As Obama stumps for his new health care plan, this is a good time to start thinking about what the ramifications could be for men. Currently, most of America’s uninsured are men, despite the fact that men suffer more injuries and have a far higher death rate than women.
The low priority given to men’s health and well-being is evident in a number of government programs and laws that exclusively cater to women’s well-being, such as WIC and VAWA. Women’s shelters abound, despite the fact that men represent the overwhelming majority of the homeless. Federal funding for women’s afflictions, such as breast cancer, dwarfs that directed toward specifically male diseases such as prostate cancer, and it also threatens to overshadow very deadly diseases, such as pancreatic cancer, that strike both genders.
On the balance, it might seem that universal health coverage would be good for men, but Massachussets, which has a state health care plan, has the widest gender disparity in health insurance. The danger is that universal health care may be simply another mechanism for wealth transfer from men to women, with men receiving little in return, and possibly no net benefit at all. I can easily imagine divorced men being forced to pay the federal government whenever their ex opts to use government health insurance for the children, whether she has the ability to pay or not.
It is well-known among mental health professionals that, following divorce or unemployment, men are much more likely to develop both physical and mental conditions, which can directly lead to death. Suicide is a fairly common male reaction to divorce or unemployment, yet there is almost no government support for men in these circumstances. In fact, it is exactly the opposite: the government plays a part in punishing and goading divorced men – especially if they are or become unemployed – sometimes driving them to take their own lives.
If there is to be any overhaul of health care, men have to start demanding some fair treatment in both disbursement of health insurance and treatment for men. Men should also demand optional post-divorce counseling for both mental and physical health, as well as health and nutritional supplements such as WIC if they are in need. For every public women’s health clinic, there should be a men’s health clinic, and married and divorced men should watch very carefully for efforts to legally obligate men to pay the government more money in case their wives and exes decide (without any input from the father) to ride a free health care train with the kids.
22 responses so far ↓
1 Daniel L. Taylor // Jul 29, 2009 at 2:08 pm
The most important thing is to stop this health care bill dead in its tracks. It is a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, and as such is an attack on everyone’s civil rights.
If the government didn’t have so much power and influence in our lives then there wouldn’t be so much opportunity for men to be abused. We have to remember that the fundamental problem is not that our government shows bias against men, but that it has any power with which to show bias for or against anyone in the first place.
The framers of the Constitution wanted the Federal government to be the weakest of the three levels of government (local, State, Federal), and wanted government at all levels to have relatively little power over or influence in our lives. There were good reasons for that. The founders knew very well that a powerful government is sooner or later manipulated by one class against another. In the last century women proved especially adept at manipulating government power against men.
We shouldn’t be discussing how to beg government for our “fair share.” We should be discussing how to get government out of our lives so that no one can manipulate government against any group.
2 Justin // Jul 29, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Welmer, you nailed it right on the head when you said it is a huge wealth transfer from men to women. Men are insured less because they are healthier. Insurance is just a big scheme whereby the healthy subsidize the sick. They absolutely need healthy people to join the pool to “drive down costs”. By that they mean average costs. Getting more men insured is simply a scam to get them to foot the bill for others.
I have been intentionally uninsured numerous times in my life, because paying cash for healthcare is often cheaper than paying for insurance.
3 Lukobe // Jul 29, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Even the private sector doesn’t provide adequate mental-health coverage, for men or women. Mental-health parity now!
4 Lukobe // Jul 29, 2009 at 2:59 pm
And yes, insurance basically is a big scheme where the healthy subsidize the sick, the careful drivers subsidize the idiots, the lucky subsidize the unlucky. BUT, Justin, you could fall ill at any time, you know, and then you’re the beneficiary. It’s called sharing the risk. Being intentionally uninsured when you can afford it is like playing chicken with bankruptcy. What would you have done if you’d come down with cancer or a serious neurological disorder? You’d have lost all your money and then we’d have ended up subsidizing your care anyway.
5 BeltainAmerica // Jul 29, 2009 at 3:20 pm
As I have said in my blog several times, the first thing that we will notice will be that men will pay the same amount as women. Women have managed to lobby health care charges in blocks already to average the cost out which in every case I have seen women use their insurance much more often then men (Some say at 55 men use it more than women but whatever it would takealot more than starting at 55 to average it out).
The other aspect I think we will see is with the long waits. This will hit men and more than likely white men more than anyone as no doctor or facility will make a “minority” wait for service or test/treatment. The same will apply to some drugs and such, men will ebar the brunt of being turned down etc. This last is very serious as it will be years before any data will be available to show it.
I am sure it will also be used as another way to get more money out of the support paying men, but in some areas it maybe cheaper as in my area men are expected to take care of the health insurance for the children anyway so it maybe cheaper then private insurance in that regard.
I agree with the first poster the best thing is to stop it dead and then push for a return to the original constitution. Feminism and its bias needs a police state to survive and they know it.
6 novaseeker // Jul 29, 2009 at 3:20 pm
The problem as I see it is that once the government, with its political prerogatives, gets involved in this to any substantial degree, that will inevitably be bad for men. As you point out, Welmer, we can already see that writing on the wall in terms of how the *existing* federal funding is skewed towards women’s health issues. There is no reason at all to expect that this skewing would not continue under a government controlled health plan. Frankly, when it comes to valuing the lives of men and women, our government values the lives of women much, much more than it does the lives of men. A national health plan will be a stalking horse for passing more government largesse to women, and basically ignoring men.
7 Lukobe // Jul 29, 2009 at 3:34 pm
BeltainAmerica, “no doctor or facility will make a ‘minority’ wait for service or test/treatment”? Been to a community clinic lately?
8 Welmer // Jul 29, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Where I get Beltain’s point is the fact that citizens and legal residents often have to wait in line behind illegals who are getting a free ride.
Here in Washington, Mike Lowry passed a bill giving free medical care to migrant workers, which was probably extended to some (not all, of course) illegals.
Why don’t the farmers pay, instead of all of us?
9 BeltainAmerica // Jul 29, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Lukobe
I am speaking to the fact that everyone has insurance. If everyone has the same insurance the healthcare providers will not have that to make calls on.
I assure you that as soon as a minority is made to wait over a white man when both have the same insurance there will be law suites etc.
10 miles // Jul 29, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Welmer,
The Climate Bill is EVEN WORSE, and will act basically as a wealth transfer from red states to blue states.
In the bill for example, California will recieve 145% of the allowances it needs to make and consume electricity, but Tennessee only recieves 73% of the allowances it needs to make and consume electricity. That means in simple terms that California can make money (and make its electric rates go down or fund whatever) by selling some of that extra 45% of allowances it does not need to a state that didn’t recieve enough in the bill…………………..like Tennessee.
Basically Tennessee would have to pay California for the right to have electricity.
This bill isn’t about global warming (more like Global cooling as its getting colder and has been doing so since 1998) at ALL. Its income redistribution from some states to others and everybody on the “in”, Wall Street, General Electric, California, gets a big financial BOOST, while everyone else who needs electricity gets screwed.
The same people who support this bill are the same people who file lawsuits every time any entity attempts to build a new nuclear plant, so they HAVE to keep using coal to make power. Just like the bevy of lawsuits filed to stop the TVA from building a second reactor at Watts Bar in east Tennessee. Get it?
11 Kevin K // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:39 am
The breast cancer vs. prostate cancer is a bit of a false argument. Cancer research in general is very well funded in the US and there is plenty of money to research any cancer you think you have an idea of how to treat. I would argue there is too much money based on the number of good ideas around, but that’s me.
Also, breast cancer is more dangerous than prostate cancer. Prostate cancer can be detected at the microscopic level with a blood test, which is unique among cancers. Its also slow growing so many times doctors will suggest “active surveillance” and generally the patient is more likely to die of something else than of the prostate cancer. If the doctor does want to treat it aggressively there are already a bunch of effective treatments. Also, prostate cancer is skewed toward older men so of all the men who get it are more likely to die of something else (97% with treatment!).
Breast cancer is worse in almost every way. It happens to women sooner, its harder to detect, it requires more disfiguring surgery and is more likely to spread.
However, I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall point, just wanted to point this out.
12 Justin // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:54 am
“Being intentionally uninsured when you can afford it is like playing chicken with bankruptcy. What would you have done if you’d come down with cancer or a serious neurological disorder?”
Lukobe, you think like a girl.
13 Lukobe // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:17 am
Welmer wrote:
Here in Washington, Mike Lowry passed a bill giving free medical care to migrant workers, which was probably extended to some (not all, of course) illegals. Why don’t the farmers pay, instead of all of us?
Do the migrant workers really get free medical care? That seems unfair. I’m sure you’d agree that their kids, at least, though, deserve at least some level of care, regardless of their parents’ ability to pay.
As for making farmers pay, yes, we should do that. Of course, that results in higher produce prices for us. A lot of this can be traced back to Americans’ desire for cheap, cheap, cheap goods. Are we really prepared for the price of our apples to go up?
14 Lukobe // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:18 am
Justin, I generally don’t respond to ad hominem attacks, and I try not to make them in turn, but in your case, I’ll just say: Ask Welmer. He can vouch for the fact that I do not think like a girl. And, good luck with your health. I suppose you won’t come crying to the state when you end up in the ICU.
15 emarel // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:46 am
“The problem as I see it is that once the government, with its political prerogatives, gets involved in this to any substantial degree, that will inevitably be bad for men. As you point out, Welmer, we can already see that writing on the wall in terms of how the *existing* federal funding is skewed towards women’s health issues. There is no reason at all to expect that this skewing would not continue under a government controlled health plan. Frankly, when it comes to valuing the lives of men and women, our government values the lives of women much, much more than it does the lives of men. A national health plan will be a stalking horse for passing more government largesse to women, and basically ignoring men.”……….
Remember the end of the movie “Gran Torino” where the terminal Eastwood character commits suicide in giving his life to help rescue his neighbors from the local gang-bangers? Well, maybe we can expect lots of terminal 55-65 and up men, denied health care, taking out federal buildings, federal officials and state installations with them in the future.
16 Lukobe // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Good movie, Gran Torino. But suicide is one thing — suicide bombing is quite another.
17 Welmer // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Nah, you’re misreading Lukobe. He was raised by a couple of refugees from awful Communist regimes (both of whom were of the targeted property-owning classes), one from the USSR (Ukraine) and the other from North Korea, so caution against disaster has been instilled in him from a very young age.
Emarel, as for acts against the state, they are pretty much futile and only lead to more restrictive policy and laws. There was a guy here in Seattle who, at the end of his rope, walked into the federal courthouse carrying a fake grenade to protest how he’d been treated as a non custodial parent. Naturally, he was shot dead immediately, the floor was mopped, and the guard praised. Business went on as usual.
Another guy walked into the King County courthouse and killed his Filipina wife and two of her friends in revenge for a fraudulent VAWA DV claim (to get citizenship and divorce the guy immediately — she really screwed him), then surrendered. Now, the only difference is that we have to go through metal detectors at the courthouse, and IMBRA.
So the best thing, IMO, is to highlight abusive acts and shame corrupt and immoral politicians and businesses through exposure. This is how blogging can work.
18 Welmer // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Do the migrant workers really get free medical care? That seems unfair. I’m sure you’d agree that their kids, at least, though, deserve at least some level of care, regardless of their parents’ ability to pay.
The thing is, as migrant workers they aren’t supposed to bring their families with them. They stay here for the season, and then go back, or at least that was the original deal. Many of them actually did hold to that deal.
As for making farmers pay, yes, we should do that. Of course, that results in higher produce prices for us. A lot of this can be traced back to Americans’ desire for cheap, cheap, cheap goods. Are we really prepared for the price of our apples to go up?
The labor costs are only a fraction — maybe 10 cents a pound, and up to 20 cents for the most labor intensive crops like cherries.
Anyway, check out this program at WSU:
WSU Scientists Perfecting Mechanical Harvest of Sweet Cherries
They estimate that they could cut harvest costs to 1-2 cents per pound with mechanized harvesters.
19 Lukobe // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Well, they’re not supposed to bring their families with them, but that doesn’t always stop them, obviously.
Labor costs are a fraction, but healthcare costs are a substantial part of labor costs, so I could see labor costs going up to, say, 25-30 cents per pound for cherries. Who knows.
Good for WSU — let’s hope their budget doesn’t get cut even further.
20 Justin // Jul 31, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Sorry, guys, but irrational worry about potential disasters is indeed a feminine trait. And you know it is, so don’t pretend otherwise.
Just like all the women who act horrified that I usually ride a motocycle without a helmet. Never once had a man do that.
21 Welmer // Jul 31, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Heh. Here in Seattle you can get a ticket for riding a bicycle without a helmet, but I often ignore that one.
22 Lukobe // Jul 31, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Actually, I don’t know that, Justin, and it’s not irrational. But then again, perhaps no one you know has ever been in real danger?
As for riding your motorcycle without a helmet, I think that’s pretty dangerous behavior, but I’m not horrified. It doesn’t personally affect me if you get killed or suffer brain damage. Just so long as you’re either insured or don’t have the state pay for your stay in the neuro ICU.
Leave a Comment