CBS video: Discrimination Against Women in Healthcare

But I have a question: Do men face discrimination in healthcare also but for different reasons? Would a man who is not a victim of violence also face problems with health insurance access? Or if a man had had a bout with prostate cancer, wouldn't he also have problems getting insured later?

What's "the rest of the story", as Paul Harvey (RIP) might have said?

What they really mean is that men will continue to pay for women's health care, because they use much, much more of it. This is equality to this bunch.

in the long long very long list of
government giveaways to special interests called

'handouts for halfwits'

HFH

folks too dam dumb to make an honest living
in the richest country in the world (temporarily),

or maybe just too sorry.

sleepy little Southern towns got dogs sleeping on
the RR crossings, till the welfare checks come.
then the liquor stores and bars crank it up.
steaks all 'round.

then next week comes and back to all day naps and oprah.

all HFH programs are part of the same deadly virus,
worse than any computer virus. don't know exactly how
it came to be. parts of europe got it bad. wonder how
they got it, or who gave it to them?

odd virus. gov healthcare makes it much worse.

Here is my take on healthcare. It is based on my personal experiences and opinions, I think statistics would support my opinions, but I cannot be certain.

I graduated from nursing school almost a year ago and worked 4 months in ER. I worked to gain experience and to qualify for financing on a house my husband and I were purchasing. I quit after the financing went through. I am currently pregnant and on my husband's health insurance. He just got laid off so I signed a 8 week contract as a nurse at a summer camp with no benefits. My husband's health benefits run out the end of the month. I am lucky that my state has a law about insurance companies extending existing health plans up to one year at the expense of the consumer. I have had two C-sections and will need another. My first C-section was an emergency, probably saved my life as well as my son's life.

> Women of child bearing age use more healthcare then men of the same age bracket due to pregnancy and child birth. But when you care for the mother you are caring for the baby, you cannot separate the two, and 50% of those babies being cared for in utero are boys.

> in utero and new born males are more susceptible to the poor health and habits of the mother. Boys are born with more birth defects then females. The effects of NOT breastfeeding seems to effect males more than females (allergies from formula, ADD, BPA in plastic baby bottles are effecting male genitals and other side effects)

> Poor people use the most health care of any group I know. In the ER I got to know families by name. Welfare people bring their kids into the ER for common flu, stubbed toes, etc. Even though I believe most of these families are listed as "single mother" households, the dads were usually present.

> single men come in to ER for more reckless behavior such as bar fights, doing dangerous stunts, riding motorized vehicles w/o helmets, etc.

> in private doctors' offices and clinics women go in for birth control and abortion services. It takes a lot of effort and money to prevent pregnancy with chemicals, IUD, diaphragm, etc. Some people think of these services as benefiting men as well against unwanted pregnancies.

I'm not sure what to conclude about discrimination within the government's healthcare plan, but I am very much against the government being in control of health care.

Your idea is to help men through women... that argument reminds me of Hattie. In that case why dont we just give men job priority too. When it comes to women their privileges are not limited to pregnancy. You can tell hospitals value mothers in their roles as a paremts more than the fathers. Women use insurance much more than men with the same afflictions. There is much more money spent for women getting routine checkups. More money is spend on diseases that effect them.

There's really no way of justifying spending more money on women when men's health is worse.

Are you directing your post towards me?

If so, I did not state any "idea" or "argument" in my post above, so I do not know what you are referring to. I am not arguing or disagreeing with anyone on the subject of discrimination in the government's health plan; and I did not offer any solutions, so I am not sure how or what you could disagree with.

My only position I stated is that I am not in favor of government run healthcare. That's my opinion. Your opinion may differ, that's fine

Insurance is simply sharing the risk within a pool of people. Insurance companies study the risks and charge a premium accordingly. They stack the odds in their favor so that they will make a profit. Health insurance is not free, it is usually offered through an employer, but the employer pays for it. The demographics of the employees determine what he will pay. If employees use up too much benefits, the insurance company will re-evaluate and charge the employer a higher fee when it comes time to re-new the contract.

Most people do not get much say as too what "pool of people" they are with. Insurance companies already do charge a higher premium according to gender, age, and smoking or non smoking. Many people do not realize this as it is their employer that pays.

I personally am not comfortable excluding people from health care benefits simply because they use up more expenses. I do not want to see my neighbors dying in the streets or women and babies dying during childbirth. However, if employers or government were to start excluding people from health care plans because they use up more than their share of expenses, I would exclude anyone over 45, black people, and smokers so I could lower my premiums. If you start excluding because of gender, than why not because of age or race?

Wether the government runs health care or not, does not change the cost of healthcare. Nothing is really free, it is just a matter of whom pays. I assume it will be the taxpayers that foot the bill, and it will likely weaken health care standards for everyone.

If you are against health plans paying for childbirth, that's your prerogative. Just hold your attitude to the end even when your own kids or family members are born. If you want to set a dollar amount per person, that is fine too, but again hold on to your position even as you and your parents age and when you or your family members may need services past the limit. Don't flip-flop your opinion as it fits your situation.

I understand that most of us advocate what serves us as individuals the most. I don't like my property taxes going to pay for public schools when I don't use the public school system. but I also see value in educating the community around me and I have a similar view in regards to healthcare. I understand that some people will use more benefits than I do.

When it comes to government and social and community services, it will never be completely equal. If we get too into documenting who uses what services then we would never have free parks, free education, free libraries, etc. we would have to charge everyone for a "per use" fee. So I understand why the government has to make general decisions based on what the majority of people consider important to their quality of life.

That being said, I do think changes need to be made in the welfare/public health care system and I think men have a fair argument when it comes to prevention and research and the amount spent compared to female issues. But I am not supportive of making the dollar amount spent on actual services totally equal on all demographic groups as you will then have to split people according to gender, race, age, etc. Where would it stop? And why stop at healthcare?

Rich people already pay more into taxes that support the poor. I hate taxes, and I hate the government programs (I wish they were run privately), but I still understand why we need them. The alternative would be rampant crime, under educated community, and people dying in the streets, and people spreading preventable diseases because they cannot afford the vaccine, etc.. When you improve the life of those around you, you also improve the quality of life for yourself.

PS- sorry for the long post, and for getting a little off topic.