Obamacare and sexism

[Fantine]

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.

Source?

 

[Fish and Bread]

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

The Affordable Care Act does not contain any cuts to Medicare benefits or increases to Medicare premiums (Beyond the regular adjustments that were codified in law when the program was first put into place). From the point of view of beneficiaries, Medicare will remain exactly the same. The cuts are coming from increasing efficiencies, getting rid of fraud and waste, that sort of thing.

Believe me when I say, I absolutely would not vote for Obama again if he had cut Medicare benefits or increased premiums (Apart from what is always done automatically). I wouldn't vote for Romney, but I would stay home, or vote third-party or something. I'm not flacking for him when I saw that those cuts are not to benefits. If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't say it, and he'd have lost my vote.

The Romney-Ryan ticket is being a little bit disingenious here by emphasizing these cuts without explaining them, knowing that people will just assume they are cuts to benefits, when of course Romney and Ryan know full well they are not. Also, if they oppose them so much, they'd be pledging to get rid of them, wouldn't they? But, actually, I heard on a podcast the other day that their economic plans assume those cuts stay in place, and then cut Medicare some more, and then convert Medicare into a voucher system where what benefits you'd get would be uncertain, and even if you could find a plan that wouldn't cost significantly more than the voucher at all (It'd probably require a voucher plus a huge payment each month, maybe in the thousands).

One of the reasons Medicare exists is because elderly and disabled folks are expensive groups of people to ensure. They often require a lot more doctor's visits, hospital visits, medicines, tests, etc. than the average Joe or Jane. So, on the "free market" a plan for a 70 year old would cost thousands a month or something, not something a retiree can usually afford. Medicare's premium is around $100 a month and then you have a deductible of around $160 to meet, after which you only pay like 20% or something for doctor's visits, and blood tests are completely free (Also hospital visits, I think, not sure).

Medicare is great. Really, instead of radically cutting and changing it as Romney and Ryan propose, we should be talking about expanding it and letting younger and healthier people buy in if they want. Medicare for everyone. Wouldn't that be something?

The American people support Medicare. Medicare and Social Security are two of the only government programs that have strong approval ratings, even among independents and Republicans (Relatively speaking). People like good solid programs like that. They don't want to be 70 and unable to work, but not have a dime to their name and not be able to get their diabetes medicine. They like the idea that they pay in through FICA in their working years and then are covered when they retire or if they become disabled. These aren't even really like handout type programs- they're almost like government backed insurance. I know people who are arch-conservatives on almost everything else who still say these programs are great as is.

And just think how this is going to play in Florida, a swing state that has a lot of retirees. For those who aren't American geography, Florida is a nice sunny warm area that a lot of people from other areas move to in their retirement years if they can afford to do so, and retirees represent a decent chunk of the population there relative to other states. I saw Dan Rather (Remember him? Former CBS Evening News anchor.) make a rare guest appearance on television the other day, and he said before Romney made his VP selection, he thought Florida was going to go for Romney. When Rather heard that Ryan had been selected, he put Florida in the Obama column.

Ryan is just not where the American people are on these type of issues, so the Romney-Ryan campaign is trying to confuse the issue by making people think Obama-Biden is the same way. But it isn't.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I have decided that if Obamacare expands to cover Viagra and similar drugs, we can call things even and stop complaining about free stuff that women get and men don't. Who with me?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have decided that if Obamacare expands to cover Viagra and similar drugs, we can call things even and stop complaining about free stuff that women get and men don't. Who with me?

<chuckle chuckle>

It's odd how things like the pill become an object of ridicule against the president and the affordable care act.

 

[AMDG]

The Affordable Care Act does not contain any cuts to Medicare benefits

You really believe that?

Obama looted Medicare to pay for his program. He cut $720 from the program. Part was a reduction in pay to those caring for Medicare patients. (And it follows as the night does the day that if those caring for Medicare patients are not getting properly reimbursed, they don't take on the Medicare patients--hense Medicare benefits *are* cut for the elderly.) The other part which Obama looted from the program is the services that all the elderly get when they choose "Medicare Advantage". Well Obama made it so that Medicare Advantage doesn't exist anymore and so the elderly will have to purchase additional insurance from AARP to get the services they once had under Medicare Advantage. (Hmm--AARP makes out like a bandit in this--I wonder if that was why AARP thought ObamaTAX was just fine and dandy?)

 

[Fantine]

I didn't hear men complain when old goats could get Viagra and Cialis under Medicare, marry young trophy wives...

And most of the men on this board felt that this was appropriate.

As a matter of fact, most of the men said that having erectile dysfunction at any age, even of Medicare age, was a "physical disease."

On the other hand, if a young mother had a serious physical illness that made pregnancy inadvisable, they said that birth control coverage was 'optional.'

I am not unsympathetic to men with erectile dysfunction, but I believe that before we gut Medicare and cancel the Affordable Care Act because it's "so expensive" we should see what "frills" we can save....

And Viagra and Cialis are clearly frills. A full schedule of sexual activity is not a medical necessity--ask any priest.

And I think that Viagra has now gone generic. And so if a man can save up enough Viagra for once a week sexual activity, great. If he can afford more, great.

I'm not opposed to Viagra, but difficult times call for difficult choices.

I would rather see women get mammograms than see old men get free Viagra.

 

[BayCityBomber]

I didn't hear men complain when old goats could get Viagra and Cialis under Medicare, marry young trophy wives...

And most of the men on this board felt that this was appropriate.

As a matter of fact, most of the men said that having erectile dysfunction at any age, even of Medicare age, was a "physical disease."

On the other hand, if a young mother had a serious physical illness that made pregnancy inadvisable, they said that birth control coverage was 'optional.'

I am not unsympathetic to men with erectile dysfunction, but I believe that before we gut Medicare and cancel the Affordable Care Act because it's "so expensive" we should see what "frills" we can save....

And Viagra and Cialis are clearly frills. A full schedule of sexual activity is not a medical necessity--ask any priest.

And I think that Viagra has now gone generic. And so if a man can save up enough Viagra for once a week sexual activity, great. If he can afford more, great.

I'm not opposed to Viagra, but difficult times call for difficult choices.

I would rather see women get mammograms than see old men get free Viagra.

That is probably the most ridiculous strawman ever. You are attempting to justify and defend the indefensible: pouring yet more tax dollars into a program that will benefit a segment of the population (women) who already live longer, better quality lives at the expensive of a segment of the population that has a lower life expectancy and a lower quality life. There is no reason, other than outright sexism anyone could defend providing free preventive care to women that is denied to men.

 

[Chany]

Don't men have a higher chance of cancer overall?

 

[Fantine]

And it is precisely because both men and women deserve preventive medical care, and because our financial resources are limited, that providing recreational drugs under Medicare--Viagra and Cialis--while saying that there isn't enough money available and we may have to shelve the Affordable Care Act or turn Medicare into a voucher system--is wrong.

If we had unlimited funds, sure, buy the Viagra and Cialis, but if the wealthy need those tax breaks so badly then something has to give.

 

[Fish and Bread]

You really believe that?

Yes.

Obama looted Medicare to pay for his program. He cut $720 from the program. Part was a reduction in pay to those caring for Medicare patients. (And it follows as the night does the day that if those caring for Medicare patients are not getting properly reimbursed, they don't take on the Medicare patients--hense Medicare benefits *are* cut for the elderly.)

With the number of elderly folks in this country steadily on the rise as the baby boom generation retires, I don't see very many doctors refusing to accept Medicare patients. They'd be crazy if they did. The benefits someone on Medicare are exactly the same as they were before. Most of the trimming comes by eliminating fraud and waste and increasing efficiencies. The formula for what you get and what you pay as a beneficiary (i.e. the elderly and disabled folks) stays the same under Obama. Romney-Ryan would change that.

The other part which Obama looted from the program is the services that all the elderly get when they choose "Medicare Advantage". Well Obama made it so that Medicare Advantage doesn't exist anymore and so the elderly will have to purchase additional insurance from AARP to get the services they once had under Medicare Advantage. (Hmm--AARP makes out like a bandit in this--I wonder if that was why AARP thought ObamaTAX was just fine and dandy?)

The privatized Medicare Advantage plans work out badly for the patients who need a high volume of expensive medical care- which is a group elderly and disabled folks are very likely to fall into. If you qualify for Medicare, you are in the long-run much better off with straight-forward traditional Medicare. Medicare Advantage only saves you a bit of money if all you do are straight forward doctor visits. People will likely rue the day they chose the "Advantage" plans if and when they require more than that- and almost everyone in the categories that qualify for Medicare will at some point. I'd suggest people stick with the proven winner- Medicare (No "advantage", just Medicare) when their time comes to choose (Regular Medicare is the default, so just stick with that).

Anyhow, what was going on was that for a while the federal government was paying these Medicare Advantage participating insurance companies more money per patient than traditional Medicare costs the government person patient, even though the MA plans are, frankly, worse for most people and the private companies running the MA plans would pocket the change (Our tax dollars). Obamacare simply says that we're going to bring in line the subsidies to private insurers who do Medicare Advantage to exactly what the direct government Medicare plan pays in per patient on average. That's all it does. Why subsidize greedy for-profit insurers to provide worse service to seniors and collect profits off our tax dollars at a higher rate than we fund the own superior government Medicare? Makes no sense to do the MA thing the way we did it, and Obama fixed the flaw.

I didn't hear men complain when old goats could get Viagra and Cialis under Medicare, marry young trophy wives...

Medicare doesn't pay for Viagra or any erectile dysfunction medicine unless they are being used to treat a different condition. At least, it's not supposed to according to it's guidelines. What happened was that it was happening for a while for some reason, I guess because audits weren't being done correctly, and that's been corrected.

Source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/25341

So, no Viagra for ED if you're on Medicare unless you're paying out of pocket, or being prescribed it for something other than ED.

And most of the men on this board felt that this was appropriate.

As a matter of fact, most of the men said that having erectile dysfunction at any age, even of Medicare age, was a "physical disease."

A disease is anything where the body isn't functioning properly. ED is an example of that, so it's a disease. These medicines restore the proper natural bodily function that men are no longer capable of. If you ask me, this drugs should be covered, but they aren't.

Contraception when prescribed for birth control purposes (Not counting when it's prescribed for unrelated reasons, which does happen, because like many medicines, there are multiple things they can be used for), is preventing the body from operating normally, not restoring the body's natural state of being. Which isn't to say that contraception shouldn't be covered too, I just think a better case been be made for Viagra, honestly.

And Viagra and Cialis are clearly frills.

I'm not so sure. A lot of this stuff is tied very closely into self-image and to being able to find a partner or keep an existing one, and achieve a full level of intimacy that goes beyond friendship. I'm not sure I'd call that a frill. I'd call that something that most humans view as an important facet of life. Doesn't mean some can't go without, as a choice (i.e. priests, those who choose to be bachelors) or as an unfortunate thing that's forced upon them (i.e. men who can't find partners, or men who can't sexually function), but a frill? No, not really IMHO.

And I think that Viagra has now gone generic.

Viagra was supposed to go generic in the United States in March of 2012, but a company tried to produce a generic version and was ruled to be in violation of Pfizer's patent. Now, it's looking like there won't be legal generics for Viagra until 2019.

Source: Pfizer Wins Viagra Patent Infringement Case Against Teva Pharmaceuticals - Bloomberg

And the non-generic Viagra is supposed to be extremely expensive out of pocket. I couldn't find an exact cost when looking around the Internet for the purpose of this post, but I think they're supposed to be in the realm of $20 or more per pill, and I'm not sure that they can't be be bought one at a time. If you have to buy 30 at a time like most medicine, that's $600 a bottle.

Why it's not generic by now, I don't know. The patent system is getting a bit out of control. 2019 makes no sense, because I thought Viagra was available in the mid-1990s, and that patents expire in 17 years (Meaning 2012 would have made more sense). I'd have to look up what's going on. But it stinks of a big drug manufacture extending their patent on a technicality at the expense of a lot of regular folks.

 

[AMDG]

Yes.

With the number of elderly folks in this country steadily on the rise as the baby boom generation retires, I don't see very many doctors refusing to accept Medicare patients.

I do and with the docor shortage its really bad. My husband's doctor is now a nurse. And already there are waits for appointments. Oh, he's on Medicare. And because of that, some of the care is rationed too.

Some doctors simply cannot take Medicare patients because they are reimbursed so little. Believe it or not, doctors still must pay off their medical school loans, still must pay their staff, still must pay rent and for equipment and then there's that malpractice insurance that's zooming out of sight because Obama refused to deal with tort reform. (Sometimes I wonder if Obama expected them to be slaves and work for free.)

PHYSICIANS REFUSE MEDICARE PATIENTS - New York Times

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/01/mayo-clinic-refusing-medicare-patients.html

 

[Fantine]

--

 

[AMDG]

Here's a website that mentions Doctors4Truth and their ad:

American Doctors 4 Truth Releases New Obamacare Video: &#8220;The Whole Truth&#8221; | Green Mountain Scribes

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Prostate screening is covered by insurance companies in routine annual check ups for men.


Obama Care doesn't pay for anything. The insurance company you chose, pays for it, but you're paying a premium for the coverage.

I was amazed being at a party recently, and people believing that Canada has the version of Obama Care that was used as the model.

Let's get this straight.

Obama Care is NOT, a single payer universal health care system.

It's private insurance that everyone will be required to have. If you are employed and already have health insurance, nothing will change.

If you are unemployed and need health insurance, you'll apply and be put into a large insurance pool and your income and the package of insurance you choose, will determine how much you'll be required to pay for the private health insurance you choose. There will be tiers of packages you'll be able to choose from, according to how much you want to pay. The different tiers will have different out of pocket expenses and deductibles.

If you are a small business owner, you'll also be put into a large pool of small business owners, where you'll get to chose from various private insurance companies the type of health care you want. The cost will be cheaper than it is now, because you'll be put into a pool with millions of other small business owners, instead of going it on your own.

I live with Romney Care, and it was heaven sent. Obama Care is the same as Romney Care.

Again, it's not free health insurance from the government, but health insurance that you buy.


Jim

 

[AMDG]

Nothing will change? Oh my, now *that's* a wrong statement. There are 18 separate taxes which will effect mostly the working poor and the middle classes (contrary to what Obama promised "not one thin dime".) And don't forget the religious freedom attacks of the HHS mandate and the lawsuits. Oh don't forget that the CBO has now estimated that ObamaTAX is going to cost $2.6 Trillion. (I guess we add that to the $5 Trillion in debt Obama has already given us. And with Taxmeggedon just months away, I guess that will mean more jobs lost.)

 

[WarriorAngel]

Repeal.
It needs repealed and things need changed.

 

[Chany]

Nothing will change? Oh my, now *that's* a wrong statement. There are 18 separate taxes which will effect mostly the working poor and the middle classes (contrary to what Obama promised "not one thin dime".) And don't forget the religious freedom attacks of the HHS mandate and the lawsuits. Oh don't forget that the CBO has now estimated that ObamaTAX is going to cost $2.6 Trillion. (I guess we add that to the $5 Trillion in debt Obama has already given us. And with Taxmeggedon just months away, I guess that will mean more jobs lost.)

Yes, we'll have to pay because your Republican friends in Congress don't want to increase tax rates on the upper class.

 

[Fantine]

Yes, we'll have to pay because your Republican friends in Congress don't want to increase tax rates on the upper class.

One thing I think a lot of people don't realize, Chany, is how federal tax cuts affect state taxes--and state benefits.

Most state income taxes have very low thresholds for the top income bracket. Even people with very modest incomes may be paying 6%, 7%, or even more. When federal aid is drastically cut, states have to make up the shortfall somehow.

Similarly, when federal aid is cut to states, hundreds of thousands often lose Medicaid, food stamps, and other benefits.

Finally, since those states with the greatest needs often receive far more aid from the federal government than they send in in taxes, and since those states are often red states, they suffer the most.

What the conservatives on this board think of as a give back--the federal budget being cut so they will have a few hundred dollars extra in income and the 1% will have a few extra million--is instead a pass the buck....

You "may" get back a few hundred...perhaps...perhaps not. And, on the statewide level, you will lose benefits and assume higher taxes yourselves--usually in a tax system that is far less progressive.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Somebody's got to pay taxes or else you'll lose your roads and water and armies and a thousand other necessities.

There's is a little bit of truth in the saying from each according to ability, to each according to need

 

[Fish and Bread]

Repeal.

So you're ready to let those uninsured people suffer and die, or walk into an emergency room when it is too late because they couldn't afford a preventative doctor's visit, all because you don't like a few of the details of a health care law that will give them coverage? That doesn't seem very humane.

You want to change a few details and have a law passed that does that? That's understandable. Big changes like this are rarely instituted perfectly from day one. But to just flat out repeal it is wrong, morally wrong, in my opinion.

"Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood."

- Encyclical Pacem in Terris of John XXIII, 11 April 1963