|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Masculiste on 09:54 PM November 7th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I can tell Matt was pretty pissed at this news (and who can blame him?) because he mis-spelled PROTATE for prostate and one other word in the post.
I have to see a doctor this week and inquire about this drug and it's costs here in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:47 AM November 8th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
1 in 6 men get prostate cancer. 1 in 9 women get breast cancer.
Spending on reasearch, care and such? 2 to 1 in favor of breast cancer.
So see a doctor for a complete physical and (admittedly unpleasant) prostate exam EVERY year after 30, fellas, and DEMAND proper screening and treatment for testicular and prostate cancer, because the health system is geared against you at every turn. You pay for it, but it's built to take care of womenchildren (I no longer separate them because the terms are now interchangeable).
In Canada, breast cancer screening (thousands per mammogram) and treatment is covered completely. A $25 PSA test for the early detection of prostate cancer is not.
Men pay 70% of the taxes that fund that health care system and receive a fraction of the care.
In Canada, the waiting time for breast cancer surgery is 28 days on average. Prostate cancer? 89 days. This is considered "acceptable" to the gynarchy we mistakenly call a government.
Our head of state? A woman. We don't have an elected executive - otherwise he'd be able to cave in to women's interests too. Our head of state's lead people in the country who can "veto" laws passed by both elected houses of parliament by not proclaiming them: the Governor General and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - BOTH of whom have been women for years.
Paternity in child support cases? Irrelevant. You supported it? Then it's yours, end of discussion.
Shout at your spouse, lose your house. Now a law in most jurisdictions.
Strong radical feminist lobby funded by taxpayer pork? Not anymore - the "National Action Committee on the Status of Women", which made NOW look cuddly, is now a government DEPARTMENT: Status of Women Canada, funded completely by taxes. No comparable services are available to any other group, including men. Native Canadians receive less assistance.
QUESTIONS?
Canada is a lost cause, but those of you in the US and elsewhere can still make a difference. Don't let your government do to you what it's done to us. Learn to say "no" to women at an earlier stage, and remind them that just like their own battle cry, "no means no". Stay chivalrous, and this is where you'll be in a decade. They're out to destroy you, gentlemen, and don't let a nice pair of tits confuse you about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:40 AM November 8th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
and people wonder why Quebec keeps trying to seperate themselves from Canada during the last 2-3 decades :)
i guess the BS taxes aren't the only reason
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:47 AM November 8th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, very recently here in the UK, women were being told that they couldn't have a certain breast cancer drug because it hadn't been fully approved yet in the UK and was very expensive. A very high profile campaign that lasted only a few weeks and was covered in all media ensured that these women now have access to that drug.
Remember, to many people, men are expendable.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:54 AM November 9th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto here in Canada. Can't remember the name of the drug, but it's outrageously expensive. Men can't have $25 in coverage to find out if they have a virulent, treatable cancer, but we can dump thousands onto treatment for any woman who wants it. The more things change...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by robrob on 06:09 PM November 8th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
For ultimate proof of the double standards, read this first then this.
Presumably the UK health secretary will now be stepping in for the men of Scotland too?
Same argument has been used in both cases to deny the woman and the men new cancer treatments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:29 PM November 8th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Not only that, but the women's case headlined the main world edition page, the UK main page, and the England section. The men's case was buried in the Scotland section.
Double standard, what double standard...?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "So men in Scotland can't get the best drug for treatment of prostate cancer because it is too expensive and not 'cost-effective'.