Obamacare and sexism

[BayCityBomber]

Some interesting highlights from the Obamacare bill:

Women will be provided free "well care" visits, men must pay for these kinds of preventive screenings.

Breast cancer screenings are free to women, while men must pay for prostate cancer screenings. Prostate cancer is far less treatable than breast cancer and early detection is far more key to survival.

A tubal ligation would be free, whereas men will have to go into pocket for vasectomies.

Women get free domestic violence screenings, men do not. Yet men are commonly victims of DV and less likely to report due to social stigma.

STD screenings are free to all women. Generally only gay men would qualify for free screenings.

The spending ratio will be about 15 dollars spent on women, for every dollar spent on men.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Well, ya can't pander to the feminist crowd without looking like a fool in some way or the other. Unfortunately, most people tout that party line without even thinking about it. Without even thinking.

 

[ivebeenshown]

You just don't understand, guys. It's THEIR BODIES.

 

[Miss Shelby]

You just don't understand, guys. It's THEIR BODIES.

Let them pay for them, then.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Why don't the Republicans propose a bill that would make equivalent services available to men as well under the same terms in the standard minimum insurance coverage plans? Instead of trying to tear the whole thing down, work to make it better.

I like Obamacare, and consider it a very important step for this country that will result in a lot of saved lives, and longer healthier lives with less pain and suffering for a lot of people. However, I can also admit, not everything about it is ideal. Like most laws, it went through a long legislative wrangling process where things were added and subtracted, or considered or not considered in the first place, because of political considerations and figuring out how to get enough votes to get the thing passed in some form. I have no issue with some moderate reforms to fine tune the thing.

One thing we could do is make sure that men get the equivalent care as women do in some of the areas the original poster talks about. Someone just needs to introduce that bill. But people trying to "eliminate it on day one" of their hypothetical administrations (Romney) and calling it socialism prevents that sort of reform from happening.

 

[Miss Shelby]

It's a nice theory the way you make it sound, F&B, your Obamacare, but the reality of it will be poor.

 

[Fish and Bread]

It's a nice theory the way you make it sound, F&B, your Obamacare, but the reality of it will be poor.

Time will tell, if we give it a chance. If Romney is elected with a like-minded Congress, and they succeed in a repeal, then we will never know for sure what the reality of it would have been like. It doesn't fully take effect until 2014. I think it's worth giving a chance (Which incidentally means re-electing Obama, or at least having one house of congress under Democratic control through 2015 at minimum).

Whatever side of the political fence people may be on, I'd like to think that deep down, almost all of us believe that people who are sick should be able to see a doctor and have access to the appropriate medicine. The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is an attempt to make that access to health care a reality for more people.

Is it perfect? Nope. But it's the most extensive attempt at this we've ever seen get signed into law in this country- and the first real expansion of health care coverage since Medicare under FDR or Medicaid under LBJ. It's a bold attempt. We can't succeed if we don't try, and we can't be said to have really tried until this thing has been in effect for a few years. If we stop it before it truly begins in 2014, that may be it for any chance at expanding health care coverage for this generation.

If it starts up and doesn't work perfectly, we can fiddle with it. There's already a provision that states can apply for waivers after a few years if they have alternate plans that will achieve the same objectives. So, if in 2017 or whenever, some Republican state wants to try a more conservative approach that meets the same goals, they can apply for that wavier and give it a shot. Ditto if some Democratic state wants to try a more liberal approach that meets the same goals. Not every little jot and tittle is locked in stone for everyone and for all eternity. But by and large, this is our chance to make health care a reality for more people, probably our last best chance- and then we can work from there to smooth over the kinks and improvise and improve.

 

[BayCityBomber]

Why don't the Republicans propose a bill that would make equivalent services available to men as well under the same terms in the standard minimum insurance coverage plans? Instead of trying to tear the whole thing down, work to make it better.

I like Obamacare, and consider it a very important step for this country that will result in a lot of saved lives, and longer healthier lives with less pain and suffering for a lot of people. However, I can also admit, not everything about it is ideal. Like most laws, it went through a long legislative wrangling process where things were added and subtracted, or considered or not considered in the first place, because of political considerations and figuring out how to get enough votes to get the thing passed in some form. I have no issue with some moderate reforms to fine tune the thing.

One thing we could do is make sure that men get the equivalent care as women do in some of the areas the original poster talks about. Someone just needs to introduce that bill. But people trying to "eliminate it on day one" of their hypothetical administrations (Romney) and calling it socialism prevents that sort of reform from happening.

Why do we have to present a new separate bill to make the president's health care package not use tax payer funds in discriminatory and unconstitutional ways? The fact this kind of wild disparity exists in the first place is pretty strong proof that Obama is about pandering to women because they block vote. Basically, under Obamacare men will die of preventable causes because we're not as good at group think as women are.

 

[BayCityBomber]

Time will tell, if we give it a chance. If Romney is elected with a like-minded Congress, and they succeed in a repeal, then we will never know for sure what the reality of it would have been like. It doesn't fully take effect until 2014. I think it's worth giving a chance (Which incidentally means re-electing Obama, or at least having one house of congress under Democratic control through 2015 at minimum).

You do realize 8 different states have already tired nearly exact versions of Obamacare and it hasn't worked well?

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

You do realize 8 different states have already tired nearly exact versions of Obamacare and it hasn't worked well?

Really ?

Which 8 states

 

[Fish and Bread]

Why do we have to present a new separate bill to make the president's health care package not use tax payer funds in discriminatory and unconstitutional ways? The fact this kind of wild disparity exists in the first place is pretty strong proof that Obama is about pandering to women because they block vote. Basically, under Obamacare men will die of preventable causes because we're not as good at group think as women are.

Well, if you feel like you're being discriminated against in a way that violates the constitution, you could always sue and attempt to force equal coverage for men. You might succeed. It might not even be a bad thing if you did succeed. Despite liking Obama and Obamacare, I do think men should have equal coverage to women. It does seem like, if it's as described in the original post, that's something we need to get changed. But we can change it without getting rid of Obamacare in general.

Personally, I've never really liked that the NFL devotes a whole month specifically to breast cancer awareness and never does anything about awareness of any other forms of cancer. For one thing, those pink shoes and towels and stuff the players wear in October kind of make what is normally a pretty macho sport seem a little sissy. For another thing, you'd think a sport with a predominantly male audience wouldn't be focused solely on a women's health issue. Not that we shouldn't encourage breast cancer awareness, research, and screenings. I just feel like it'd be better for the NFL to have a general "cancer awareness month" that promotes awareness of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and every other cancer, urges screenings for both sexes, and uses a color other than pink.

Or, heck, the number one killers in this country right now are cardiac related things like heart attacks and strokes, right? How about blood pressure awareness month? Or week? Or whatever?

I don't know, it just seems like we do always focus on women's health issues to the exclusion of men's health issues, as if one sex matters more than the other, and to me that does seem a little unfair. Let's focus on both.

And, yes, I realize that men can get breast cancer, but it's fairly rare for men, and the program the NFL does focuses on awareness in women- talking about screenings for women, using the feminine color pink, etc.. It's not a generalized thing at all.

Also, Father's Day should get equal play as Mother's Day.

I could go on.

So I get where you're coming from with this. I kind of agree. I just don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We've finally done something to expand medical care in this country- let's keep the bulk of it, which is good, and fine tune the parts that aren't quite where we want them.

You do realize 8 different states have already tired nearly exact versions of Obamacare and it hasn't worked well?

Well, Romneycare cut the number of uninsured from 6% to 2% within 6 years (2004-2010). That's 2/3 of uninsured people in the state of Massachusetts who now have coverage, and 98% of people over all in the state who are covered, even though the economy got worse during that span of time nationally for unrelated reasons. Romneycare has run into some problems, though, admittedly, which Massachusetts is starting to address legislatively, and some of which are not problems that exist in Obamacare (Though Obamacare does derive some of it's inspiration from Romneycare).

Anyhow, in a way, Mitt Romney Version 1.0 was pretty good on this issue. If he were running for President, he'd probably want to keep Obamacare and make some small changes. After all, a similar plan was his signature accomplishment as Governor of Massachusetts, and he at the time touted it as a role model for the nation. Mitt Romney Version 2.0 thinks a national version of it is socialism and wants a complete repeal, though. I guess they shook up the Etc a Sketch and redrew him so he could run in a much more conservative national Republican Party.

Anyhow, if I were a conservative, I'd be a little worried about Mitt. I mean, the guy flip-flopped on basically every single issue imaginable (abortion, gay rights, health care, whether or not he liked Ronald Reagan, the list goes on and on). Can you guys really trust him to deliver for you when he gets elected? Or will his people shake up the old Etc a Sketch again and give you Mitt Romney 3.0, who believes in who knows what?

 

[Antigone]

That's a little off.


But then again, we were kept back for millenia, so REVENGE, I SAY, REVENGE IS REQUIRED.

 

[David Jerome]

Some interesting highlights from the Obamacare bill:

Women will be provided free "well care" visits, men must pay for these kinds of preventive screenings.

Breast cancer screenings are free to women, while men must pay for prostate cancer screenings. Prostate cancer is far less treatable than breast cancer and early detection is far more key to survival.

A tubal ligation would be free, whereas men will have to go into pocket for vasectomies.

Women get free domestic violence screenings, men do not. Yet men are commonly victims of DV and less likely to report due to social stigma.

STD screenings are free to all women. Generally only gay men would qualify for free screenings.

The spending ratio will be about 15 dollars spent on women, for every dollar spent on men.

How sexist. Obama should make women pay for those services just like men.

 

[Chany]

That's a little off.

But then again, we were kept back for millenia, so REVENGE, I SAY, REVENGE IS REQUIRED.

You aren't helping the stereotype that women never let anger go.

 

[Antigone]

You aren't helping the stereotype that women never let anger go.

ANTIGONE SMASH

...

Ehem. Sorry, what were you saying?

 

[Chany]

ANTIGONE SMASH

...

Ehem. Sorry, what were you saying?

That you have a very valid point and are right.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Why do we have to present a new separate bill to make the president's health care package not use tax payer funds in discriminatory and unconstitutional ways? The fact this kind of wild disparity exists in the first place is pretty strong proof that Obama is about pandering to women because they block vote. Basically, under Obamacare men will die of preventable causes because we're not as good at group think as women are.

Um...this is being paid for through insurance premiums, not taxes. The medical checkups and screenings are for everyone. If you used to have to pay for your labs before, they're now included, by law. This is a plus for everyone. We can catch things early when their easier and cheaper to treat.

Sent from my iPhone using CF

 

[WarriorAngel]

Um...this is being paid for through insurance premiums, not taxes. The medical checkups and screenings are for everyone. If you used to have to pay for your labs before, they're now included, by law. This is a plus for everyone. We can catch things early when their easier and cheaper to treat.

Sent from my iPhone using CF

Anyone making over 50k is going to pay the taxes [plural] for Obamacare for the ppl on Medicaid.... but the ppl on medicaid will get less care. Its already happening in Ca. Since this has already been in place in the medical field - things have been cut.

Some things are added - many others are cut.
But we will be taxed. That was the only way Obamacare could pass Supreme Court.

And we will be taxed for not having insurance. Instead him mandating we get insurance - it will be a tax...though he said no taxes would occur.

Medicare was stripped 720 billion. That's a lot of care taken from the folks who absolutely need it the most.

 

[AMDG]

Yep, and we already know that the CBO has revised the cost to 2.6 Trilllion, and estimates that it will cost 30 million their health insurance. Heard a doctor today say that about 20% of the hospitals are operating in the red because of ObamaTAX and it will only get worse and will cost lives of the elderly.

We already know that ObamaTAX will bring 18 taxes and the cost will be heaviest on the poor working and middle classes (breaking Obama's promise of "not one thin dime".) And we know about the attack on Catholics and religious freedom (which could very well cost about 30% of the hospitals, and doctors to stop practicing) creating even a greater shortage of doctors than there already is.

Hear the lawsuits over religious freedom are still going forward, and that one business got a stay, while a couple of Catholic and/or Christian universities simply had to stop providing insurance for their students.

Also know that many states have chosen to opt out of the Medicaid expansion since the Supreme Court said that Obama couldn't bully them by threatening to deny all their usual Medicaid funds should they not join the government in the ObamaTAX expansion.

Think that by now, we pretty well know what's "in the bill" and it's not at all helpful to the states, to Catholics (and evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims), to the elderly, to the unborn, to the nation.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Anyone making over 50k is going to pay the taxes [plural] for Obamacare for the ppl on Medicaid.... but the ppl on medicaid will get less care. Its already happening in Ca. Since this has already been in place in the medical field - things have been cut.

Some things are added - many others are cut.
But we will be taxed. That was the only way Obamacare could pass Supreme Court.

And we will be taxed for not having insurance. Instead him mandating we get insurance - it will be a tax...though he said no taxes would occur.

Medicare was stripped 720 billion. That's a lot of care taken from the folks who absolutely need it the most.

You mean waste, fraud and abuse was cut, like SNFs, through neglect, cause residents to become ill and then bill Medicare for the treatment. The SNF messed up, they should've on the hook, not the taxpayer! Or perhaps you mean the Federal government eliminating waste in the Medicare advantage program. Meanwhile, the donut hole on the prescription drug program is going bye-bye. Wow, and I thought Republicans were against cutting waste.

Sent from my iPhone using CF