Three takes on Obamacare’s discrimination against men
“There are at least 7 new agencies and departments devoted solely to women while there is not one office for men or male specific ailments.” This is despite the fact that men have a shorter life span and die sooner of the 13 leading causes of death. The group hurt most by this, ironically, is black men. Generally, they die soonest and have the worst health in the country — and they helped elect Obama on the mistaken belief he’d help them.
President Obama wants to spread the health around — but mostly to women. Improving the health mostly of the healthier, longer-living group — women — is like improving the wages mostly of the higher-earning group — men. What would women say about the latter? The exact same thing men should say about the former. -Male Matters
December 14, 2010
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously told the American people that Congress needed “to pass the [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] so that you can find out what is in it,” and with each passing day Americans are learning more and more about what their government has planned for them.
Among the many expressed frustrations of the new health care law’s opponents has been the addition of more unwieldy bureaucracies to the already bloated federal government. The massive law creates 159 new government agencies.
Of the many new boards, agencies, and programs the law creates, those implemented for the benefit of women are among the most common, a fact some say renders the law inherently unequal.
There are at least 7 new agencies and departments devoted solely to women while there is not one office for men or male specific ailments.
Men’s health advocates long have pushed for an Office of Men’s Health to act as a companion to the Office on Women’s Health, established in 1991. Instead of rectifying that disparity, the new health care law intensified it.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, has been critical of Obama’s gender policies, charging that his administration has pushed initiatives that favor women over men. According to Roth, the health care bill was no different.
“[The women’s] lobby is very well funded, active and vocal. It is really paradoxical because women in many ways are doing better than men, so for example, if you do a search in the health care bill there is not one mention of prostate’ and are over 40 mentions of breast’ and men are tax payers, they should get equal health treatment,” Roth told The Daily Caller.
Hadley Heath, health care policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, said that women got more consideration because it was politically expedient. [To see why this is, read “Is there a war on women,” by Male Matters]
“Women came out big in 2008, and they were a very big voting bloc for [Obama],” Heath told TheDC. “Women as voters really care about health care, health reform because we often make decisions for ourselves, our families and dependents about health care. So clearly this is an issue that is important to women, women are important as voters to any politician.”
Nothing will change until enough men start complaining. One inspiration for complaining: “When Obamacare Takes Effect, Young, Healthy Men Will Be Hurt“
Roth stressed that the high number of women’s agencies and lack of corresponding men’s offices was not just a symbolic display of inequality, but one that would have real world repercussions, namely in the distribution of research funding.
“What is interesting is that all these offices for women in the health care bill — that generates grants for research of women’s health issues,” Roth said. “So it is not just that they have those offices, but those offices are accompanied by pots of money for research. So it means that they are skewing the research in favor of women over men.”
“Women have substantially longer life expectancy than men. So in an unfettered life insurance market, the actuarially fair premium for women would be lower than it is for men. Is this gender discrimination? I don’t think so. If people pay for what they get, I would say everyone is being treated fairly. But suppose we pass a law saying that life insurers have to charge the same premium, regardless of sex. That would cause women to be over-charged and men to be under-charged. I would call that discrimination. Completely unjustified discrimination.
Think about that example. A law that purports to outlaw discrimination would in fact be a law that forces insurers to discriminate. And the victims would all be women. A similar injustice happens under ObamaCare. Except this time, it’s the men who lose out.” [See this irony.]
At Healthcare.gov, compare men’s nonreproductive-related preventive health services with women’s.
More for Women, Nothing for Men
Hadley Heath | Independent Women’s Forum | December 11, 2010
As the gargantuan Health Care Law begins to reveal itself and the scores of new government agencies it has created, some noticed that while at least seven of these new agencies are created directly for the benefit of women, there is apparently nothing for men. As an example of the disparity, “breast” is mentioned some 40 times in the law, but prostate not once.
When asked about the discrepancy Hadley Heath, a health care policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, noted that women voted for Obama in larger numbers, so they are being rewarded at the expense of men:
Women came out big in 2008, and they were a very big voting bloc for [Obama]. Women as voters really care about health care, health reform because we often make decisions for ourselves, our families and dependents about health care. So clearly this is an issue that is important to women, women are important as voters to any politician.
Scott Williams of the Men’s Health Network suggested that women have an advantage when it comes to lobbying, and said that they are both more vocal and more aware of the politics surrounding the issue. Williams thinks men need to work harder to bring their issues to attention, but he neglects to mention that many of the organizations and agencies created solely for the benefit of women have created a very loud, active and well-paid army of women whose job is to shove men’s concerns aside in favor of women. [Emphasis by Male Matters.]
As the private institutions men used to rely on to defend their interests were eviscerated by “equality” legislation, new, public institutions exclusively for women were set up. Public institutions have an inherent advantage as they are funded by all of us whether we want to pay for them or not, and their initiatives are often enforced by the courts, and ultimately law enforcement. This is really why women continue to win victory after victory: they are a legally privileged class.
The result of this is naked government discrimination against men, and a disregard for the welfare of half the adult population of the United States that goes beyond mere neglect; due to the fact that men are forced to fund these measures it could fairly be called an act of tyranny.
- A brief note on gender discrimination in health insurance costs
- “Young Man: Uncle Sam Wants YOU…Or At Least Your Wallet“
- “Why so few men protest anti-male sexism (Or: Why Men Fear Women)“
- “Women’s Advocates Wrong About Why More Women Than Men Die of Heart Disease”
- “Health Disparites Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why”
- “Five Questions about the Health’s Law Mandate to Cover Birth Control”: “…[W]aving co-payments for services for one sex but not the other raises issues of discrimination.”