover condoms for women, male or female — and even though that’s pure common sense, I confirmed with Kaiser five minutes ago to confirm. (I work in a healthcare, debunking ACA myths.) Are there any other falsehoods you’d like to promote so I can post them around the office so we can have a laugh at your expense? đ
I don’t know about falsehoods, but the contrast of breast health coverage/screenings VS prostate screenings reminded me of something. Has the bill done anything to make insurer’s cover men’s breast cancer expenses? Because I don’t know about private insurers, but as far as I know Medicaid still isn’t covering it for men. I can’t find anything that suggests it has been expanded yet.
@Echo Zen: Would you mind linking to your source? Because this pretty clearly says “All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” And this pretty clearly lists condoms pretty clearly. Oh and women get sterilization procedures and counseling that men don’t get as well.
I agree with Obamacare’s provision to prevent insurance companies from charging women more then men. Additionally, auto insurance companies should not be allowed to charge men more than women. Even if men cause more accidents, I had nothing to do with those accidents and should not have to pay for them simply because I happened to be born male. I read about female condoms being free with a prescription at Kaiser’s website: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/february/27/five-questions-health-law-mandate-birth-control.aspx (see #2)
@Echo Zen: Egalitarian’s link is an even better than my reference still in moderation. Soooo…. going to admit ACA has blatant (if minor) discrimination in it?
Do you know when a prescription is provided for condoms? When a particular condom is medically necessary. For example, I have a latex allergy also I have a spermicide allergy so I’ve been prescribed a particular type of condom. A penis covering condom. And surprise, surprise when my husband mentioned that I’m allergic to a certain spermicide to his GP he also received a prescription. You don’t need a prescription to get otc condoms and the law doesn’t mandate coverage of otc condoms for either the penis or vagina carriers. So basically you still have no idea what you are talking about.
Thank you Echo Zen and Kristen J. for your comments… I think my head was about to explode for a second there…
Do you know when a prescription is provided for condoms? When a particular condom is medically necessary. For example, I have a latex allergy also I have a spermicide allergy so Iâve been prescribed a particular type of condom. A penis covering condom. And surprise, surprise when my husband mentioned that Iâm allergic to a certain spermicide to his GP he also received a prescription. You donât need a prescription to get otc condoms and the law doesnât mandate coverage of otc condoms for either the penis or vagina carriers. For the love of God, it was linked. Condoms are required. Do you even read the things that get linked? But for the sake of argument lets assume that your right… it still doesn’t mandate coverage for prescription condoms for men. It is discriminatory, why is this so hard for you to accept?
Yep, in fact that was the exact link my Kaiser contact showed to me when I asked if condoms would be covered by Obamacare. (I considered posting it yesterday but doubted it would be read by commenters with reading comprehension.) Insurers will only cover “over-the- counter contraceptives when they are prescribed by doctors.” Condoms don’t require a prescription. Come on, I’m pretty sure this is common knowledge. …it still doesnât mandate coverage for prescription condoms for men. It is discriminatory… Do I consider laws protecting black voters to be discriminatory against white voters? Actually I’m not going to answer that — I can’t justify to my supervisor that I’m still dealing with healthcare issues on the Internet if I go there. But I suspect this is the main point of contention here, i.e. if it’s discrimination to mandate better coverage for a group to rectify disparities between it and another group that has historically enjoyed better coverage. Of course I haven’t examined every man’s reproductive organs to make sure of this, but I think poor contraceptive access might affect women’s health a bit more than men’s. It’s just a suspicion though.
Condoms are required. Do you even read the things that get linked? Condoms WHEN PRESCRIBED are covered. WHEN PRESCRIBED. So if you go to the doctor and the doctor gives you a prescription for condoms then those condoms are covered. So if you go to the dr. Pay your co-pay. Get a prescription. Go to the pharmacy. Have the prescription filled. Those condoms are covered by insurance. But for the sake of argument lets assume that your right⌠it still doesnât mandate coverage for prescription condoms for men. It is discriminatory, why is this so hard for you to accept? Because its NOT true. Penis covering condoms are generally available for free without any prescription or doctors visit. If it doesn’t cost money to get those condoms then there is nothing that “Obamacare” could possibly do to be discriminatory other than *pay women* to use condoms.
Insurers will only cover âover-the- counter contraceptives when they are prescribed by doctors.â Condoms donât require a prescription. Not Required=! Not Possible To clarify: I’ve worked in a pharmacy. There was fish oil there. And standard vitamins. Doctors could prescribe them. You don’t need a prescription for fish oil or vitamins. Doctors are fully capable of prescribing things that do not require a prescription. Do I consider laws protecting black voters to be discriminatory against white voters? Well that depends. A law protecting only black voters against only white voters would be discriminatory. A law protecting voters (who are often black) from voters (who are often white), would be totally fine. Now in America I’m guessing the laws are the later. Its how anti-discrimination is mostly done. The new democrat VAWA prevents discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Straight, gay, or bi its all protected. Of course I havenât examined every manâs reproductive organs to make sure of this, but I think poor contraceptive access might affect womenâs health a bit more than menâs. Itâs just a suspicion though. Not sure what your getting at? Are you saying men can’t get pregnant? Do you know about Trans-men?
Summary: We got Viagra covered without legislation and all that drug does is help men fuck, so surely we don’t need help here? Details: http://www.dadsagain.com/vasectomy-reversal/insurance-coverage/ You can get it covered but not reversed, so MRA’s why don’t you go lobby for this instead of arguing about things women need and weren’t getting being discriminatory because men did not get them in the bill too. Let’s not ignore that the writers of legislation pander to various voting groups where ever they can (hence the laundry list of women’s health care w/o mention of the A-word). Most male voters do not care about domestic violence coverage, thus it was not included – if you had been rallying for male dv victims for the past 30 years… Ditto on the condoms front, though it would make huge sense for all types of condoms to be completely free for all people at all times, not just the free fish bowl in the college dorm (which is really your Uni trying to cut down on pregnancies/STDs that it will have to treat its students for under those student health plans). Philosophically I do have a problem with a law that does not mandate equally, because a mandate of rights for one group that lacks said rights can in theory become a denial for another group later on, however this is hardly “men’s darkest hour” or whatever – if it comes to pass that there is an actual case of reverse discrimination later on because the greedy insurance company cuts some men’s health benefit to pay for X Y or Z then that can be rectified by yet another law. We got Viagra covered without legislation and all that drug does is help men fuck, so surely we don’t need help here? (e.g. they may decide to stop covering PSA tests, (sorry I am suspicious about the whole “testing does not save lives movement” we live under now – they said the same crap about mammograms recently until the outrage ground that bad study to dust). The real reason is testing 1000s of men to find one cancer costs more to the ins. company than letting one man die, ditto for breast cancer. The no boys HPV crap (thankfully reversed by the guidance finally!), as a microbiologist who was educated when HPV was suspected to be a cancer causer (our virology prof called it 18 years ago) you don’t need a study to say if HPV causes cancer in girls it can cause cancer in boys, or the boys can spread the HPV to non-vaccinated girls. The mechanism is the same, HPV infects the cell and by inserting its DNA and can disrupt a cell’s growth control mechanisms. HPV does not care if your cells are girl-cells or boy-cells. It’s not doing chromosome checks.
Not sure what your getting at? Are you saying men canât get pregnant? Do you know about Trans-men? I really don’t think obamacare denies prenatal services to transmen. That the services are referred to as “women’s health care services” doesn’t mean that men with vaginae and uteri will be denied care for those organs. But if the MRAs want to start a letter writing campaign to change the cissexist language of laws to be inclusive of transmen, that would be an excellent use of their time.