Pure, unadulterated genius.

Also: LOL!

Makes sense to me. Women's lives are valuable. Men's are not.

I like the part where the professor brings her ill, virus-ridden child to class and breastfeeds in front of her students.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/13/american_university_professor_adrienne_pine_breast_fed_her_baby_in_class_bad_decision_.html

If womyn aren't allowed to this it's simply because all men are pigs.

Re. Taking the sick kid to class... I dun care about the feeding... it was some kind of gender studies class, anyway, right?. What bothered me was taking an innocent, sick child to an environment full of potentially harmful germs, when their immune sysrem is compromised. Not to mention dragging them places when they don't feel good, and you don't have to.
She could have let the TA hand out information to the class, and then dismiss. Where is her responsibilty as a parent? Doesn't that need to figure into the decision?

Re. Well men... What'd you expect? Men don't use healthcare in anywhere near the volume of women... So there isn't a core of lobbying groups who influence on their behalf. Without lobbying you dun get a spot at the trough. S'ok. Imagine what this insanely expensive thing would cost if you had to take our wellness seriously too.

"The Affordable Care Act mandates well woman exams, including a variety of preventive screenings, for all women completely free of charge..."

"...just tell them you identify as a woman..."

That's a clever idea but I'm afraid of mammograms and pelvic exams, even if they're free.

SwissArmyD is right. The problem is not that men's lives aren't valued by others, as dee nile suggested, but that men themselves don't value health.

Hell, it's hard enough to get most men to do something about their health when there's something actually wrong. Preventative care? Forget it.

Plus I really don't want a prostate exam. Start lobbying for its inclusion and I'll be against it on the grounds they might make it mandatory!

That's a clever idea but I'm afraid of mammograms and pelvic exams, even if they're free.

And the pap smear is going to be especially tricky!

Health insurance is regulated, manipulated, and distorted in every state. Lobbyists at the state level arrange for their particular offerings to be covered by insurance, such as accupuncture, chiropracty, and health clubs. Insurance plans differ in total financial coverage, but don't offer ways for the consumer to benefit from choosing an older, cheaper drug. So, everyone picks the new, expensive drug, and the state-standardized insurance plans evolve to universally cover those and to cost more. Or, everyone is restricted to the older, cheaper drug to save money, and you find yourself uninsured for the newer drugs which have some characteristic you need.

It may seem that I am arguing both sides. The point is, the individual has lost the ability to choose the detail of what his insurance will or will not cover, because it is a product sold to companies and standardized by the state. This will be much worse under ObamaCare.

Team Obama has mandated that mammograms, birth control for women, and preventive care for women will be "free". This means that premiums have gone up for everyone, including 25 year old males, to pay for these "free" services. This preventive care will indeed have some good result, but the overall cost of care (cost of preventive care, minus costs of illness avoided) will go up, so insurance premiums will go up for everyone.

The government is breaking the free market in health care. Our policy makers have already designed a system of price controls that doesn't work. Their solution is to cover up this failure by blaming "the market". The "market" is short for the freedom of people to produce and cooperate among themselves, always delivering value and achieving efficiencies that government cannot match.

That freedom is what the government has taken and is taking away, in favor of higher hidden taxes and rationing. Our leaders have been buying votes with lavish promises of what the government will deliver. Their plan is to put us all in one boat, then make us pay for their promises to prevent the boat from sinking.

Obamacare Bails Out Medicare.

It may seem that I am arguing both sides. The point is, the individual has lost the ability to choose the detail of what his insurance will or will not cover, because it is a product sold to companies and standardized by the state. This will be much worse under ObamaCare. -- Andrew_M_Garland at September 14, 2012 8:12 PM

Some of this happened (or almost happened) with car insurance back in the '80s. I remember, dimly, a lawsuit or legislation that challenged auto insurance companies right to charge more for male drivers than female drivers; especially under 25. The reason it went nowhere is the insurance companies showed up with their actuaries. The statistics they brought were just totally off the charts.

Another issue is that so many people no longer take actual responsibility for their own health care. I take medicine on an almost daily basis. It has never been charged to the insurance company.

If I were a woman and wanted to fuck around -- I'd pay for my contraceptives on my own.

The original idea for insurance was to cover catastrophic conditions, not day-to-day stuff. Do you expect your auto insurance to cover your gas, oil changes and tires? No. It is there to cover catastrophic damages. Why do you expect your health insurance to pay for your routine care?

That's one of the reasons Jim P that private health insurance is such a great deal for me. In Australia they are not allowed to charge differently for any risk factor - age, sex, smoking, weight, whatever. Waiting periods for pre-existing conditions (typically a year or so) are allowed, so you can't just sign up when you get sick. But for a long term heavy drinker/smoker, that's good news (the drinking has been severely cut back, but my liver still ain't happy). I do feel slightly guilty about it. Oh wait, cigarette taxes. No I don't.

On your second point - yes the meaning of insurance has been heavily distorted. A while ago here the trend was for health insurance companies to offer rebates for "healthy living" - which led to insanity like being able to claim on your insurance for buying running shoes, or for gym memberships. This got killed off by a combination of (for once) reasonably intelligent regulation, and a mass exodus of people to basic catastrophic insurance plans without the extras. Score one for the free but sensibly regulated market.

"Want something to be afraid of? Cancer would be that thing. Discovered late because you didn't have a mammogram or a pelvic exam."

Being male, if I die of cancer it probably won't be because I didn't get a mammogram or pelvic exam ;-)

> Discovered late because you didn't have a mammogram

I've seen it kill.

SwissArmyD is right. The problem is not that men's lives aren't valued by others, as dee nile suggested, but that men themselves don't value health.

Hell, it's hard enough to get most men to do something about their health when there's something actually wrong. Preventative care? Forget it.

Posted by: Ltw at September 14, 2012 7:17 PM
_____________________________________--

That's something I've suspected for some time. I'd love to see some statistics.

It's even been said that in the 1970s, especially, it was women rather than men who were demanding better male contraceptive methods. (There was even a pill developed back then, but men wouldn't take it - however, given the health scares over the female pill at that time, I don't blame them too much.)

At any rate, it's a long-running cliche that if a man goes to the doctor for his annual check-up, it's mainly because his wife drags him in. So I don't understand why MRAs complain angrily whenever I mention the law of economics that says you can't have a supply without a visible demand when it comes to male contraceptives - or any other type of male health care. (One man - Mark Deutsch - even said his job and family would be threatened if he publicly demanded better male contraception - but refused to say just where that threat would come from, in the absence of the Comstock laws. But I will agree that it's generally easier and safer for singles without families to stick their necks out.)

More on that here:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/2419

Oh yes - here's one of the best comments from that link:

Brendan • DC • Jan 27, 2009

“Again, what is stopping men from fundraising and voicing their demands for the male BC they allegedly want so much? “

Men don’t collaborate as a gender. Women do.

Psych studies from the last ten years indicate women have four times the propensity to prefer same-sex affiliation (not sexual, just affiliative) than men do. Women relate much more strongly to other women as a group. Men compete with other men. Men affililate in groups corporations, sports teams, communities, etc) for purposes of competing with other groups of men (and women). Men do not collaborate as a class when it comes to women—not at all. This is the precise reason the men’s groups are so weak — men compete against each other generally and even more strongly when it comes to men/women issues in particular. This is why the men’s movement has been, and will remain, weak.

One common side effect of most of the pharmaceutical methods of male contraception that have been tested is a drastic decrease in sex drive.

Depo-Provera can prevent spermatogenesis, but it drastically decreases sex drive, which is why it's used as a form of chemical castration in male sex offenders.

The male oral contraceptives that have been tried would have to be taken for about three months before they are effective.

"At any rate, it's a long-running cliche that if a man goes to the doctor for his annual check-up, it's mainly because his wife drags him in. "

Do you know what every single boy in America is told, starting from the age where he is old enough to understand words? It is this: "Never be a burden to your family. Alway put their needs before yours." That is why men don't go to the doctor as much. Men are expected to work and provide, not be be-bopping off to the doc every time their stomach hurts. Men are taught from a young age that when they can no longer support themselves, it is their responsibility to die with dignity and pass the savings along to their family.

Men who spend a lot of money on themselves, even if their family is fully provided for (or they don't have a family) are widely viewed by society as selfish and irresponsible. This doesn't just go for sports cars and airplanes, it goes for health care too.

"Men who spend a lot of money on themselves, even if their family is fully provided for (or they don't have a family) are widely viewed by society as selfish and irresponsible."

Maybe in your generation not mine. Most guys don't go to the doctor because the doc lectures them for shit they already know. Quit smoking, drink less, get more exercise, lose weight ... same shit every time. Plus the doc usually tries to jam some pill or another down your throat. Slight hyper tension take a diuretic, if that fails Alph/beta blocker. Chronic hyper tension may shave a few years of your life. The side effects will probably do far more. Also the nurse that does the prelim is ALWAYS a fucking bitch. I have yet to ONCE got to an appointment and she not be a flaming fucking harpy. ER, scheduled appointment no difference flaming fucking bitch every time. Having worked EMS I know why they are like that but still don't want to fucking deal with their man hate. It is not my fault that I share gender with the chief of staff who is both male and a fucking asshole.

"Most guys don't go to the doctor because the doc lectures them for shit they already know." Vlad.

The whole thing in a nutshell.

Every Doc, nurse practitioner, PA etc. that I have ever been to [save one, and she quit the doc biz to be a mother, and never looked back-] ...

nags. nags, nags, even if there is NOTHING to nag about. They nagged me because my cholesterol was 172.
"it could be better."

resting heartrate 54.
"we're going to need to check that out"
'why?'
"um, well, based on your weight and athletic condition."
'I'll tell you what, doc, you wanna race, right here right now? bikerace, running, rowing, let's see what our relative athletic conditions are.'

Needless to say the skinny doc, put me on a treadmill for a stress test, instead of racing me.

"you seem to be in unexpectedly good condition... but you could certainly stand to lose a few pounds"
'yeah? and you could stand to quit smoking.'

heh, I wonder why that doctor prefers to let other doctors in the practice see me now.

NAGGING! I divorced my ex for a reason.

/rant

"Maybe in your generation not mine. Most guys don't go to the doctor because the doc lectures them for shit they already know."

Another means to the same end. The idea is to discourage you from going back. And if you do go back, you get fobbed off with some cheap, easy-to-administer "take a pill" treatment. (The average doctor's approach to most male complaints: a steriod injection. Problem solved!) I'm looking for a new doctor now because I have a chronic condition that my old doctor refuses to treat any further, because he thinks I should "just snap out of it", like some kind of self-administered faith healing. My wife tells me that she has never gotten the kind of lectures from any doctor that her father, her son, and myself have all told her about. Doctors that treat women seem to be quite respectful towards their patients.