Althouse: Christina Hoff Sommers: "The Affordable Care Act mentions 'breast' 44 times, 'prostate' not once."

October 30, 2012

Christina Hoff Sommers: "The Affordable Care Act mentions 'breast' 44 times, 'prostate' not once."

"It also establishes an elaborate and expensive network of special programs to promote women’s health. Programs for men are nowhere to be found. What explains the imbalance?"

Possible answers:

1. Focusing on breasts works for everybody: Men love breasts and women feel cared for.

2. Treating women's bodies as a special problem, requiring special attention, works for the most retrograde traditionalists and for progressive feminists.

3. Women tend to monitor their health and consume more health care services, especially these preventive programs. There are no programs for men, because men wouldn't respond to programs. The main use of men is getting them into the insurance pool to contribute to the cost of caring for women and children.

4. Women actually need and deserve more care. Men are expendable. There is a shared social interest in preserving the women for reproductive purposes, for the maintenance of stable households, for the nurturing of children, and for looking after the elderly.

5. Gender politics work, but only on women.

128 comments:

wyo sis said...: 5?; 10/30/12, 8:49 AM
Synova said...: Vote as if my ladyparts depend on it.

Or how about: Women aren't insulted by the notion that they need someone to take care of them and men are insulted by that.; 10/30/12, 8:51 AM
TWM said...: Number 5 mostly, although men love breasts and the women in their lives that have them, so we just don't argue about it.

I disagree with Number 3 though. Women only monitor the health of their ladyparts. Heart disease is the number one killer of women and few of them give it any worry at all.; 10/30/12, 8:52 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @wyo sis I don't get it.; 10/30/12, 8:53 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Oh, you're voting for 5.; 10/30/12, 8:53 AM
Richard Fagin said...: "Women actually need and deserve more care. Men are expendable."

That's the real reason.

Yeah? Fight your own wars, women, when the Islamists take over the world and subject you all to genital mutilation. I'll be dead and buried and laughing at you from the grave.; 10/30/12, 8:54 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Heart disease is the number one killer of women and few of them give it any worry at all."

We believe our hearts are good.; 10/30/12, 8:54 AM
Scott M said...: There is a shared social interest in preserving the women for reproductive purposes, for the maintenance of stable households, for the nurturing of children, and for tending to the elderly.

You lost me after the reproductive part. How is it that men aren't similarly important for the maintenance of households, nurturing of children, and tending to the elderly?

Are all us swinging dicks supposed to be off campaigning in Normandy or away at the Crusades?; 10/30/12, 8:57 AM
Phil 314 said...: The "fair" sex?; 10/30/12, 8:58 AM
TWM said...: "We believe our hearts are good."

Good as in having a good hearted or pumping like a 20 something?

That was my point. Women for whatever reason only concern themselves with their ladyparts when it comes to health. I used to think it was just because that's all the predominatly male doctors pushed on them, but what with plenty of gal doctors now I don't understand why this is still so.; 10/30/12, 8:58 AM
pm317 said...: 5. Gender politics work, but only on women. Yay! hurray for ladyparts voters.

Ha, these videos will fit into this topic very well. Check out their site -- Independent Women's Voices.

Sandra Fluke look alike is feeling guilty

She is not impressed with boyfriend Obama; 10/30/12, 9:00 AM
Paul said...: Men are expendable.

Until you get a flat tire or the water heater goes out.

You might want to keep us around to keep all the labor and life saving devices in good working order.

Which were, and continue to be, invented and created by men almost exclusively.; 10/30/12, 9:00 AM
Sorun said...: #5 - gender politics.

Some Madison hospital or health clinic had a billboard on the Beltline last year emphasizing that they take women's health issues seriously (unlike all of those other hospitals). It was so incredibly stupid, yet not at all surprising in Lefty Land.; 10/30/12, 9:01 AM
TWM said...: BTW, I really did the term "ladyparts." Much thanks to Ricky Bobby in Talledaga Nights for coining it.; 10/30/12, 9:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann Althouse said...

"Heart disease is the number one killer of women and few of them give it any worry at all."

We believe our hearts are good.

..and pure.; 10/30/12, 9:04 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: All very good reasons. Yes, breasts are very nice and ought to be treated well.

6. We'd never hear the end of the nagging if special ladyparts were not specifically touted by Top Men as priorities for all, so best just go along with it.; 10/30/12, 9:04 AM
carrie said...: I'd vote #5 except that you have the whole NFL wearing pink ribbons, pink shoes, pink gloves, etc. so maybe #1 is the correct answer.; 10/30/12, 9:05 AM
Carnifex said...: The only quibble I have with a yes to all five is the fifth one. It should read--"5. Gender politics work, but only on women, and effeminate men on the left"; 10/30/12, 9:06 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: What explains the imbalance?

It's also possible that the imbalance reflects "a plot to realign the electorate, 'creating a long-term Democratic majority that would allow [Obama] and his successors to stop catering to the center and finally govern decisively from the left.'"; 10/30/12, 9:07 AM
pm317 said...: BTW, the Independent Women's Voice org mentioned in my previous comment is actually against ladyparts voting. They have great videos about women focusing on issues other than abortion and contraception. Check it out.; 10/30/12, 9:07 AM
Jaq said...: It is a reality of evolution that men are expendable. This is just one more expression of that.

If 90% of men died and the genetic top ten percent, as determined by women, survived, in a hundred years, the only difference would be that men would be more sexually attractive as a group.

If 90% of women died, even leaving the fittest, as determined by men, the human world would be on the precipice.

There is no point being bitter about this, history happens and so it goes.; 10/30/12, 9:09 AM
alan markus said...: Congratulations, your "This Is How the Democratic Party Lost Me" post made one of the "Most Read Articles Last 24 Hours" over at Real Clear Politics today.

Real Clear Politics; 10/30/12, 9:10 AM
Carnifex said...: Hey! You people dissing ladyparts! Ask Johnny Carson(or Tiger Woods, or John Edwards) what a good piece of ladypart costs ya'!

And then ask Liberace(or Freddy Mercury, or Jim Neighbors) what a good piece of laddyparts costs ya'!; 10/30/12, 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: 5.
so since women consume much more health care, why don't they pay 5 times as much for coverage?

and on payout? why aren't men's SS payouts higher, since we get them for fewer years :); 10/30/12, 9:15 AM
wyo sis said...: I'm voting for 5, but not whole heartedly. (so to speak, although my heart has not been tested lately and last time it was there was a question about it); 10/30/12, 9:16 AM
Larry J said...: Where I live, the city hospital has many buildings. One of them is "Women and Children." There isn't one for men. We're disposable.

When women as a group live longer than men, they get lower life insurance rates. When teenaged girls have lower auto accident rates than teenaged boys, they get cheaper car insurance. When women consume far more medical services than men, it's illegal to charge them more for health insurance because shut up.

Men as a group will continue to die younger than women. That will ease the burden on Social Security. Politicians will pander to those who like being pandered to. Gotta buy votes, don't you know.; 10/30/12, 9:16 AM
Carnifex said...: @Carrie

And what is so wrong with a 350 pound, 6' 8" tall man, expressing a bit of color for his inner ladyparts? I swear, some of you people are just haters!; 10/30/12, 9:17 AM
Nonapod said...: We men don't have feelings. If you ever see us emitting cry water through our face holes it's generally due to a malfunction in our logic chips rather than these "emotion" things.; 10/30/12, 9:17 AM
Levi Starks said...: Women tend to have a lower mortality rate at every age. In the womb, male fetuses have a higher mortality rate. The difference in life expectancy between men and women was 5.3 years in 2005.; 10/30/12, 9:20 AM
Geraldus Maximus said...: Alan, you cheeky monkey. I got all excited. I've been waiting to read Ann's contribution on her reasoning for this years vote. Only to find out it was her Paglia post. When does that normally come out?; 10/30/12, 9:21 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Real men don't vote for Obama and the corruptocrats.; 10/30/12, 9:21 AM
dreams said...: The twentieth and twenty first centuries have been good to women. Before modern medicine, childbirth and hard labor because of a lack of modern conveniences caused a lot of early deaths of women, their life expectancy was less then men. Despite earlier hardships and disadvantages women suffered, women's lives have always been valued more than men because of reason #4. It takes nine months for a woman to make a baby, men can make a lot more babies than women and in a lot less time.; 10/30/12, 9:23 AM
Paul said...: Of course the real answer, of which Althouse is surely unaware, is Gramscian based propaganda which has infiltrated our culture for sixty years.; 10/30/12, 9:26 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "so since women consume much more health care, why don't they pay 5 times as much for coverage?"

Everyone who is here is here because a woman went through pregnancy and childbirth. Our bodies are used... we have the right to opt out of this use... but we put many times as much body into the continuance of the species as men do.

Men's bodies are used too, and they get the health care that corresponds to that use.

(I'm just being realistic about why, as a polity, we are doing what we're doing.); 10/30/12, 9:26 AM
Scott M said...: It takes nine months for a woman to make a baby, men can make a lot more babies than women and in a lot less time.

That just makes them less efficient and (re)productive.; 10/30/12, 9:27 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: "It takes nine months for a woman to make a baby, men can make a lot more babies than women and in a lot less time."

REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--

STAN: Or woman.

REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.

STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

STAN: I want to be one.

REG: What?

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG: What?!

LORETTA: It's my right as a man.

JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA: I want to have babies.

REG: You want to have babies?!

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!; 10/30/12, 9:27 AM
AllenS said...: The breast cancer pleas for money through all of the various programs is a racket. After my girl friend died of cancer (not breast cancer), I was deluged with phone calls and pleas through the mail to give, give, give. Where does this money go? It's become a big business for a lot of people.; 10/30/12, 9:28 AM
X said...: but we put many times as much body into the continuance of the species as men do.

hilarious.; 10/30/12, 9:29 AM
Jane the Actuary said...: Oh, and it's not just ladyparts. How many of you have "Go Red for Women" campaigns at work? Gotta make sure women have healthy hearts! Men, not so much.; 10/30/12, 9:29 AM
alan markus said...: I've been waiting to read Ann's contribution on her reasoning for this years vote. Only to find out it was her Paglia post.

That's about the only thing I dislike about Real Clear Politics, the way they use clever word games to tag their links, ala Drudge.; 10/30/12, 9:30 AM
dreams said...: "That just makes them less efficient and (re)productive."

And often redundant.; 10/30/12, 9:32 AM
Tasha said...: 6. Gender politics are being deployed by politicians who think they'll be effective, regardless of whether those tactics actually work. Politicians who oppose the bill buy into the same belief, so they don't want to challenge those woman-centric benefits because of the expected backlash.; 10/30/12, 9:33 AM
wyo sis said...: Count me as one woman who thinks gender politics is a load of bullshit.; 10/30/12, 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: " 5. Gender politics work, but only on women. "

Close. How about: The Democrats are the party of women, and don't give a damn about men.

Which is why Obama's trailing with men in every poll, and has been for most of the year.; 10/30/12, 9:41 AM
Skyler said...: I question the equivalence between breasts and prostates.

Maybe women are too helpless without a specific mention of their breasts.; 10/30/12, 9:42 AM
Abdul Abulbul Amir said...: Face it, the law was written by the demon rat party, and women are a key target constituency of that party.; 10/30/12, 9:46 AM
bagoh20 said...: I don't think the government realizes what a high maintenance golddigger it is he's courting, and, the divorce is gonna be ugly, and expensive.; 10/30/12, 9:46 AM
Saint Croix said...: Men are expendable."

Not only that, but they got our sperm frozen up in banks. So they can wipe us off the face of the earth anytime they want to, really.

As soon as they learn how to work the tanks.; 10/30/12, 9:47 AM
Saint Croix said...: Don't worry, men, I'm working on an artificial womb in my basement.

Fallopian tubes are a bitch.; 10/30/12, 9:48 AM
bagoh20 said...: " when the Islamists take over the world and subject you all to genital mutilation."

That will be covered. It's on page 2075. The deductible is $10 and a goat.; 10/30/12, 9:48 AM
David said...: 6. Women like free stuff.; 10/30/12, 9:49 AM
MadisonMan said...: I am always struck between the attitude difference between breast cancer awareness and lung cancer awareness. Lung cancer kills far more women. When is lung cancer awareness month? Why aren't we all wearing, oh I don't know, Yellow or black of whatever for Lung Cancer awareness?

Lungs just aren't as sexy as a pert pair of breasts. And women don't want to share the spotlight with men -- who also get, and die from, breast cancer. And as allens says, Breast Cancer fundraising is a HUGE money sink. The Susan Konen scam diverts lots of money away from cancer research.

And there's that whole You brought it on yourself mentality.; 10/30/12, 9:51 AM
Saint Croix said...: Gender wars are a pain in the ass.

Plus, if we win, homosexuality. So that sucks. (So to speak).; 10/30/12, 9:51 AM
AllenS said...: When are we going to start wearing brown ribbons for colon cancer?; 10/30/12, 9:53 AM
campy said...: Number 4 seems right to me.; 10/30/12, 9:53 AM
dreams said...: As to breasts and prostrates , there are more deaths from breast cancer than prostrate and at an earlier age though the money received for research for prostrate cancer isn't commensurate with breast cancer research.; 10/30/12, 9:54 AM
Saint Croix said...: China's aborting their way to feminist paradise!

No, wait. They're aborting the girls. Never mind.; 10/30/12, 9:54 AM
edutcher said...: 1, 4, 5.

Finally, we get combo boxes.

But, yeah, when was the last time anybody wanted to suck on a prostate?

(don't answer that...); 10/30/12, 9:56 AM
Dante said...: 6) The prostate is in a nasty place, and most men don't like to think about it, much less for it to be examined.; 10/30/12, 9:57 AM
Lyssa said...: TWM said: I disagree with Number 3 though. Women only monitor the health of their ladyparts. Heart disease is the number one killer of women and few of them give it any worry at all.

Probably true, but when we go to the gyn, we still get our BP, heart rate, weight, and overall general health checked out. So, if something looks like it might be wrong, the gyn can say "Hey, go to a cardiologist" and we're still more likely to go.

Actually, the main reason I've gone to the doc far more often than my husband, who's probably gone only 2-3 times over our marriage, is that I have to keep up with annual gyn checks to keep getting my birth control pills. If the pills were OTC, I'd probably rarely if ever go. (Also, now I go a lot because I'm pregnant.) So, there's a cost-cutting measure, perhaps.

I vote for 5 as well. I'm embarassed that so many women are so manipulatable, but they are.; 10/30/12, 9:58 AM
bagoh20 said...: "but we put many times as much body into the continuance of the species as men do."

All those body bags NOT coming back full of women tend to indicate that it's almost entirely men who voluntarily give 100% of themselves. It hardly compares to 9 months of nausea, pickles, ice cream and baby showers, but it's not nothing.; 10/30/12, 9:59 AM
X said...: I'd settle for women on birth control to stop polluting the water supply. where's the EPA?; 10/30/12, 10:00 AM
dreams said...: "No, wait. They're aborting the girls. Never mind."

Thus increasing the value of women. The men can kill each other fighting over them.; 10/30/12, 10:01 AM
Lyssa said...: You know, I'm having a boy, so you could say that my doctor visits for pregnancy are fairly distributed for both sexes.; 10/30/12, 10:03 AM
Dante said...: Everyone who is here is here because a woman went through pregnancy and childbirth. Our bodies are used... we have the right to opt out of this use... but we put many times as much body into the continuance of the species as men do.

A) So is society then required to pay increased health care costs for those women who chose not to reproduce?

B) If someone else is paying for it, it seems you run the risk that others might put restrictions on how you raise kids, etc. And given the way the government works, that applies to everyone, not just those with the subsidies.

C) Forcing subsidization pulls other people into dependency, and increases government.

D) Do you really want government making political decisions about health care? I suppose that works so long as the political winds are blowing the way you want to, but what happens when they blow in a way that is contrary to your fundamental beliefs?; 10/30/12, 10:05 AM
ricpic said...: The greater importance of women than men is made dramatically apparent when women go on a baby strike. Women only have to limit themselves to close to one child per woman as opposed to two plus children per woman for a society to enter a demographic death spiral in a matter of three or four generations.; 10/30/12, 10:05 AM
Jane the Actuary said...: and what happens if the hormones in birth control pills in our water supply is identified as causing early puberty in children? Is it even possible to filter this out?; 10/30/12, 10:06 AM
Issob Morocco said...: I would posit that this is not Gender Politics, but Power Politics, which is more about those in power, keeping power to enact more laws and regulations to hold and grow that power.

"The Woman" vote is about dividing and corraling 'groups' of people based on religion, race, gender, sexual orientation to stay away from the power of ideas like personal freedoms which can cut across those factors and should if we truly want a society based on the individual working in tandem with other individuals to . It should be individuals banding together, regardless of those factors, to do what is right for the people, or at least the majority. Otherwise that is why we have elections, to change our representation. But when you see how districts are created to hold power instead of provide good representation of the people in Congress you see why we need to revisit what is "our government" and how we change it to be more effective, less obtrusive and certainly less costly!

However Change to the current Dems is picking the "right" group or groups for each election to win and hence keep power.

This year we see the Year of the Woman. In 2008, it was the Latino Vote. Which group will propel them to victory is all that matters.

This isn't about presenting ideas or unitying principles, it has become, to the Liberals/Socialists/Progressives running today's Democratic Party, keeping power, the money to fuel it (public sector unions and union dues, something well known to readers here), and denying those who would empower individuals to work in their own localities, communities, and States to fashion the laws and regulations based on need, not dictates from the Ruling Class.

Nov. 6th.; 10/30/12, 10:08 AM
Lyssa said...: and what happens if the hormones in birth control pills in our water supply is identified as causing early puberty in children?

I find that to be a facinating and terrifying idea. My general assumption is that, regardless of the danger or potential danger, no one is going to be willing to risk touching that issue; it's just too heated.; 10/30/12, 10:08 AM
edutcher said...: Dante said...

6) The prostate is in a nasty place, and most men don't like to think about it, much less for it to be examined.

OTOH, the more sex a man has, the healthier it is, so tell your wife it for your continued good health.

PS Many congrats, kristin; 10/30/12, 10:09 AM
dreams said...: "Heart disease is the number one killer of women and few of them give it any worry at all."

They don't have to worry about it prior to menopause for until menopause they are somehow protected from heart disease whereas some males, maybe many of them are already developing heart disease by their teens.; 10/30/12, 10:09 AM
dreams said...: "and what happens if the hormones in birth control pills in our water supply is identified as causing early puberty in children"

I believe the high carb diet is causing the diabetic epidemic and is also causing early puberty too.; 10/30/12, 10:12 AM
Saint Croix said...: On a serious note, this guy is arguing that abortion leads to breast cancer.

There have been 50+ studies indicating a statistically significant link between the two.

But of course it's hotly disputed as part of our abortion wars. For instance, the NCI has paid for, and published, two peer-reviewed studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer. See, for instance, the Daling study.

But on the NCI website, they deny any possible link.

Gloria Galloway of the Toronto Mail and Globe asked for an explanation and she got a very politicized "no comment" from the National Cancer Institute.

So, abortion is very ideological. Abortion might lead to breast cancer. Thus breast cancer is very ideological, too.

Estrogen-only birth control also increases the risk for breast cancer, by the way. The sex hormone estrogen seems to be the primary factor in the disease. And one of the best things you can do to reduce your risk of the disease is have a baby. Particularly if you are young.; 10/30/12, 10:17 AM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: 44 mentions of breasts.

Obama is the 44th administration.

Coincidence?

I think not.; 10/30/12, 10:18 AM
Patrick said...: " when the Islamists take over the world and subject you all to genital mutilation."

That will be covered. It's on page 2075. The deductible is $10 and a goat

Reminds me of a little joke.; 10/30/12, 10:24 AM
MayBee said...: but we put many times as much body into the continuance of the species as men do.

Men's bodies are used too, and they get the health care that corresponds to that use.

I cry foul on that one.
I've have two kids, so I've put 18 months of my body into continuing the species. For the next several years, my husband put his body into feeding, clothing, and sheltering us.
I became the much more expendable body in our household, yet I still consumed much more health care $$ than my husband.

This year, too. I'm not having any kids, but I've had three rounds of mammograms in six months. So have many, many of my friends. We are all healthy women, living in different states, and we are using a lot of health care dollars getting these tests.

Speaking of which, mammograms are being found to be a very expensive, imprecise tool. The number of false positives is just shocking.; 10/30/12, 10:26 AM
Some Seppo said...: Breast cancer tends to hit the wimmin' after their reproductive years. So in fact they are as expendable as the old men with prostate cancer.

According to the current report, the risk that a woman will be diagnosed with breast cancer during the next 10 years, starting at the following ages, is as follows:

Age 30 . . . . . . 0.44 percent (or 1 in 227)
Age 40 . . . . . . 1.47 percent (or 1 in 68)
Age 50 . . . . . . 2.38 percent (or 1 in 42)
Age 60 . . . . . . 3.56 percent (or 1 in 28)
Age 70 . . . . . . 3.82 percent (or 1 in 26)

These probabilities are averages for the whole population.

Not the NLRB's stats; 10/30/12, 10:27 AM
Saint Croix said...: It is thought by many that the abortion-breast cancer (possible) link is why Susan G. Komen for the Cure tried to sever their ties with Planned Parenthood.

PP does breast exams, but not mammograms, so there's no real reason to be sending cancer dollars their way.

The ideological response to Komen stopping the payment to Planned Parenthood--which included people getting fired at Komen--puzzles a lot of us. Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar non-profit, and they dwarf Komen in size. So why all the fuss?

Answer: Planned Parenthood is fighting to silence any purported link between abortion and breast cancer.

Note also that it's widely accepted in the medical establishment that estrogen-based birth control increases the risk for breast cancer. And having a baby decreases the risk. So it's not a shock that a breast cancer group would stop giving money to Planned Parenthood, since they might be at cross-purposes.; 10/30/12, 10:28 AM
Mike said...: I of course agree that our biases and prejudices play a role. Breast cancer gets funding and attention far out of proportion to other diseases. However, you have to consider that basic biology and current medical science also play a large role. Women get pregnant and are therefore going to use more medical care even in a perfectly fair world. All those women and children centers are there to take care of pregnant women, and if they do mammograms and paper smears too, that's a side benefit. Breast cancer is more common than prostate cancer and the screening is much more effective. Hormonal birth control has not (yet) been developed for men so it can't be covered. We have highly effective drugs for testicular cancer but not for ovarian cancer. Cervical cancer is very common. Penile cancer is vanishing rare. Again, I agree that bias and prejudice explains much of the disparity of health care. However, it doesn't explain all of it. A lot of the disparity is simply due to what is available from current medical science.; 10/30/12, 10:36 AM
MayBee said...: Hormonal birth control has not (yet) been developed for men so it can't be covered. We have highly effective drugs for testicular cancer but not for ovarian cancer. Cervical cancer is very common. Penile cancer is vanishing rare. Again, I agree that bias and prejudice explains much of the disparity of health care. However, it doesn't explain all of it. A lot of the disparity is simply due to what is available from current medical science.

Why limit coverage to hormonal birth control? Surgical birth control is available for both men and women, but only covered by Obamacare for women.
Condoms are effective birth control, but not covered by Obamacare, even though things like breast milk pumps are.

And why compare only cancers that affect reproductive parts? If someone has cancer, they have cancer. People who get lymphoma aren't all "whew! at least it isn't breast cancer!".; 10/30/12, 10:42 AM
furious_a said...: "Julia", Sandra Fluke and Lena Dunham, i.e., #5 and the first sentence in #4.; 10/30/12, 10:43 AM
MayBee said...: Here is what is going on in England right now (the NHS pays for mammograms starting at age 50, and they are given every 3 years. Pap smears are also covered every three years)

A review of clinical trials involving a total of 600,000 women concluded it was "not clear whether screening does more good than harm".

It said that for every 2,000 women screened in a 10-year period: one life would be saved, 10 healthy women would have unnecessary treatment and at least 200 women would face psychological distress for many months because of false positive results.; 10/30/12, 10:47 AM
bgates said...: There is a shared social interest in preserving the women for reproductive purposes

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, including the right to define one's self as autonomous when one doesn't want to reproduce but also entitled to special treatment due to a community interest in one's reproductive capacity.; 10/30/12, 11:16 AM
wyo sis said...: (the NHS pays for mammograms starting at age 50, and they are given every 3 years. Pap smears are also covered every three years)

And the appointments are scheduled 4 years in advance.; 10/30/12, 11:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann, although I think your 5 suggestions explain part of the disparity, here is a sixth:

Breast cancer generally afflicts middle-aged people. Prostate cancer typically manifests significantly later in life. So from a coldly actuarial standpoint, etc.; 10/30/12, 11:24 AM
MayBee said...: I was able to get a mammogram/ultrasound appointment within a week via the NHS.

(note: I had two mammograms in the US before moving here. In the first they thought they saw something, so I needed a followup right away (still in the US) and an ultrasound followup in months (here in London). I am fine. None of these tests would have happened had I been in London from the beginning of the year, because I am not 50.

This multi-mammogram thing in the US has happened to several of my friends as well. It, along with the NHS study, really does make me wonder about the current guidelines in the US, considering the cost and effectiveness); 10/30/12, 11:25 AM
Peter said...: Larry J wrote, "Men as a group will continue to die younger than women. That will ease the burden on Social Security."

Not only do women live longer than men, but white Americans live longer than African Americans. And for those who die before collecting any Social Security retirement checks, the entire payout is a whole $250. burial benefit.

So, who's going to point out the obvious- that the actuarial function of Social Security is to transfer the earnings of working black men to retired white women?; 10/30/12, 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: "Breast cancer tends to hit the wimmin' after their reproductive years. So in fact they are as expendable as the old men with prostate cancer."

Depends on your measure and what determines value. Grandmothers have a greater positive influence on the fitness of the grandchildren than do Granddads, if you care to view the question in cold evolutionary terms.; 10/30/12, 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/30/12, 11:37 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, including the right to define one's self as autonomous when one doesn't want to reproduce but also entitled to special treatment due to a community interest in one's reproductive capacity."

Zing! Stay away from my decisions about my ladyparts, but you must pay for care and maintenance and routine service and the consequences of whatever I choose to put in there. It's Flukian.

No, on second thought, that makes me uncomfortable. It's ugly.; 10/30/12, 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Modern women are so spoiled and expect far too much.

Women should just shut the hell up, stop using birth control pills, get pregnant every year and go squat in the woods and have the baby, latch it on her boob and then go back to work in the fields, barefoot.

When her uterus falls out or her bladder leaks, or she grows strange lumps in her breasts, in her twilight years, she should be grateful to have been the vessel in which to contain all of mankind's needs.

Ah woman, expendable once that artificial womb gets perfected, damn Fallopian tubes.

A cautionary tale.; 10/30/12, 11:39 AM
Known Unknown said...: Modern women are so spoiled and expect far too much.

Women should just shut the hell up, stop using birth control pills, get pregnant every year and go squat in the woods and have the baby, latch it on her boob and then go back to work in the fields, barefoot.

When her uterus falls out or her bladder leaks, or she grows strange lumps in her breasts, in her twilight years, she should be grateful to have been the vessel in which to contain all of mankind's needs.

Ah woman, expendable once that artificial womb gets perfected, damn Fallopian tubes.

A cautionary tale.

Inga, the comedienne.; 10/30/12, 11:43 AM
dreams said...: "So, who's going to point out the obvious- that the actuarial function of Social Security is to transfer the earnings of working black men to retired white women?"

The Dems? I think not.; 10/30/12, 11:54 AM
Sigivald said...: 6) Plainly the ACA must be overturned on Equal Protection grounds, since it's not gender-neutral.

(I know, that's ridiculous

But on the other hand, it's no more ridiculous than many things we're actually stuck with.); 10/30/12, 12:08 PM
furious_a said...: Inga: Women should just shut the hell up, stop using birth control pills...

Like Obama, you need Straw Men to appear reasonable.; 10/30/12, 12:13 PM
Mary Beth said...: If women tend to monitor their health and consume more health care services, especially these preventive programs then it would make sense to have programs to encourage men to do these things also.; 10/30/12, 12:14 PM
Methadras said...: And yet it will do ZERO to save anyone any money in any way. It is a giant tax and SCOTUS says so. Thanks Urkel.; 10/30/12, 12:24 PM
MayBee said...: If women tend to monitor their health and consume more health care services, especially these preventive programs then it would make sense to have programs to encourage men to do these things also.

Only if they make medical sense.
Throwing health care services at a constituency in the name of prevention can be more politically beneficial than medically necessary.

Jus calling something preventive doesn't make it necessary.; 10/30/12, 12:35 PM
X said...: Women should just shut the hell up, stop using birth control pills, get pregnant every year and go squat in the woods and have the baby, latch it on her boob and then go back to work in the fields, barefoot.

no one said give up bc pills. just stop polluting the water supply.; 10/30/12, 1:00 PM
MayBee said...: Women should just shut the hell up, stop using birth control pills, get pregnant every year and go squat in the woods and have the baby, latch it on her boob and then go back to work in the fields, barefoot.

This is a great example of why we can't have grown up conversations about government funding of "women's health".; 10/30/12, 1:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Women should not be allowed to pee. It's women's fault that the public water supply is polluted with estrogen. Damn women.; 10/30/12, 1:14 PM
Rusty said...: My prostate is outraged.; 10/30/12, 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Grown ups understand that women because of their reproductive responsibilities, DO need and deserve more health care.

Prostate screening should also get some attention in the ACA, there now, feel better?; 10/30/12, 1:16 PM
Sofa King said...: Prostate screening should also get some attention in the ACA, there now, feel better?

No, because it actually doesn't.; 10/30/12, 1:20 PM
Methadras said...: Inga said...

Modern women are so spoiled and expect far too much.

Women should just shut the hell up, stop using birth control pills, get pregnant every year and go squat in the woods and have the baby, latch it on her boob and then go back to work in the fields, barefoot.

When her uterus falls out or her bladder leaks, or she grows strange lumps in her breasts, in her twilight years, she should be grateful to have been the vessel in which to contain all of mankind's needs.

Ah woman, expendable once that artificial womb gets perfected, damn Fallopian tubes.

A cautionary tale.

Your ability to straw man is again, underwhelming, but you see this is your default state. A state of sheer and utter stupidity. You stoop, once again, to pedantic smarm and snark. No one takes you seriously, you ignorant child.; 10/30/12, 1:33 PM
Saint Croix said...: LOL, Oopsie.

Think of those frogs with six legs! Those poor frogs, all perverted and screwed up, just because you want a baby-free vagina orgasm.

Doesn't he look sad?

Next you'll be driving a car and polluting the earth!

p.s. there are estrogen-free birth control pills, including the mini pill.; 10/30/12, 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Says the child with a bird on its head and wishes liberals dead and then whoosh! on to a fiery eternal hell.

Meth comes across as so adult.; 10/30/12, 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: St Croix, yes he does look quite sad. The Progestin only pill is a good alternative, but may not be as effective.; 10/30/12, 1:44 PM
dreams said...: "Prostate screening should also get some attention in the ACA, there now, feel better?"

We're going to repeal ACA on day one of Romney's presidency. Plus, there is controversy as to the effectiveness of PSA screenings too. Why can't everything be black or white? Why can't men be made out of sugar and spice and everything nice too?; 10/30/12, 1:52 PM
eddie willers said...: I'll just add a funny line I saw on a TV show:

Husband comes home and finds the house in disarray and weary pregnant wife laying on the couch.

Husband: "What have you been doing all day?"

Wife: "Making a lung".; 10/30/12, 1:55 PM
Crunchy Frog said...: That was my point. Women for whatever reason only concern themselves with their ladyparts when it comes to health. I used to think it was just because that's all the predominatly male doctors pushed on them, but what with plenty of gal doctors now I don't understand why this is still so.

I think it's because women tend to choose OB/GYNs as their primary care physicians. If you only go to a ladypart doctor, that's the only thing that's going to be focused on.

Guys don't go to urologists for their PCPs.; 10/30/12, 1:56 PM
Known Unknown said...: latch it on her boob

I'm working on some neat boob-latching technology. I hope it is covered by the ACA.; 10/30/12, 2:02 PM
Crunchy Frog said...: So, who's going to point out the obvious- that the actuarial function of Social Security is to transfer the earnings of working black men to retired white women?

In the Obama economy, working black men have become exceedingly rare.; 10/30/12, 2:09 PM
Crunchy Frog said...: So, who's going to point out the obvious- that the actuarial function of Social Security is to transfer the earnings of working black men to retired white women?

In the Obama economy, working black men have become exceedingly rare.; 10/30/12, 2:13 PM
Known Unknown said...: My wife goes to a separate PCP in addition to an OB/GYN. I would assume most women did rather then burdening their OBs with non-OB related health issues.; 10/30/12, 2:15 PM
test said...: Inga said...
Meth comes across as so adult.

P-K.

eddie willers said...
Husband comes home and finds the house in disarray and weary pregnant wife laying on the couch.

Husband: "What have you been doing all day?"

Wife: "Making a lung".

Now that's funny.; 10/30/12, 2:17 PM
Michael said...: well we are already hearing from the pre-ACA doctors that PSA screening is probably just a waste of time. Like annual exams which I heard yesterday are also being questioned. Well, do as you wish but I am having my PSA checked and I sure as hell am not relying on the government for help. Or advice.; 10/30/12, 3:11 PM
Saint Croix said...: The Progestin only pill is a good alternative, but may not be as effective.

I have a theory that all birth control is 100% effective, except for that damn pilot error.; 10/30/12, 3:12 PM
dreams said...: My Dr. checks my PSA every two years and so far it has always been very low.; 10/30/12, 5:35 PM
Q said...: Women actually need and deserve more care. Men are expendable. There is a shared social interest in preserving the women for reproductive purposes ..

Sounds like an argument for kicking women out of the boardroom and into the bedroom. We can't really have a "social interest" in using women for reproductive purposes if women are not actually doing that reproducing. And they're not actually doing it. So the unprecedented obsession with womens sexual organs is more than a little odd. At this point they're looking a bit like the appendix.; 10/30/12, 5:36 PM
Q said...: We believe our hearts are good.

An evidently erroneous belief. But why do you believe your breasts are bad?; 10/30/12, 5:39 PM
Q said...: I'm just being realistic about why, as a polity, we are doing what we're doing.

You're not, really. If your reasoning was correct then we should give that extra health-care to women who actually have children. Not to generic women.

We do it as a polity for the same reason we do do most things as a polity - because politicians believe that there are votes to be gotten there.; 10/30/12, 5:47 PM
jp said...: Is this why more women are voting for Obama?
Does this make him a sexist?
Should we men sue?; 10/30/12, 8:10 PM
JamesB.BKK said...: "Everyone who is here is here because a woman went through pregnancy and childbirth. Our bodies are used... we have the right to opt out of this use... but we put many times as much body into the continuance of the species as men do."

Ah, the debt of humanity, including of generations yet unborn on the hook for national indebtedness incurred by spendthrifts, is to "women" and not "mothers?"; 10/30/12, 8:33 PM
JamesB.BKK said...: "Everyone who is here is here because a woman went through pregnancy and childbirth. Our bodies are used... we have the right to opt out of this use... but we put many times as much body into the continuance of the species as men do."

Ah, the debt of humanity, including of generations yet unborn on the hook for national indebtedness incurred by spendthrifts, is to "women" and not "mothers?"; 10/30/12, 8:34 PM
Saint Croix said...: There is a shared social interest in preserving the women for reproductive purposes ..

Dr. Strangelove!; 10/30/12, 8:47 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Inga,

Grown ups understand that women because of their reproductive responsibilities, DO need and deserve more health care.

What reproductive responsibilities? We have none. Nothing obligates a woman in America today to bear a child.

As for whether we "deserve" more health care, maybe when we get male life expectancy somewhere near female life expectancy, OK? Until then, I think men are the creditors, women the debtors. You'd better believe that if the life expectancy stats went the other direction, there would be a hullabaloo about it.; 10/30/12, 10:01 PM
Known Unknown said...: "Everyone who is here is here because a woman went through pregnancy and childbirth. Our bodies are used... we have the right to opt out of this use... but we put many times as much body into the continuance of the species as men do."

So women ARE responsible for all of the jackass men running around. Gotcha.; 10/30/12, 10:47 PM