Open Discussion:
CNN Reports on landmark legislation regarding nationalized healthcare:
Washington (CNN) – In a landmark ruling that will impact the November election and the lives of every American, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the controversial health care law championed by President Barack Obama.
The narrow 5-4 ruling was a victory for Obama but also will serve as a rallying issue for Republicans calling for repeal of the Affordable Care Act passed by Democrats in 2010.
What do you think? How will this decision change America? How will it affect men?
Photo of stethoscope courtesy of Shutterstock.
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
The Republicans are opposing this for the sake of opposing and the SC nay-sayers are similar.
At least common sense prevailed in the end.
Republicans just opposing for the sake of opposing?
Is that your common sense prevailing?
That’s not an assumption–they’ve said as much, explicitly. The whole point of their upcoming repeal vote, which they’re not even attempting to implement or broker, is to demonstrate opposition for the sake of opposition.
Yes. We on the right are doing it just to be evil.
I like being evil.
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This ruling is the greatest distaster for men’s rights and men’s health in American history. You can read why here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vpw1c/why_tomorrow_is_a_big_day_for_the_mrm/
It is also a personal distaster for me. Every male in my family has died of prostate cancer except my father. My father is alive because of the PSA test. Uner Obamacare, men cannot have PSA tests, because cancer treatment for men is too expensive. PSA testing was removed from my heatlh care plan last year, according to the USPSTF mandate. This is the Obamacare death panel, and I am one of the people who they are trying to “write off”.
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/prostatecancerscreening.htm
Coincidentally, my PSA spiked to 4.1 on 6/30/2011. My doctor was very worried, and this year’s test would have determined if I need life saving medical treatment. Now, I can never know.
A 4.1 PSA is the same level my father had when his life was saved. Obamacare mandates that my health care is too expensive, and has to be cut, to pay for perks and privileges for women:
1) Free birth control for women, but NOT for men.
2) Free tubal ligation for women, but NO vasectomy for men.
3) Free anti-cancer vaccination for girls, but NOT for boys.
4) Free smoking cessation for women, but NOT for men.
5) Free STD treatment for women, but NOT for men.
6) Breast health for women, but NO prostate health for men.
7) Violence prevention for women, but NOT for men.
I am disgusted with the Supreme Court, and with America, today. But most of all I am disgusted by feminsits, who are celebrating at the neglect and discrimination against men:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/06/28/sorry-canada/#comment-468703
You need to show me some evidence of these things being true… You’re saying that they won’t give you antibiotics if you’re a man with an STD?
Show me the proof of that.
You need new insurance if your insurance doesn’t cover PSA for high-risk individuals.
I believe the violence act, and I believe the HPV vaccine (though I’m certain they’ll include it with the new studies on men and throat cancer).
Otherwise, I need to see proof. And not from something written by an MRA. I want objective proof.
1) “You need to show me some evidence of these things being true… You’re saying that they won’t give you antibiotics if you’re a man with an STD?”
No, I am saying that you are guaranteed free treatment in all cases (USPSTF A), and in some cases I will have to pay a co-pay (USPSTF B) or the entire cost (USPSTF C/D).
2) “Show me the proof of that.”
“The USPSTF recommends screening for chlamydial infection for all sexually active non-pregnant young women aged 24 and younger and for older non-pregnant women who are at increased risk. (USPSTF A).”
3) “You need new insurance if your insurance doesn’t cover PSA for high-risk individuals.”
“This recommendation applies to men in the U.S. population that do not have symptoms that are highly suspicious for prostate cancer, regardless of age, race, or FAMILY HISTORY.”
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf12/prostate/draftrecprostate.htm
Hi Joanna.
How about these articles I wrote and which GMP published in April?
http://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/contraception-2/feds-to-men-buy-your-own-aspirin-and-put-it-between-your-knees/
http://goodmenproject.com/politics-2/men-to-feds-are-we-in-this-together-or-not/
Joanna,
Maybe I was wrong to say hurtful things about feminists. I was angry at a specific group of cruel and radical feminists who showed no compassion or restraint on this day, when so much has been lost for men and boys.
In contrast, the egalitarian feminists at /r/feminism did no such thing. Sure, there was some happiness for the benefits that Obamacare extends to women, but no gloating about the loss, pain, and death that men will face. I thanked them in this way:
“My gratitute is genuine. The events of this day have left the MRM devastated. Other feminist sites are dancing on our graves. I appreciate that /r/feminism has shown restraint and compassion. Would I have shown the same compassion for you, if fate delt a crippling blow to you? I don’t know. I am here to say thanks, in the only way I know how.”
While we are on the same coverage same cost thing. I want my car insurance with a perfect record to be lowered to a females level. (under 25)
The SCOTUS decision means I can keep the health insurance I’m only able to afford thanks to the mandates laid down by the ACA. I’d have to be pretty stupid to oppose it.
I have always opposed (and will continue to oppose) the ACA because there remains no evidence that it will actually reduce healthcare premiums.
What it probably will do is force people onto Medicaid, which fixes payments to hospitals. The hospitals then foist the costs onto private insurers (this already happens, look up “medicaid differential rate structure” if you’re unsure about this). This will drive up the costs of private insurance, forcing more people into Medicaid, which will then drive up rates, resulting in a spiral of reduced care and higher premiums. I’m not looking forward to paying more for less, but the ACA leaves me no choice in the long run.
However, buried within the ruling there is a bit of good news for Libertarians like myself. Chief Justice Roberts grounded the decision in the taxing power of the federal government, and explicitly rejected the reasoning that the commerce clause could support this law. This is extremely important because there hasn’t been a serious check on commerce clause power since Roberts took over as Chief Justice. In the long run, this has the capacity to significantly limit the power of the federal government, something that Libertarians like myself can be happy about.
It reduced my premiums to where I can actually pay for health coverage now. Also reduced my out-of-pocket cost due to the mandate on cost-free preventive care. Also ensured I could even GET insurance, due to having preexisting conditions. Your theory does not field-test well.
The day my premiums go down, I will agree with you. They have gone up the past two years. My experience is typical:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/business/health-insurance-costs-rise-sharply-this-year-study-shows.html?pagewanted=all
Data > anecdotes.
And had your premiums previously been in decline? Data =/= cherrypicking.
That’s a non-sequitur. The Affordable Care Act was originally sold using the pitch that it would reduce healthcare costs. It has not.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41271.html
In order for the Affordable Care Act to fulfill its promised benefits, I need to see my premiums go down. I have not seen this. Whether or not they were headed downwards beforehand is immaterial: the legislation was sold to the American public as a way to control healthcare costs.
Until such time as it actually does its job, the legislation is a failure.
Noah, A sincere question for you:
Do you believe that the Obama Administration should not bar men from cost-free access to reproductive health care services?
Or do you support the Administration’s decision to discriminate against equal access by men to cost-free reproductive health care services?
Thanks, Greg
The reproductive access that is denied to men is important, but not life saving. The more recent cuts go much deeper, all the way to the bone. In particular, taking PSA screening away from men in an intentional attempt to keep men from knowing when we have prostate cancer is one of the most shockingly evil things I have seen in my life. This effectively makes PSA insurance coverage unobtainable in the United States:
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/prostatecancerscreening.htm
Here is the graph from one of the papers quoted by the USPSTF. It compares survivors who are treated with those who are not:
http://i.imgur.com/zfHof.jpg
Here is the executive summary:
“This means that 1410 men would need to be screened … to prevent one death from prostate cancer.”
Anthony,
USPSTF, by its nature, is a process that insists on high levels of proof of effectiveness. The problem for men is that PSA screening is a not highly effective diagnostic test.
Because there is no men’s health care lobby, it is uncertain when or whether better predictive tests for prostate cancer will be developed.
This is emblematic of the way in which lack of a men’s lobby produces lack of research dollars which then cause men to be medical underserved.
Our political system is designed this way. Read Federalist Paper #10 again.
My gay friends got this right years ago: Silence = Death.
Crickets.
Speaks volumes.
Glad to see a majority on the court for a limit to Congress’s commerce power. Maybe the Administrative State will be tamed yet.
No matter how you spin it, and I’ve heard dozens since lunch, this is the best day President Obama has had in a long time.
Some claimed an overturn of this unpopular plan would actually help him, but I never bought that. This is his singular legislation, and for it to have been judged unconstitutional would have been a disaster.
Going forward Republicans and conservatives must work overtime to ensure this is a Pyrrhic victory, but today, those who support the President are entitled to some celebrating–its only fair.