HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » ACA: Setting aside the is...

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:32 PM

 

ACA: Setting aside the issue of cost.

A brief scan of the ACA

44 occurrences of the word "breast"
0 occurrences of the word "prostate"
141 occurrences of the word "women"
1 occurrence of the word "men", in the section titled "Office of women's health"

Aside from fairness issues related to the shifting of costs, (although this is a legitimate debate, I think that removing gender as a rating criteria is appropriate since I support single payer), one of the reasons that men die younger of all preventable causes is because of the bias against men's health (or bias toward women's health, if you prefer) that is explicitly written into law.

Men were only important to this law as a part of the political calculus to get them into the insurance pool to contribute to the cost of caring for women and children.

This is a serious flaw with ACA that needs to be fixed.

117 replies, 6031 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 117 replies Author Time Post
Reply ACA: Setting aside the issue of cost. (Original post)
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 OP
Skinner Oct 2013 #1
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #4
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #76
DURHAM D Oct 2013 #2
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #9
Whisp Oct 2013 #20
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #23
Whisp Oct 2013 #26
Dreamer Tatum Oct 2013 #3
ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #5
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #29
ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #30
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #33
ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #35
Quantess Oct 2013 #55
ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #56
LineLineReply .
reflection Oct 2013 #40
nobodyspecial Oct 2013 #6
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #8
nobodyspecial Oct 2013 #12
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #15
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #83
Squinch Oct 2013 #78
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #81
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #80
ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #7
Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #10
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #11
Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #13
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #17
nobodyspecial Oct 2013 #14
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #18
ZomBoy Oct 2013 #16
Whisp Oct 2013 #19
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #22
Whisp Oct 2013 #24
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #25
Nine Oct 2013 #51
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #52
Squinch Oct 2013 #82
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #106
Squinch Nov 2013 #108
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #110
Squinch Nov 2013 #111
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #112
Squinch Nov 2013 #113
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #85
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #84
Texasgal Oct 2013 #62
geek tragedy Oct 2013 #21
BainsBane Oct 2013 #27
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #28
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #86
eqfan592 Oct 2013 #31
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #32
Nine Oct 2013 #34
Ohio Joe Oct 2013 #36
eqfan592 Oct 2013 #37
JoePhilly Oct 2013 #39
eqfan592 Oct 2013 #41
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #43
JoePhilly Oct 2013 #47
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #50
JoePhilly Oct 2013 #54
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #58
JoePhilly Oct 2013 #59
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #64
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #89
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #88
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #92
Ohio Joe Oct 2013 #42
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #45
Ohio Joe Oct 2013 #46
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #87
JoePhilly Oct 2013 #38
karadax Oct 2013 #44
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #48
JoePhilly Oct 2013 #53
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #57
JoePhilly Oct 2013 #61
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #63
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #90
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #95
VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #98
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #100
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #102
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #103
fadedrose Oct 2013 #49
HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #60
slipslidingaway Oct 2013 #65
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #66
Texasgal Oct 2013 #67
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #68
slipslidingaway Oct 2013 #70
Texasgal Oct 2013 #72
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #96
slipslidingaway Oct 2013 #69
Texasgal Oct 2013 #73
slipslidingaway Oct 2013 #74
Texasgal Oct 2013 #75
slipslidingaway Oct 2013 #77
Texasgal Oct 2013 #79
slipslidingaway Oct 2013 #91
pnwmom Oct 2013 #71
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #93
pnwmom Oct 2013 #94
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #97
pnwmom Oct 2013 #99
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #101
pnwmom Nov 2013 #104
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #105
pnwmom Nov 2013 #107
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #109
pnwmom Nov 2013 #115
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #114
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #116
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #117

Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:35 PM

1. Only one mention of the word men?!?!

Does Obamacare cover men?!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:37 PM

4. Sure. We get free mammograms. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:15 PM

76. You do know that men get breast cancer right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:35 PM

2. I have no clue what point you are trying to make.

What is the serious flaw you think needs fixing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #2)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:45 PM

9. Let's take another tack.

 

Would you support the creation of "an office of men's health"? If so, then you apparently agree that the ACA is incomplete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:11 PM

20. Affordable 'C' Act isn't what you think it is. n/t

 

Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #20)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:14 PM

23. I have the law on my screen.

 

Pages 464 through 460 describe an office of women's health.

No mention of men's health. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #23)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:20 PM

26. most likely because this is a new addition to insurance inclusion.

 

women were not treated as equal beings before ACA and now new provisions have to be added to include them and therefore have to be made clear in that addition.

so yeh, maybe the 'women' word will appear more because of that,
wtf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:36 PM

3. Don't bother looking for terms like "funbags," either. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:38 PM

5. ...

I needed to laugh really hard today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScreamingMeemie (Reply #5)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:15 AM

29. Have you considered why the post you're laughing at is funny?

 

Because in an 800 page law about reforming health care; the greatest progressive accomplishment of a generation, it would be as surprising to find the word "men" as it would "funbags"


... in any section other than "how to pay for it".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #29)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 10:12 AM

30. Yes, because he said "fun bags." End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScreamingMeemie (Reply #30)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 10:29 AM

33. You're an easy audience. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 10:42 AM

35. I imagine most people would find it funny. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScreamingMeemie (Reply #35)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:31 PM

55. "funbags" was funny the first 50 times.

It's not exactly original.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #55)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:36 PM

56. In the context of the post, it was quite funny.

The poster of it got a giggle out of me on a day I didn't feel like it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:36 AM

40. .



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:39 PM

6. So insert men every now and again

problem fixed! And, no, this is ridiculous. Word counts mean nothing. What is the context?

"Men were only important to this law as a part of the political calculus to get them into the insurance pool to contribute to the cost of caring for women and children." Are you fucking kidding me?!?!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:41 PM

8. Great idea!

 

How about a new section titled "office of men's health"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:48 PM

12. Go for it

And while you are at it, perhaps do some research on why women's health is even an issue. Start with how conditions that affected males were given priority consideration. Or how diseases that affected both men and women were only studied in men. Or drug trials were male focuses. Or how men's health has been the focus for so long, but research on women's health women's unique bodies, hormones and systems are a relatively recent focus in the history of medicine.

Do you have a mother, wife, sister, aunt? How about children? Anyone you know have any of those? Basically your post reads, "I like how the system used to cater to men. Fuck women and children. They should fend for themselves."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #12)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:51 PM

15. Men die younger from every preventable cause.

 

Part of the reason for that is because we don't go to the doctor; an observation that shows up in the fact that 33% more is spent on women's lifetime healthcare, 40% of which is due to women's longer lives.

Don't give me this male-bias stuff. It is patently, obviously, explicitly and legally untrue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #15)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:25 PM

83. because women birth YOUR babies....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:19 PM

78. Exactly. "Men" have always been the default. But for those whose hobby is to make it about

the oppression of men, I say, "Show everyone what you're made of there, bubbie!"

Takes all kinds, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:24 PM

81. EXACTLY!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:23 PM

80. You do realize that healthcare skews towards men mostly right?

 

A...most medical testing is done using men...men who typically weigh more than women...who have a different metabolism then women.

B. this goes for drug testing as well

C. Did you know that when men have abdominal surgery...they are very careful not to sever certain nerves so as not to interfere with a man's sex life. Do you also know that women...who just so happen to have more abdominal type surgery and mostly they don't worry about nerves that are important for proper sexual functioning for them because with women they do not recognize that as important for them. That this is a theory about why a large number of women are an-orgasmic....

these are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:39 PM

7. Is this satire? Or sarcasm? Or something like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:45 PM

10. This post is offensive

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:46 PM

11. Why?

 

Seriously. Why?

Answering that question will help us to explore a pervasive bias that we refuse to confront.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:49 PM

13. You are essentially pretending ACA has bias toward women's health

 

When that is patently untrue. I think you should thank the universe every day for momen.

I'm a male in my 40's just for reference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #13)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:54 PM

17. Of course it has a bias toward women's health. It says so.

 

Read page 454 through 460. Find an analagous section for men's health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:50 PM

14. Oh, yes

Poor discriminated white males. Getting put on equal footing with other groups is a loss of your existing privilege over those other groups, NOT discrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #14)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:55 PM

18. Who said "white"? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:53 PM

16. well men aren't as important as women.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:09 PM

19. so basically you feel you are losing out because women now don't

 

pay more for insurance like in the past? Men are now being put in danger because women can't be looked at as a pre-existing condition.

holy cow. unbelievable - but I guess you haven't had the action you desire so deeply lately so this was as good a thing to throw out as any.

You should be Ashamed, shame on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:11 PM

22. No.

 

Oh, those were rhetorical questions?

I think that men's health in this country is; a) in crisis and b) a non-priority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #22)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:15 PM

24. a lot of 'people's health is in crisis...

 

in another post here in this thread you claim that it is partly the fault of men that they don't go to the doctor as often as they should. If you want to do some good, make a group or speak to all the men you know about this problem that they have (which is rooted in stupido machismo problems). Work on That not whining and moaning about how many times 'womenz' appears in the ACA.

good fricken lord.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:18 PM

25. I think mandated insurance is a good thing in that regard.

 

I think an office of men's health (particularly since we're going to pay 17% more than we used to) would be even better.

But you apparently think it's better that these concerns should be addressed informally by the private sector.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #25)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:08 PM

51. And there it is.

"we're going to pay 17% more than we used to"

For all your posturing about caring about men's health, this is what it's really all about. You're mad because women are no longer being forced to pay more than men, no matter how much you deny it. You're trying to stir up resentment towards women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:13 PM

52. No, it's not.

 

It's certainly a consideration though, and if the fact that men spend 1/3 less on their medical care and live many years shorter lives isn't enough to justify additional attention paid to the issue, then perhaps an appeal to fairness may tip the scale.

I get that facts (such as my general support of removing gender as a rating criteria) will never trump your stereotypes, but you aren't a domain expert on what I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:24 PM

82. He's feeling oppressed. One more unearned advantage is slipping away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #82)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 09:48 AM

106. The people with the weakest arguments don't even try to make them to the person they disagree with

 

I see it often in my kids JR high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #106)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 03:35 PM

108. Or maybe I just wasn't talking to you. I see JR high kids assuming they need to be the center of

everything too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #108)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:54 PM

110. Of course you weren't talking to me.

 

You're courageous like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #110)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:03 PM

111. Right. In your world, talking to anyone other than you is non-courageous. Check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #111)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:05 PM

112. Talking about me to someone other than me? Yes. Non-courageous. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #112)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:11 PM

113. Check. Only you can be spoken to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:28 PM

85. Until ACA Women paid TWICE as much as men...

 

and YOU are going to quibble over a lousy 17%? GMAFB!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:27 PM

84. Apparently NOT having ACA would be better for "men's health"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #22)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 05:24 PM

62. where were you when Woman's health

and research was being tossed aside?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:11 PM

21. I must have missed the part where the Catholic Church, Hobby Lobby, and

 

Congress tried to strip out coverage for men's health needs.

That stuff is in there for women BECAUSE THE CURRENT SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN.

Fer fucks sake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:51 PM

27. Stand the President in the corner

and make him write men 500 times on the blackboard. Feel better now?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #27)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 02:17 PM

28. Would you agree that being male carries a greater health risk?

 

If so, what public efforts would you support to address it?

http://bewell.stanford.edu/mens-health

Simply put, men carry a higher health risk than women. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), men are half as likely as women to make doctor visits for preventive services. In addition, men face societal pressures that discourage healthy behaviors, have elevated risks associated with behaviors during youth and are often employed in the most dangerous professions.

While all of these factors are significant, the reluctance to seek preventive care in the form of a physical exam or health screening means men are less likely to prevent the onset of a more serious condition. Translation: a shorter life. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in the 1920s the life expectancy gender gap between a woman and a man was only one year, but by 2007 women were living 5.2 years longer than men.

At BeWell, we recognize that the Stanford community is not immune to national trends. In fact, while 73% of female employees took the Stanford Health and Lifestyle Assessment (SHALA) in 2010, only 48% of male employees completed the survey that same year. As the SHALA is the gateway to our wellness program, these numbers are consistent with the CDCs statistics that men are less likely to seek preventative health care.

BeWell aims to bridge the gender gap on campus. By reporting on this discrepancy, we hope to heighten the awareness of preventable health problems and to encourage early detection and treatment of disease among men and boys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #28)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:30 PM

86. And then Black males would by this standard be even less...

 

Should Black men be paying less than you?

Doesn't this mean that Black men on the same plan have been carrying your butt all along?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 10:17 AM

31. Shhhh, you can't talk about that here.

Men deserve their early deaths, didn't you know that? This is not in any way an issue that is deserving of a calm and rational discussion, but rather mocking and ridicule from those who claim to be members of a "big tent" party built on caring and understanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #31)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 10:28 AM

32. I've come to the conclusion that much of what passes for progressive attitudes on gender

 

is just chivalry 2.0.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 10:39 AM

34. ACA did not invent the term "women's health"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_health

I would argue that the term exists for the same reason men's basketball is referred to as "basketball" and women's basketball is referred to as "women's basketball." Because women are seen as not the default and need special designations.

Is there a contest to see who can come up with the dumbest post on this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 10:45 AM

36. OMG!!!1!

It is soooooo hard to be a man in a male dominated word

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #36)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:30 AM

37. Yes, because that's exactly the point he was making.

I mean, who gives two shits about a lack of awareness about mens health issues that is almost certainly contributing to their lower life expectancy. The fuckers HAVE IT COMING!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #37)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:35 AM

39. Most plans already covered Viagra, but not the pill.

See, most insurance was structured around men's health issues from the start. There was no need to include the word "men" because the plans were focused on men.

Women's health issues were added in, or not. They cost extra in many plans.

Thus the need to refer specifically to women more frequently in the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #39)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:39 AM

41. Notice I never said anything about the law.

But that being said, there still seems to be a clear problem with mens health, beyond what is covered or not, that we are failing to address. And frankly, the attitudes on display here by some because of any attempt TO address them is completely revolting and disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #39)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:49 AM

43. If health care has traditionally catered to men, it manifests oddly.

 

Men die younger of every preventable cause, and part of the reason is they were more likely to be uninsured and therefore don't go to the doctor.

Contraception should be free, and now because of the ACA for women it is (including tubal ligation).

For men, contraception, including a vasectomy, is not free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #43)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:00 PM

47. It was a way to protect the male work force.

And the polices were originally created for to protect men (they could pay for them).

As for a vasectomy, if we men had to carry the fetus, maybe it would be covered.

Or, men could step forward and complain ... WE WANT VASECTOMIES!!!

Meanwhile, a tubal ligation has a value for a woman's health beyond contraception.

My real problem with your approach here is that you are playing what is essentially a right wing game here ... if I don;t need X, why do I need to pay for you to have X.

They say this about taxes for schools. I don't have kids, why should I pay for school taxes.

Why should a woman pay for Viagra? Why should a man pay for the Pill?

Its a silly game.

If you want to focus on issues that damage men's health, create the list of treatments that you think should be covered, and get like minded folks to help you demand them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #47)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:05 PM

50. I'm not saying that at all, and it's impossible to honestly read that in anything I've said.

 

I'm saying that the ACA does an inadequate job of promoting men's health.

As for the last sentence, that's a great idea. Let's start by creating an office of men's health so that smart people can research the health deficits, analyze the problem and discuss the options.

... exactly like the ACA does for Women's health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #50)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:26 PM

54. What do you think the NIH was for the past N-decades?

It was the office of men's health.

And its focus on men was so much a structural part of what it was, it was unnecessary to name it as such.

They had to create an office of women's health specifically because women's health issues had been overlooked for so long.

Where do you think the advances to heart disease came from ... certainly not from studying women. In fact, the focus on men was so great there, health care providers struggled with women who had heart disease because some of the tools for the treatment and procedures were too big to use on smaller women. They had been designed with only men in mind.

You remind me of the kid in high school who was always demanding a "white student union", because the 10 black kids created a "black student union" in a school that was 90% white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #54)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 01:41 PM

58. "Where do you think the advances to heart disease came from"

 

Excellent point. Since the men who die of heart disease died much younger than women, (and their illnesses can be isolated from the normal effects of aging) they make great test subjects.



"The office of men's health" has been remarkably effective at improving health outcomes for women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #58)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 05:19 PM

59. The cause of men dying more from heart disease than women has nothing to

do with the fact that the NIH focused its studies on men. Its has to do with gender based differences in metabolism and how the male and female bodies process food, respectively (I'd add other factors not related to which gender has had focus in medical studies, but why waste time on that).

Only a fool would think that the reason women are less likely to die from heart disease than men is because the NIH focused more on women than on men, in that regard.

Gender plays an important role in which illnesses men and women are likely to suffer from, respectively. Just a fact.

Look, I know its tough being a man in America today. I, like you, must struggle with all of the bigotry we face each day.

Just yesterday, my wife made me come down the basement and kill a spider.

It could have been poisonous. She didn't care.

So I had to put my life on the line, again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #59)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:48 PM

64. You'd think, with all the deterministic excuses for short male lifespans

 

... that we would have hit a ceiling somewhere along the way.

It turns out that 100 years ago male and female lifespans were nearly the same. In the intervening years, the "male centric" medical system has added 30 years to women's lifespans and 25 to mens. I'd call that great progress, but poor evidence that women's health has been given short shrift.

Men and women are diagnosed with heart disease in comparable numbers. The difference is that women are diagnosed at an age at which most men are already dead.

Careful in that basement. I'm relieved to see that you found your way back out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #64)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:39 PM

89. one word for you Estrogen!

 

Estrogen gives us a little more protection from heart disease. After menopause that starts to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #43)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:36 PM

88. That is NOT true...

 

you would get vasectomy covered on ACA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #88)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:15 PM

92. Vasectomy is free only if your deductible is satisfied.

 

If you get a tubal ligation, it is done for free, even if your deductible is not satisfied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #37)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:41 AM

42. It is the same point he always makes

It has nothing to do with mens health... It is the same non-sense as that spouted by white supremacists about reverse racism. The OP is on a quest to prove that men are being oppressed. The point could have been made without any mention of women easily and then I might have bought that it had to do with mens health but the bullshit is always presented in a manner (often deceptive) to give the impression men are being discriminated against. Check out his FAQ for his 'mens' group here on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1114238

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #42)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:52 AM

45. Thanks for the promo! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #45)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:55 AM

46. No problem... Your MRA bullshit should be seen - nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #37)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:34 PM

87. "their issue" IS that they don't go!

 

Women...because they have the children..tend to get used to medical care.

Men often drag their feet and not go until it is too late..THAT is why they die younger...

Are you trying to say you would trade your life for that of a woman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:32 AM

38. Do the references to breasts also include pictures?

The law is useless if it doesn't include pictures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:50 AM

44. When healthcare stops covering

Guys getting a finger in the rear from their doctor then I'd say you have a legitimate gripe.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_medicine

Examples of sex-related illnesses in female humans:
99% of breast cancer occurs in women.
Ovarian cancer, and other diseases of the female reproductive system occur only in women. Endometriosis, another female reproductive disorder occurs almost exclusively in women, but has rarely been found in men undergoing estrogen treatment for prostate cancer.
More women than men suffer from osteoporosis
Autoimmune diseases, such as Sjgren's syndrome and scleroderma, are more prevalent in women. An estimated 75 percent of those living with autoimmune diseases are female.[2]
For more information on sex and autoimmune diseases, see Autoimmunity.
In Western cultures, more women than men suffer from eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia
Alzheimer's disease has a higher rate in women than in men.[3]
Women are more likely to suffer from unipolar clinical depression (although bipolar disorder appears to affect both sexes equally)
Psychologists are more likely to diagnose women than men with borderline or histrionic personality disorder. There is no current agreement on whether this is because of a real underlying difference between the sexes, or simply because of deeply ingrained social attitudes.


VS

Prostate cancer and other diseases of the male reproductive system occur only in men.
Diseases of X-linked recessive inheritance, such as colour blindness, occur more frequently in men.
Abdominal aortic aneurysms are six times more common in men, and thus some countries have introduce screening for males at risk of suffering the condition.[4]
Autism is approximately 4 times more prevalent in males than females.[5]
Psychologists are more likely to diagnose men than women with antisocial personality disorder and substance-abuse disorders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karadax (Reply #44)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:01 PM

48. Pop quiz

 

because of ACA, how much does tubal ligation cost a patient?
because of ACA, how much does a vasectomy cost a patient?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #48)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:20 PM

53. Do you think those are equivalent procedures?

What preparations and medications are required for each?
How much time does each take?
What are the potential complications that the doctor must ensure do not occur for each?
Are either being performed during some other procedure (like during a C-section)?
Are either performed for reasons other than birth control?

A pop quiz ... as you say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 01:36 PM

57. Yes.

 

For the public interest purposes established by the ACA, yes - they should both be free of cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #57)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 05:23 PM

61. What public interest would be served ... ??

Women have their tubes tied in many cases, because the risk for them getting pregnant, is a serious risk.

If you can't get a free vasectomy ... what health risk might you run?

Or are you just trying to protect all the women you sleep with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #61)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:40 PM

63. Unwanted pregnancy.

 

You *do* read DU, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #57)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:46 PM

90. First...you do understand the MOST dangerous part of ANY surgery is anesthesia..

 

Men do not HAVE to have anesthesia to get a vasectomy. A procedure that takes 2 stitches and takes about 30 minutes...

YET!

Women most of the time will undergo major surgery to get a tubal ligation....just to protect their man from having his to have his "pee pee" cut!

I find that pretty pathetic on the men in the relationships part...but it is often the case!

It's the biggest inequality there is!

Thank you for bringing it up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #90)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:35 PM

95. So... tubal ligation should be... free?... because it requires anesthesia? n/t

 

What types of birth control are now covered with no cost sharing?
The full range of FDA-approved prescription contraceptive methods are included. This means
women can access oral contraception (the Pill), the shot (Depo-Provera), the ring (Nuvaring),
contraceptive implants, diaphragms, cervical caps and permanent contraceptive methods, like
tubal ligation, without paying a co-payment or having the costs applied to her deductible.


The reason that this is true is because

(a) In general
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for
(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;
(2) immunizations that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to the individual involved; and [1]
(3) with respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration. [2]
(4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph. [2]


In other words the services listed on the USPSTF are free of charge, but... if and only if you are a woman, are the services listed on HRSA free. Contraceptive services are only on the HRSA list.

So couples now have the choice of tubal ligation, anathesia and hospitalization free of charge... or pay up for a vasectomy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #95)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:50 PM

98. NO....because it is MUCH more expensive!

 

AND women not having more children is important to all of society...

Women who actually BEAR the children...who actually have their bodies changed forever as a result I might add....who also run the risk of DYING from childbirth....who's very future and health is dependent upon limiting children...

YOUR only option is a permanent one...and is a minor procedure....and Guess what? Your insurance covers it!

Unlike Birth Control pills for the last....FOREVER!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #98)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:56 PM

100. You haven't given a good reason why vasectomy should not be free like a tubal ligation is.

 

It's cheaper, it is easier, it is less risky. Why allow "cost sharing requirements" for a vasectomy but prohibit them for a tubal ligation?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300gg-13

The answer of course, is politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #100)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 12:01 AM

102. What????

 

This is just plain stupid...


Do you know what one of the best ways to reduce poverty all over the world is? Educate women! Do you know why that is?

Educated women have fewer children...which is better for everyone.

Now we have a chance to entice women to use birth control in the U.S....particularly tubal ligation. Which requires actually "going under"....if we particularly want to encourage tubal ligations...making them free is a good way to entice them...

Vasectomy is a safe and relatively inexpensive procedure....

I think men will survive.

OH and one other thing....I highly doubt that large numbers of men would opt for Vasectomies...EVEN if they were free...considering that their wives will undergo actual surgery to "protect them" from having their "pee pee's" cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #102)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 12:13 AM

103. Didn't you just post upthread about how comparatively dangerous tubal ligation is?

 

I agree with free tubal ligations if she wants one.

I would also agree with free vasectomies, if he wants one. But because of schizophrenic politics in the US, it's not happening.

When people complain about eliminating gender as a rating criteria on the basis that it costs young men 56% more, and someone responds "Well we women are carrying YOUR children!!!" remember this conversation - his insurance won't even pay for his own vasectomy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:05 PM

49. True

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 05:21 PM

60. Well, as it stands, there has not YET been a campaign to get men to Dr.s

I would think that will become important as preventing payments on treatment of preventable disease becomes recognized as a care gap that adds to everyone's costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:51 PM

65. There should be a blind eye when it comes to treatment, research, care and coverage ...

one can only dream

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slipslidingaway (Reply #65)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:05 PM

66. Honestly, from a women's health perspective, I see risks to the ACA approach

 

It is a legal template for creating a parallel healthcare system. Separate but equal? I've heard that phrase before.

The gripe upthread - the rationale for justifying this - is that "the healthcare system" has always been a defacto men's healthcare system (ignore the moment the fact that it has improved women's health outcomes more than mens). If you segregate women's health issues into "the office of women's health" then doesn't that institutionalize the male-centric nature of the rest of the system?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #66)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:12 PM

67. You have to segregate womens health

with mens because our bodies are different. We have different issues than men do.

Research for womens health has been put to the wayside forever. Why does that upset you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texasgal (Reply #67)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:22 PM

68. I'm upset that there is not similar emphasis on men's health.

 

Particularly when men's health outcomes are so markedly inferior. We die younger of every preventable cause.

The solution in the ACA is to create "an office of women's health" as a subset of public health. I see one of two things happening;
1) the office of women's health directs, guides and assures that the general health system becomes biased toward their goals.
2) the office of women's health doesn't wield enough clout to bias the system toward their own goals, and becomes a parallel system. If that happens, my preference is to have my health concerns administered by the better funded general healthcare research system.

An equally funded and empowered "office of men's health" would prevent either of those undesirable outcomes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #68)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:36 PM

70. We need a blind eye in all aspects! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #68)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:43 PM

72. Women die too ya know.

We also die of preventable diseases as well. HIV? Men have been the research for that. There is myriad of others but these are two health issues that are huge. Oh, and I must throw in cancer research, specifically for colon and anal cancers. Women die too.

Heart disease is the #1 killer of women, however most of the research has been for men. Women still die and much of it is preventable.

Where were you when womens health was tossed aside? I asked you this earlier in this thread and you never bothered to answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texasgal (Reply #72)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:45 PM

96. I didn't answer because the premise of the question is stupid

 

The reason that women's insurance used to cost 33% more than men's is because 33% more is spent on women's care. The reason that women have gained 30 years of life expectancy in the last century compared to 25 for men is because medical research, development and effort has disproportionately benefited women.

And the reason that doctors frequently use men as research subjects for heart disease is because by the time the average woman is diagnosed with heart disease, the average man is already dead. Researchers are able to learn more about the progression of the disease if it's uncomplicated by the normal effects of old age.

The argument that doctors hate women doesn't survive even the most cursory examination. Go to any retirement home and do a slow 360. The people you see are the ones that medical effort has most benefited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #66)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:24 PM

69. That is why we need a blind eye and that applies to gender ..

as well as race. As in years past there will be some laws to balance the previous inequality, is that fair? Not necessarily. Does that help to perpetuate an unfair system? Yes, it does in some ways. Then again women have paid the price in HC just like certain subsets of men have paid the price in years past when seeking employment. Any system that continues the 'my side vs. your side' needs to be challenged and should be discussed IMHO.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slipslidingaway (Reply #69)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:46 PM

73. Race?

Seriously?

It's a known fact that the African American and Hispanic races tend to have diabetic issues more so than us white folk.

Why wouldn't we look at that more discernibly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texasgal (Reply #73)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:01 PM

74. We should try and be as equitable as possible whether it be gender or race ...

that is my point, but yes there are certain aspects that are more prevalent across different subsets and need to be studied and treated for what they are. That should be done with the least harm to another subset, not saying that is always possible ... just it something to strive for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slipslidingaway (Reply #74)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:07 PM

75. Striving for is great

I agree.

Being unhappy that another race has their health issues looked at differently? No bueno. That goes for gender too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texasgal (Reply #75)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:16 PM

77. I agree, but sometimes the the pendulum swings too far and others are hurt ...

it can perpetuate the my side vs. your side ... that is not beneficial. Do you disagree?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slipslidingaway (Reply #77)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:21 PM

79. Yes. i do disagree


More money should be appropriated for people that are more at risk.

Why should research only be done in a white males when more and more preventable deaths are attributed to women and minorities?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texasgal (Reply #79)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:47 PM

91. Did you not not read my original post where I said we need to turn a blind eye ...

when it comes to treatment, research, care and coverage? I never implied we should spend more on white males, that is your interpretation.

We need to remove gender and race as much as possible and focus more on the number of people we can help.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:41 PM

71. Where would prostrates fit in the Office of Women's Health?

Not sure what you're getting at there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #71)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:18 PM

93. The affordable care act creates an office of women's health.

 

It is silent on the topic of men's health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #93)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:22 PM

94. Maybe that's because a fetus's health is completely dependent

on the health of a woman before and during pregnancy; and a fetus's health can determine the whole direction of its life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #94)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:48 PM

97. There's nothing in the law that suggests that a main purpose is to protect fetuses. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #97)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:54 PM

99. That's why we have women and children feeding programs --

because the health of the women determines the health of future children. So I"m guessing (just a guess) that this was behind the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #99)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 11:58 PM

101. I could buy that argument if most of the freebies in the law weren't contraceptive. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #101)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 12:37 AM

104. But contraception also protects a woman's future childbearing health.

Having a baby every year has a negative effect on a woman's overall health, and babies born to a mother in a depleted condition are less healthy themselves.

And doesn't society overall also benefit by giving women access to free contraception? I'm all for free condoms, too, by the way. They should be covered, if they aren't already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #104)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 09:42 AM

105. Tubal ligation doesn't.

 

Yes, society overall derives benefit from giving women access to free contraception. It would also - hypothetically - derive benefit from giving men access to free contraception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #105)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 03:28 PM

107. Men are covered for vasectomies, aren't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #107)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:52 PM

109. This has been covered at length in this thread.

 

Unlike women's contraception - including tubal ligation, vasectomies are not free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #109)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:32 PM

115. Well that's dumb. Sorry! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:57 PM

114. The ACA is essentially a health coverage bill, not a health care bill.

And as such it provides tweaks to the current system, instead of replacing it -as you and I both support- with something like a SPHC system.

But many of the tweaks involve rectifying long-term inequities or deficiencies in the status quo, like the ability of insurers to deny issue over pre-existing conditions.

If others of those tweaks are, as I suspect, making standard a basic level of coverage for women- for instance, maternity or oral contraception- that wasn't there before, in law, I don't see what the problem is.

I do not believe the ACA is somehow discriminatory against men. I think it's a modest improvement but a long overdue one. I have not seen evidence that, implimented, it will result in "facts on the ground" that involve less care covered for men than there was previously before. Improving coverage for women is clearly overdue in these areas, which is why the word "women" appears so often, I suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #114)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:11 PM

116. "discriminate" has a well understood dictionary meaning.

 

Last edited Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't dispute the benefit of improving women's health. I dispute the conscious, deliberate and intentional aversion to similarly improving men's health.

Yes. The ACA is discriminatory. It offers services to women that it denies to men. It is yet another law that wouldn't survive a hypothetical challenge on Equal Rights Amendment grounds.

If you want a vasectomy, the procedure is only covered to the extent that your deductible is satisfied. As an expression of public policy priorities, the law makes mens health a reduced priority.

(a) In general
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for
(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;
(2) immunizations that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to the individual involved; and
(3) with respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.
(4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.


In other words the services listed on the USPSTF are free of charge, but... if and only if you are a woman, are the services listed on HRSA free. Contraceptive services are only on the HRSA list.

So, because of the ACA's perverse incentives couples now have the choice of tubal ligation, anesthesia and hospitalization free of charge... or pay up for a vasectomy.

Women will get invasive surgery because the ACA cheaped out by not offering men a similar alternative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #116)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:58 PM

117. A short-sighted mistake, if you ask me.

But probably more due to the mistaken assumption that birth control is the province of women and not both sexes.

I agree that vasectomies should be covered as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread