The Affordable Care Act requires everyone to carry insurance. So why doesn’t it give men and women the same coverage? Part two of a series on the ACA.
The decision not to guarantee poor, middle-class and young men the same access as women to birth control and reproductive health services is especially shocking because President Obama’s healthcare plan already went out of its way to level the health care playing field between men and women in two other, fundamental ways.
As is common knowledge by now, the ACA requires all individuals to carry health insurance or to pay fines that will be collected through the IRS. Dr. LoSasso noted to GMP that young men have been the least likely to carry health insurance, instead gambling on their invincibility. The ACA individual mandate requires young men to bear the common burden of health insurance costs. Under the ACA young men will no longer be so-called “free riders.”
Second, and just as important, the ACA bans gender-based insurance premium pricing. Insurance companies charge women more than men for the very same individual health insurance policies, and group policies for groups with more women than men also tend to cost both employer and employees more, in the majority of states.
As Adam Sonfield explained to GMP, the primary reason insurance companies currently charge men less is that men, especially young men, just don’t go to the doctor nearly as quickly or as often as do women.
In effect, the sex-neutral insurance pricing required by the ACA already shifts some of the cost of future medical services consumed by women to men. The 2012 report cited above estimated the additional premium costs now borne by women to be over $1 billion a year. Thus, under the ACA, men can expect to bear at least half of those costs—half a billion dollars a year—for services consumed by women.
The theory behind these two fundamental health insurance payment changes wrought by the ACA, is that we are all in it together when it comes to healthcare. Until, in the case of men’s access to reproductive health services and preventive care for men’s diseases, we aren’t.
Limiting Men’s Ability To Control Their Own Fertility
When it comes to contraception and reproductive health, health care providers already woefully underserve men. The Guttmacher Institute concluded that there are “substantial missed opportunities to educate and counsel adolescent men in health settings. Although two of three males aged 15-19 had a physical exam in the past year, fewer than 20 percent received counseling or advice from a health care provider about birth control or STIs, including HIV.”
Adam Sonfield pointed out to GMP that few family-planning clinics offer programs focused on, or friendly to, men. Mr. Sonfield referred GMP to the most recent government data: males were a mere 8% of U.S. family planning clinic patients in 2010. This at least increased from a scant 3% in 1999. The same Guttmacher Institute report cited in the previous paragraph lists more depressing statistics: Only four percent of clinics offer special hours for males. More than a quarter of young men have never received information about birth control from either school or their parents, and the levels are even higher among African-American and Hispanic men. Imposing extra costs on men seeking contraceptive and STI prevention counseling, and creating insurance disincentives for doctors to reach out to men, will not help.
Erin Gloria Ryan put it well in her recent Jezebel post: “When a woman consents to sex, she is not also consenting to pregnancy.” A woman in the U.S. has a constitutional right to terminate hosting a fetus and unilaterally end any obligation to support and raise a child. A precisely opposite legal regime applies to men. When a man has heterosexual sex he is presumed to have consented to paternity and a couple of decades of child support. To control their own fertility, straight men, unlike women, are entirely dependent on complete abstinence or the highly competent use of very limited and often ineffective birth control methods.
In a February 25, 2012 letter to the editor of The New York Times, Cory L. Richards, the executive vice president of The Guttmatcher Institute, stated:
While it may not be so to a method like the condom, cost has been shown to be a significant barrier to the most effective methods available because these methods can cost hundreds of dollars up front. When a California health insurer eliminated cost-sharing for long-acting intrauterine devices, implants and injectibles, enrollees’ use of these methods increased substantially, and their risk of contraceptive failure plummeted.
Yet the total cost of an IUD or implant is equivalent to (and in some cases less than) the cost of vasectomy. Further, reversible female procedures such as IUDs or implants, and permanent sterilization from tubal ligation or vasectomy (all with failure rates <1 percent) are all vastly more effective than condoms (with a 17 percent failure rate in normal use). Cost and effectiveness are simply not rational reasons to subject men to cost-sharing for vasectomies, while covering IUDs or implants without cost-sharing by women. Mr. Sonfield assured GMP that despite Ms. Richard’s letter to The New York Times, “Guttmacher fully supports no-cost-sharing coverage of vasectomies.”
Worse, the HHS decision to allow insurers to bar men from no-cost-sharing birth control is likely to deny U.S. men truly effective, reversible birth control methods for years to come. We know from decades of research that effective, reversible hormonal and non-hormonal male birth control is achievable. But it will be costly to bring male birth control pills, implants, and procedures through FDA trials to market. Why would Big Pharma invest in the effort after HHS has decided that men can be subject to often sizeable co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles for hormonal birth control? Aren’t those cost barriers more likely to depress demand, making it less likely products will be brought to market? U.S. trials for effective, reversible non-hormonal procedures like RISUG—renamed Vasalgel in the U.S.—which don’t result in pharmaceutical royalties have yet to receive funding from the sources one would normally think interested. Will venture capitalists, non-profits, or foundations invest the needed $4 to $5 million in developing and marketing effective, reversible, non-hormonal birth control to men, if the resulting products do not have a level cost playing field with birth control methods for women?
Ultimately, the Federal decision to disregard men’s need for equal access to birth control has tragic consequences not just for men, but for women and children too:
The father’s intention status appears to have significant effects on his involvement during pregnancy and following the birth. This, in turn, is associated both with the mother’s receipt of prenatal care and her likelihood of reducing smoking during pregnancy. In addition, infants born to mothers and fathers who differed in their pregnancy intention face significantly higher risks of several adverse maternal behaviors and birth outcomes than those born to parents both intending the birth.
Men understand this, apparently better than the federal government, and consistently report strong desire for effective, reversible male birth control. With just two practical, but flawed methods available to men—condoms and vasectomy—men still account for a third of total contraceptive use in the U.S. In the Netherlands, which has national health insurance that covers vasectomies, half of couples 35 and older use sterilization, 70 percent of which are vasectomies. A massive study involving more than 9000 men aged 18-50 in nine countries, including 1500 men in the U.S. alone, found that between 50% and 83% of the men currently used contraceptive methods and over 55% of men (reaching as high as 71% in some countries) wanted male hormonal birth control. The notion that men don’t want or won’t use effective, reversible, long-term contraception is ludicrous and offensive.
Saddling men alone with extra cost burdens for reproductive health services not only denies men equal opportunity to control their own fertility and be free of STIs, but also artificially discourages men from joint responsibility for reproduction. It runs counter to responsible fatherhood efforts. It is profoundly sexist.
A Failure of Consciousness, a Failure of Leadership
The Federal decision to mandate no-cost preventive reproductive healthcare only for women must be viewed against the backdrop of 1) the sex discrimination prohibition in the ACA; 2) gender-neutral insurance pricing and the individual mandate under the ACA; 3) widespread lack of reproductive health and suicide prevention services for men; 4) the five-year life expectancy gap that disfavors U.S. men; and 5) the 50-year drought of public or private research funding for truly effective, reversible birth control for men. Any given man is some woman’s son or grandson, just as any given woman is some man’s daughter or granddaughter. Are we in this together, or aren’t we?
It is fantastic that women have reproductive rights and many contraceptive choices. No-cost preventive care addressing women’s unique health concerns is necessary. That is not the issue. The issue is that this administration and leading health organizations that purport to believe in widespread access to health care do not seem to hold men in equal regard to women when it comes to birth control, STI services, HIV counseling and screening and counseling for intimate partner violence.
When contacted by GMP, for example, Planned Parenthood was unable to cite anything it had done—or would do—with its impressive lobbying and public affairs operation to encourage HHS to provide men with equal access to reproductive health care under the ACA.
“Many in the field believe reproductive health is synonymous with women’s health,” Adam Sonfield told GMP. He explained men’s health advocates are far less organized than advocates for children or women. Men’s tendency not to see doctors as quickly or as often as women may reduce the medical community’s consciousness of men’s needs.
The Guttmacher Institute’s last major review of men’s reproductive health needs and barriers to meeting those needs found the following barriers to addressing the reproductive health of men in their own right: Absence of political will to turn advocacy into action; Lack of funding; Logistical challenges of incorporating men’s services into existing programs; and Inadequate staff.
Men are carefully trained from infancy not to show pain, not to complain about hard knocks and not to seek help. Men are also inaccurately assumed to be omniscient about matters of sex and sexual health. Under these circumstances shouldn’t it be the duty of HHS officials, Members of Congress, public health school deans, medical school professors, public health advocates, the philanthropists and boards who direct major foundations, and maybe even a U.S. President, to demonstrate leadership on this issue?
The IOM committee again provides a telling example of how far men’s health needs are from the awareness of even serious, intelligent, medical and public policy professionals. The committee discussed the ways in which heart disease in women presents and is managed differently from heart disease in men. At length, Dr. LoSasso said, “If we could bottle women’s heart disease and give it to men, it would be an improvement.” The other members of the IOM panel stared in incredulous silence.
—Photo NObamaNoMas/Flickr
Sounds about right, Ryan.
“Men don’t have the institutional, social or political power to change this, only women do. It’s women and their union who saw to it that the bill was structured this way.” This is simply conspiracy-theory-thinking. Women are far less powerful than you think they are and the majority of lawmakers, lobbyists, congressmen, senators, legislators ARE MEN. While the article has one excellent point, namely that men should also have access to contraception and – even more important – have access to education about family planning (as well as the other health service that were mentioned) it’s language makes it sound… Read more »
“This is simply conspiracy-theory-thinking. Women are far less powerful than you think they are and the majority of lawmakers, lobbyists, congressmen, senators, legislators ARE MEN. ” If that’s true then why does aca have thousands of provisions for women’s health but none for men? Why are laws passed which ride roughshod over men’s ability to defend themselves in court and create presumptions of guily? Clearly the fact that more legislators are men doesn’t make a difference. Society has always put women’s welfare first and always will until feminism, as a body, wakes up and decides to get real about female… Read more »
So have you met feminists who lobbied for these bills then? But seriously, of course I don’t think that it’s a good thing that men are so excluded on these crucial issues in ACA. I’ve been flabbergasted more than once at how little American men (and some women, too!) know about contraception and reproduction and the only way to provide for better sex education is to make it accesible for everyone and to make it accessible free of charge. I just oppose to solely blaming some feminists for this and also don’t believe it’s solely their job to ensure gender… Read more »
I don’t solely blame feminists. These policies were greenlighted by regular politicians too, but they don’t profess to oppose gender roles. Feminist groups on the other hand claim to be the enemy of sexism, yet here they had a direct role in constructing it. “I also don’t believe in “female advantage” cause so far I have neither noticed nor benefited from any kind of advantage.” It’s a function of privilege that the recipient is usually blind to it until it’s pointed out, but it does exist. Society treats you preferentially to men in many ways. “Society expects men to be… Read more »
So I’m just commenting on the use of the term patriarchy here. A patriarchy is a society in which men are the main movers and shakers. Or rather, where men are political and family leaders, and where they guide moral and cultural trends. Also, if the culture has any sort of private property, men are the ones who own it. A matriarchy is the same, only in reverse. A more gender egalitarian society, is one in which power and property is not more in control of one gender or another. Now, to be clear, a patriarchy doesn’t mean all the… Read more »
“It means that in any given situation, men have more power…whether that’s within a very poor home, or whether that’s the leader(s) of the society.” Yeah I feel this is most definitely changing, mummabear had quite a lot of power in our household and probably more than pappabear. I see some patriarchs in my extended family but I also see matriarchs, it seems the generation of my parents were the change-overs (born in 1945-1950) and the main patriarchs of the family were born in the 30-early 40’s. Nowadays I see plenty of women with power in relationships of my friends,… Read more »
“Feminist groups on the other hand claim to be the enemy of sexism, yet here they had a direct role in constructing it.”
Which feminist groups? Which ones exactly?
Each and every one that got involved in / spoke out on the Catholic Church / Sandra Fluke birth control debate. The only change to ACA they considered sexist and therefore demanded change to was forcing the CC to pay for BC pills, being 100% satisfied with boys and men being discriminated against.
It’s actually females that are at the advantage in regards to violence from strangers as a whole from what I gather from stats, male – male violence is the most prevalent form. Women are more likely to be harmed by people known to them. I realize there is the size difference between men and women which causes more anxiety but keep in mind men being the most at risk of physical violence, excluding sexual however recent stats may raise the risk men face damn close to the risk females face on that particular form of violence. Thing is there is… Read more »
“But did someone ever think that this is also the result of our society’s belief that women are weak and must be cared for, hence they need more care. Versus men, who are strong and can look after themselves and consequently need less care?”
Yes, exactly, in other words female privilege.
“But did someone ever think that this is also the result of our society’s belief that women are weak and must be cared for, hence they need more care. Versus men, who are strong and can look after themselves and consequently need less care?” Absolutely, this point is the crux of the matter. Feminists falsely assume that because society sees women as weak women are hence discriminated against, belittled, etc… That is as I see it one of the core assumptions behind the feminist movement. The problem is this, if we are to assume women are seen as weak, then… Read more »
And being seen as weak is really not a privilege.
No, but being constantly first in line for society’s aid is.
At least there’s something to look out for that makes up for all the disadvantages.
“Facing the possibility of being an unhealthy male, no matter how slight the condition essentially nullifies a man’s right to even exist.” As a disabled man I can verify what you said %100. Men are not inherently of value as are women, they are What They Do. ” Hi-I’m Julie,what do you do? A lawyer? Oh my that IS interesting! Jim Crow is alive and well. I’ve been quite amused that Heather is so upset someone would make the obvious comparison,why? Because the whole african-american-feminist alliance counts on itself Never Being Questioned. Sad day for “intellectuals” when the truth must… Read more »
Bottom line … when this string started is that men are screwed with this healthcare bill.
Ryan I was struck by a couple of the comments you made: “Men don’t have the institutional, social or political power to change this, only women do. It’s women and their union who saw to it that the bill was structured this way.” and “With government subsidized female focused healthcare the non-free market incentive is created so that a male birth control pill will never see the light of day. This while at the same time creating incentive for big pharma to focus even more on women.” Maybe, maybe not. We live in an age of highly disruptive technological innovation.… Read more »
In other words, men don’t face possible health issues by seeing a doctor because they know their value depends on their use and exploitation to women, the feminist family and society. Facing the possibility of being an unhealthy male, no matter how slight the condition essentially nullifies a man’s right to even exist.
“Aren’t those cost barriers more likely to depress demand, making it less likely products will be brought to market?”
Yes, correct. With government subsidized female focused healthcare the non-free market incentive is created so that a male birth control pill will never see the light of day. This while at the same time creating incentive for big pharma to focus even more on women.
“This double standard is pathetic, and the justification I always hear to differentiate it is only about body autonomy…You can’t use a woman’s body against her will, but in saying that it also gives the privilege of opting out of motherhood should she choose to do so yet men are given the “keep it in your pants” line, we expect men to be more responsible under the current law.” I’m leery of men even being allowed to speak here but I will again venture to comment anyway. Here is my take on it. However provocative it might be this is… Read more »
“Men are carefully trained from infancy not to show pain, not to complain about hard knocks and not to seek help.”
Men are first and foremost use and utility objects. Without male use and utility men are not granted the title of man. Men are not inherently valued as women nor inherently valuable. A man is not something one is, a man must “be” a man. This subjugation and status of men transcends to male worthiness and the desire to remain worthy in relation to bodily health.
Without being useful or presenting one’s self to be used by women and society, whether it be as cannon fodder in war or simply to secure the choices and needs of women (as in the case of Feminist Marriage 2.0 laws, reproductive rights etc.) men have absolutely no value. Men are the worthless beasts of burden. This may be why 85% of the street homeless are men. This is where men end up if we are not able to be used by women or society.
In other words, men don’t face possible health issues by seeing a doctor because they know their value depends on their use and exploitation to women, the feminist family and society. Facing the possibility of being an unhealthy male, no matter how slight the condition essentially nullifies a man’s right to even exist.
Moderator’s Note-attacks on the site or it’s moderators will not be allowed.
Actually they are still sitting in moderation. I guess I’ll check back again.
GMP does not have a full time moderator, so sometimes comments will end up in moderation for awhile. Also, GMP uses a program that puts potentially problematic comments into moderation. On occasion, it will put a comment in moderation that is not actually in violation of the commenting policy. Speaking of the commenting policy, you can find it here: https://goodmenproject.com/commenting-policy/ I am looking through the comments that were put into moderation, and it appears that mostly it was due to the use of generalizations. We ask that if a commenter is going to make generalizations they provide data to back… Read more »
“Erin Gloria Ryan put it well in her recent Jezebel post: “When a woman consents to sex, she is not also consenting to pregnancy.” A woman in the U.S. has a constitutional right to terminate hosting a fetus and unilaterally end any obligation to support and raise a child. A precisely opposite legal regime applies to men.” Which is why I believe in the male right to abortion. I promote young men to practice this right in their own lives whether women and their government concede to give men equal rights or not. The lack of male Liberty and equal… Read more »
“Dr. LoSasso noted to GMP that young men have been the least likely to carry health insurance, instead gambling on their invincibility.”
This is not necessarily the case. Young men make on average 8% less than young women and furthermore more young men may be working under the roof of temp and contract companies many of which simply do not offer healthcare. However, being how expensive healthcare is along with the lower average wages of men I wouldn’t be surprised if men forgo healthcare expense when it is offered them….to make ends meet.
You also have to think about divorced men who have independent women and women’s children to support. These isolated resource producing males that have been removed from the family under Marriage 2.0 laws may have a difficult time paying for health care coverage of their own.
Heather, it doesn’t matter what or even how it is said. It’s not as if they are suddenly going to stop wanting to discriminate against males.
This issue has been and continues to be ignored because male discrimination such as this has been and continues to be fought for, supported, and defended by many of those that claim to be for gender equality. They feel how they feel and want what they want. It’s not as if they’re going to be easily convinced to actually want equality. They don’t.
You put your finger on it. No matter how lop sided the health expenditure equation becomes, the feminists will never be satisfied. When 90% of health expenditures are on women, that will still not be enough. The only thing that might interfere in this relentless dehumanization and discrimination is if enough men die before the end of their productive earning years that it starts to hurt the bottom line.
Men matter in the same way as any other beast of burden matters: utility.
Great article.Well done gmp.
*Julie and Joanna, this is why I was so dismissive on the “war on women” type threads.
“War Against Women”…my ass. Whether its healthcare or education, liberals have been waging a war against males for years.
So true 🙂
Before Obamacare, discrimination against boys in K-12 was my #1 issue. Education is very important, but staying alive is even more important. Obamacare, the most cruel act of government discrimination since Jim Crow, MUST end.
I’ve mentioned it before, I really think the Jim Crow comparisons are out of line:
Look at it from a black person’s point of view: You’re effectively saying to them that white men are now going through what they and their ancestors had to.
Don’t get me wrong: the sexism inherent in Obamacare is bad, but it’s not slavery or lynchmobbing.
To play devil’s advocate, I would say that there doesn’t need to be a lynch-mobing.
All that needs to happen is for violence against men (especially by women) to not get justice, which largely seems to be the case.
Mary Winkler.
There seems to be some confusion. Jim Crow laws were not “mob justice”. Although some were genuine black letter laws, many established institutional jurisdiction over everyday aspects of life. The institutions did the “dirty work”. There was no need for lawmakers to associate their names with terrible injustice. Instead, this was left to beaurocrats. This is exactly, EXACTLY, how Obamacare works: 1) All Americans are required to purchase “qualified” health care. 2) A few dozen institutions (beaurocracies) are established to define “qualified”. 3) All of these institutions are placed under the supervision of “women’s health” offices, staffed by “women’s experts.”… Read more »
It wasn’t stated that Obamacare’s anti-male laws are LIKE Jim Crow laws, just the most egregious discrimination SINCE the Jim Crow laws. Unless you can think of a government policy that was created since then that is as blatantly discriminatory against a demographic as large as the male population, then the statement is accurate. .
@Anthony Zarat I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I genuinely don’t know nearly as much as I should about obama care, but you said the following ” Obamacare, the most cruel act of government discrimination since Jim Crow, MUST end.” How is it the most cruel act since jim crow laws? As I said I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing just curious!
So have conservatives Luckey.
Conservatives want individual men supporting women. Liberals want society (which is hugely more supported by men since they pay more in taxes) doing it.
We’re caught between a rock and a hard place. The MRM is a movement w/out a political base. Unfortunately, men are on their own (when it comes to bureaucrats and politicians).
“… The MRM is a movement w/out a political base …”
When the slaves rebel, nobody is happy. This only makes our work even more necessary. If we do not succeed, there will be no tomorrow for our sons.
solution, don’t have sons
I already have two sons. Moving to South America is a potential solution. I have also looked into Singapore and China.
I have read that this is actually becoming a serious option for those with the means to do so (jumping ship). And not just for the war on men this country seems fixed on continuing (and winning lol). There is also the fact that every man, woman and child now owes the federal reserve $43,000. This lavish spending of the public coffers to buy votes can’t be maintained. Not to mention the Nafta super-highway and the dept of justice bringing anti-trust lawsuits to companies that staff too high a % of their employees with Americans. The corruption and squeezing of… Read more »
Okay look…using hyperbolic rhetoric like equating men with slaves and the ACA with Jim Crow laws doesn’t actually get anyone anywhere. Really, it just makes people ignore what you’re saying. For crying out loud, men are not slaves, and the struggle for gender equality is not the same as the struggle for racial equality.
Hear hear.
(men = slaves) is hyperbolic. (ACA = Jim Crow) is not. It is accurate and informative. Let me elaborate. The only existing Obamacare narrative talks around services: The dominant narrative is “Obamacare should provide more services to women”. The emergent narrative is “Obamacare should provide equal services to men”. The neglected narrative is “Obamacare has nothing to do with health or services, it is about POWER.” Obamacare has the same relationship to government services as the Jim Crow laws did. Obamacare establishes the structural framework for deciding which medical services people will have access to, and how much these services… Read more »
Mate, that’s how pretty much everything in our government works. The legislation lays the basic framework, and a bureaucracy is put in charge of the nuts and bolts. It’s not some conspiracy to make men less than equal; it’s a big oversight that needs to be fixed. Also, calling it Obamacare is a bit of a misnomer, really. What ended up getting passed wasn’t what Obama had pushed for originally. And if you’re going to get angry at the Democrats for writing this, you should also get angry at the Republicans for totally screwing up the national debate around this… Read more »
Two years ago I was furious with Republicans because they scuttled the “public option”. That would have been an OPTION! If the beaurocrats made it a terrible option, nobody would take it. It is self-limiting and self-correcting. It would have cost some money, but it could never result in denial of services and rationing of health care. That was then, this is now. Beaurocracies allways implement laws. However, giving a beaurocracy a legal mandate to discriminate is profoundly wrong (even though beaurocracies can discriminate no matter what). What sets Obamacare, and Jim Crow apart from other laws is the MANDATE… Read more »
“It’s not some conspiracy to make men less than equal;” Not, it’s a conspiracy to make women superior in health care coverage quality and services, and cost burden. Which ends up being the same thing, doesn’t it? It’s a conspiracy to ensure that, if anyone is on the short end, it’s definitely men, not women. If women were the ones on the short end, it would be classed as sexist discrimination by every news outlet and every feminist organization in the country would be referring to it as a “war on women.” Immediate and decisive change would have been demanded… Read more »
“Thanks for being the only feminist (that I know of) that even acknowledged it as needing to be fixed …” There are others. I sometimes feel as angry and hopeless as you appear to feel today. Maybe we should both have a beer and remember that, even if we fail, tomorrow is another day. Our sons will grow strong and brave and fight their own battles. Back when our adversaries were fighting for dignity (for women, it was equal opportunity), the early days were dark and hopeless. Now, it is our turn to fight for dignity (for men, it is… Read more »
That’s why I said, “that I know of.” Who are the others that have acknowleged this as discrimination and called for it to be addressed? Regarding males, especially minorities, I have little optimism without a major intervention, which appears as likely as snow at the equator. Given the current facts and trends, this situation will simply not improve without a major acknowledgement of what created it, and dedicatoin to address it. As always, some will do well. My kids will, and yours will too. They have us. But, many don’t have the requisite family and societal support; hence, they don’t… Read more »
@ Eric M
“Thanks for being the only feminist (that I know of) that even acknowledged it as needing to be fixed.”
I noticed the silence also. Feminists usually respond to criticism of their movement with, if only men would speak out about injustices, they would find many allies in the feminist community.
@ HeatherN
“It’s not some conspiracy to make men less than equal; it’s a big oversight that needs to be fixed.”
If the articles (parts 1 and 2) are factually correct and I’m assuming that they are. I don’t know how you can assert that an act that specifically exempts men based on the safe harbor statement that specifically excludes that portion from protections afforded in the rest of the legislation.
An omission can be considered an oversight, but deliberate action tends to lead to support the theory that there is an active war in men.
“Personally, I think it’s the burden of the opposition to provide constructive and factual criticism of any bill that is introduced, but especially something this big and important.”
…Does that include the dems framing a bill that would make birth control coverage optional for employers as A WAR ON WOMEN THAT WANTS TO MAKE BIRTH CONTROL ILLEGAL AND TURN WOMEN INTO ROUND THE CLOCK BABY FACTORIES OMG!!!!!1!!
ohmygoodness caps. Anyway, yes, that goes to everyone about everything. Mind, this is an article about ACA and not an article about birth control.
Heather writes: “And if you’re going to get angry at the Democrats for writing this, you should also get angry at the Republicans for totally screwing up the national debate around this piece of legislation. Remember that when the ACA was being debated, the Republicans didn’t provide coherent and rational dialogue about what was wrong with the bill.” If I remember correctly all the committees that were in charge of writing this bill were Dem only. Also, the Dems were *at least* as irresponsible takeing ridiculous positions. The amount of exemptions and give-aways to the last holdouts so the bill… Read more »
My point is that you can’t just say – oh the Democrats wrote it so they’re the ones to blame. And you can’t just say – oh the Republicans failed to provide constructive criticism, so they’re the ones to blame. Everyone worked together to create the problems in the ACA.
So instead of worrying about who is to blame, how about we work on actually fixing the problems.
Men don’t have the institutional, social or political power to change this, only women do. It’s women and their union who saw to it that the bill was structured this way.
MRA’s are an advocacy group without a political base or sponsors. The vast majority of politician’s (on both sides of the aisle) want men exactly where they are: financing the ever-growing welfare state on one side with taxes, and being foolish enough to accept the social role of father in the face of a huge wave of commitment allergic women who are only too willing to call it quits, knowing that the fathers obligations go on for 18-21 years, but her obligations are terminated at the divorce. There have been many books and articles trying to shame men (who by… Read more »
Additionally,
Keep in mind that VAWA was reauthorized in 2000 when we had a GOP pres, senate & house.
Obamacare is a sad, farcical, massively overpriced violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Let’s hope SCOTUS does its job and strikes it down.
If the SCOTUS strikes down this horror, it will be the 3rd happiest day of my life.
Fortunetly, the betting odds at intrade predict a strike-down with 62.4% certainty. I hope and pray, with every fiber of body and every drop of blood and every whisp of soul that I have, that this foul law goes down. If Obamacare stands, there will be no dawn for men and boys.
I believe that NO amendments of any kind were accepted from the GOP and thus none of then voted for it. So how is it that the GOP is always held responsible for failing to compromise? This big, expensive and very important bill was 100% compromise and diplomacy free, and they pushed it through without any wide consensus like other big historical game changers.
“Erin Gloria Ryan put it well in her recent Jezebel post: “When a woman consents to sex, she is not also consenting to pregnancy.” A woman in the U.S. has a constitutional right to terminate hosting a fetus and unilaterally end any obligation to support and raise a child. A precisely opposite legal regime applies to men. When a man has heterosexual sex he is presumed to have consented to paternity and a couple of decades of child support. To control their own fertility, straight men, unlike women, are entirely dependent on complete abstinence or the highly competent use of… Read more »
Hmmm, yes well naturally if they are going to cover the cost of birth control etc then they should cover vasectomies, etc. That doesn’t make sense to me at all. I may be a woman and this is great for me, but well there should be that availability to men. Did they forget the other side of the equation? It always seems like some forgets that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby.
“Are we in this together, or aren’t we?” The answer is obvious. If you are female, yes, they are right there in the trenches with you, fighting for you, ensuring that even though your services cost more, you won’t pay more. Why? Because you count. You health and life matter. But, if you’re male, good luck, pal. You’re gonna need it. You’re on your own. You life and health have little value. And, if you’re a minority male, yours has almost no value, with rare exceptions. This ACA situation is symptomatic of the discrimination against males and the indifference toward… Read more »
It’s VAWA for health care.
Yes, it can’t be over stressed how bad the current health paradigm is for young (especially black) men.
It’s not even hyperbole to state that it is an “atrocity”.