Why Are Men Dominating the Debate About Birth Control for Women?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Journey said:
Ok, I have given this some thought and appreciate you laying it out for me as you did, it was helpful thank you. As for my own thoughts in response - well they won't be as succinct but here goes ...
a) I come from a place where hospitals are not run by the Church (any church), so the idea that any healthcare is mandated by religious beliefs (outside the home or church itself) boggles my mind. And that, in itself, is a whole other topic ha!
b) Such a fight by so many over the cost - has anyone arguing the idea, based on cost, really crunched the numbers of providing free birth control to those in need vs the long term costs of unwanted pregnancies or other associated health issues if BC is not provided? *see article link below*
c)This one I will not comment on simply because I don't want to get into the whole "the left is evil/the right is evil" nature of US politics which is counterproductive and pisses me off (how's that for honesty haha).

Why Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance | Moneyland | TIME.com
Click to expand...

Of the health plans, 20 percent said costs would even out because they already budget for contraception in the premium, 6.7 percent said it would drive up pharmacy costs but decrease medical costs, while 33.3 percent weren't sure. None said it would lead to net savings.

"They think it will raise pharmacy costs and won't lower medical costs," said Rhonda Greenapple, chief executive officer of Reimbursement Intelligence. "The idea that preventative care is going to reduce overall healthcare costs, they don't buy it."

Last week, insurers including Aetna Inc questioned the precedent set by Obama's plan that would force them to pay for coverage with no clear way of recouping the expense.
Click to expand...
Insurers see costs in Obama birth control rule | Reuters
 
"The idea that preventative care is going to reduce overall healthcare costs, they don't buy it."

Why then does the US spend more on healthcare than any other nation and yet the nations whose healthcare is based on preventative care (universal healthcare) rank above the US in terms of health, satisfaction and life expectancy? Things that make you go hmmmm...
 
Journey said:
"The idea that preventative care is going to reduce overall healthcare costs, they don't buy it."

Why then does the US spend more on healthcare than any other nation and yet the nations whose healthcare is based on preventative care (universal healthcare) rank above the US in terms of health, satisfaction and life expectancy? Things that make you go hmmmm...
Click to expand...

Link?
 
Journey said:
There are many sources readily available so did not think I needed to provide a link but to save you the time of typing life expectancy worldwide into Google, here you go:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html or
HEALTHY LIFE EXPECTANCY BY GENDER
Click to expand...

I was afraid of that. There are many factors that affect life expectancy. You're taking the most simplistic approach that many people fall for. The best way to measure health care is to correlate life expectancy with gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Wealth means better health as the old adage goes, and that's true.

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/life-expectancy-and-gdp-per-capita-correlation.jpg

Here's another one.
GDP - per capita (PPP) vs. Life expectancy at birth

And then have USA at #1 with the highest rate on surviving cancer.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba596.pdf

Currently we have three health care system in the U.S., Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance rather than just one health care system such as "universal health care."

Other things that affect life expectancy is because of car accidents and violent crime, and so on.

Car Fatalities in America | ThinkProgress
 
kokonut said:
I was afraid of that. There are many factors that affect life expectancy. You're taking the most simplistic approach that many people fall for. The best way to measure health care is to correlate life expectancy with gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Wealth means better health as the old adage goes, and that's true.

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/life-expectancy-and-gdp-per-capita-correlation.jpg

Here's another one.
GDP - per capita (PPP) vs. Life expectancy at birth

And then have USA at #1 with the highest rate on surviving cancer.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba596.pdf

Currently we have three health care system in the U.S., Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance rather than just one health care system such as "universal health care."

Other things that affect life expectancy is because of car accidents and violent crime, and so on.

Car Fatalities in America | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, this changes nothing ... the US spends more on healthcare than any other nation yet is ranked below numerous other nations who spend less. Even based on the 2003 numbers you provided, Canada, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Singapore, etc etc, have a considerably lower GDP than the US and still remain higher in life expectancy. So, if you are right in saying wealth means better health, the numbers should reflect that, but they don't.

Now to avoid going off on a whole other tangent here, let me summarize my original point as it related to this thread ... in my view, based on what I have read and heard, preventative care - in all forms - is cheaper in the long run and access to this kind of care should be available to all.
 
Journey said:
As far as I can see, this changes nothing ... the US spends more on healthcare than any other nation yet is ranked below numerous other nations who spend less. Even based on the 2003 numbers you provided, Canada, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Singapore, etc etc, have a considerably lower GDP than the US and still remain higher in life expectancy. So, if you are right in saying wealth means better health, the numbers should reflect that, but they don't.

Now to avoid going off on a whole other tangent here, let me summarize my original point as it related to this thread ... in my view, based on what I have read and heard, preventative care - in all forms - is cheaper in the long run and access to this kind of care should be available to all.
Click to expand...

Yep. A healthy nation is a happy and productive one.
 
Journey said:
As far as I can see, this changes nothing ... the US spends more on healthcare than any other nation yet is ranked below numerous other nations who spend less. Even based on the 2003 numbers you provided, Canada, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Singapore, etc etc, have a considerably lower GDP than the US and still remain higher in life expectancy. So, if you are right in saying wealth means better health, the numbers should reflect that, but they don't.

Now to avoid going off on a whole other tangent here, let me summarize my original point as it related to this thread ... in my view, based on what I have read and heard, preventative care - in all forms - is cheaper in the long run and access to this kind of care should be available to all.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's pretty much an established fact that the US government spends far more per capita than the Canadian government does on healthcare.
 
I waited 6 days for elective (cosmetic) surgery on my ears. 2 of those were weekend days.
 
Banjo said:
Yes, it's pretty much an established fact that the US government spends far more per capita than the Canadian government does on healthcare.
Click to expand...

The US government spends nearly half of all healthcare dollars. It is a mess.
 
Beowulf said:
The US government spends nearly half of all healthcare dollars. It is a mess.
Click to expand...

The problem is, healthcare in the USA is a private sector. So the government will be bilked to the maximum.
 
Banjo said:
The problem is, healthcare in the USA is a private sector. So the government will be bilked to the maximum.
Click to expand...

Plus it is outrageously expensive. The whole system needs to be rehauled. The more expensive it gets, the higher our taxes will climb. In Nazi Germany they raised taxes to about 80% to pay for all their social programs, and while our tax rate isn't nearly that high, it is getting close to half.
 
Journey said:
As far as I can see, this changes nothing ... the US spends more on healthcare than any other nation yet is ranked below numerous other nations who spend less. Even based on the 2003 numbers you provided, Canada, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Singapore, etc etc, have a considerably lower GDP than the US and still remain higher in life expectancy. So, if you are right in saying wealth means better health, the numbers should reflect that, but they don't.

Now to avoid going off on a whole other tangent here, let me summarize my original point as it related to this thread ... in my view, based on what I have read and heard, preventative care - in all forms - is cheaper in the long run and access to this kind of care should be available to all.
Click to expand...

Again, you're using that as a bogeyman. I've pointed out that there are a variety of factors that can and do affect overall life expectancy. It could be a cultural/genetic thing, the kind of food people are commonly raised with, lifestyle differences, wars, diseases, and so on. The key thing is that wealth builds better health and that is true without a doubt. With greater GDP per capita comes with better health resources and living standards, people tend to live a lot more longer than, say, 3rd world nations. 100 years ago our life expectancy for male was at 50 years old. We're now at 78 years old while Japan's is at 82, not terribly a wide gap compared to Angola which is at 38 years old. Look at Qatar's life expectancy which is 75 years old for male but their GDP ($103,000) is more than twice than the United States ($48,000). By your conventional expectation Qatar's "health" should be much better than the United States. Heck, should be better than Japan's!
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A very simplistic view of yours that's flawed.

As for preventative care it can be cheaper for the person paying for it but for insurance companies, not necessarily so and depending on what care we're talking about. Preventive health care may save lives but it does not necessarily save money (ergo - cheaper).
When Preventive Care Costs More - NYTimes.com
 
Banjo said:
The problem is, healthcare in the USA is a private sector. So the government will be bilked to the maximum.
Click to expand...

No. We have three health care system, private, Medicaid, and Medicare.
 
kokonut said:
No. We have three health care system, private, Medicaid, and Medicare.
Click to expand...

What he means is that the actual healthcare providers are all private. The government simply pays the bills. Overcharging government for goods and services is an institution in this country, in every single area of commerce, from building bombs and roads to schoolhouses and healthcare. Government contractors make out like bandits, but nobody's stopping them. That's the name of the game.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
What he means is that the actual healthcare providers are all private. The government simply pays the bills. Overcharging government for goods and services is an institution in this country, in every single area of commerce, from building bombs and roads to schoolhouses and healthcare. Government contractors make out like bandits, but nobody's stopping them. That's the name of the game.
Click to expand...
Sure, govt is bilked but not necessarily to the maximum. In Medicare we have $60 billion dollars a year fraud (double billing, adding extra charges, etc) and waste problem.
 
kokonut said:
Again, you're using that as a bogeyman. I've pointed out that there are a variety of factors that can and do affect overall life expectancy. It could be a cultural/genetic thing, the kind of food people are commonly raised with, lifestyle differences, wars, diseases, and so on. The key thing is that wealth builds better health and that is true without a doubt. With greater GDP per capita comes with better health resources and living standards, people tend to live a lot more longer than, say, 3rd world nations. 100 years ago our life expectancy for male was at 50 years old. We're now at 78 years old while Japan's is at 82, not terribly a wide gap compared to Angola which is at 38 years old. Look at Qatar's life expectancy which is 75 years old for male but their GDP ($103,000) is more than twice than the United States ($48,000). By your conventional expectation Qatar's "health" should be much better than the United States. Heck, should be better than Japan's!List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A very simplistic view of yours that's flawed.

As for preventative care it can be cheaper for the person paying for it but for insurance companies, not necessarily so and depending on what care we're talking about. Preventive health care may save lives but it does not necessarily save money (ergo - cheaper).
When Preventive Care Costs More - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

re bolded: that was not my conventional expectation, that was yours. You were the one who introduced the "wealth means health" argument and none of what you provided proves that. Oh sure, granted, if we are comparing underdeveloped 'third' world countries to developed nations, yes spending makes a difference. We are looking at the fact that the US outspends all other nations on healthcare (and has one of the highest GDP based on what you provided) but that does not translate to the US having the longest life expectancies nor the healthiest or best cared for citizens. Houston, there is a problem.

Oh and the NYTimes article on preventative care says it is quite possible that the cost of preventative care could equal the cost of present care (as is) but nonetheless, may be a boon to a patient's health. So here again, cost is rather a 'wash' factor but patient health improves. Isn't improved patient healthcare the goal of any healthcare reform?

Call my views simplistic and flawed but they seem to make good common sense based on history and up-to-date information thus far.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
What he means is that the actual healthcare providers are all private. The government simply pays the bills. Overcharging government for goods and services is an institution in this country, in every single area of commerce, from building bombs and roads to schoolhouses and healthcare. Government contractors make out like bandits, but nobody's stopping them. That's the name of the game.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Oh! I know the answer to that one.

Because by todays standards of professionalism you are not supposed to be friends with, or emotionally involved with anyone for whom you make a decision or perform a service. Doctors, lawyers, police, and interpreters are supposed to be "objective" and have no involvement with the people whose lives may depend on their decisions.

Therefore men should make all decisions concerning birth control and women should make all decisions concerning circumcision, castration, and erectile dysfunction.

Did I get that right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top