Obamacare ...women only services

[casebro]

But folks, it's not about men getting care vs women getting care. The only stipulation is that women get the listed care without a co-pay. That means FREE. Mes get the equivalent care with a co-pay.

I'm on Kaiser/Medicare. The copays are about $15 per visit, plus about $20 for all the labs you get done in a day, plus $10 per month max for each generic prescription.

I don't know what the difference is in treatment costs for the m/f cancers frinstance. But they will all qualify for treatment under Obamacare. "Customary and reasonable" is the phrase. IINAL, but fersure that phrase in in that 2500 pages somewhere.

So, being an older male, keeping an eye on my prostate would cost me umm $15 for the digital exam, $20 to check my PSA, and $10/month for a generic drug. Ummm $155/year. Plus whatever my premium costs go up to pay for what the women get the equivalent for free. Taxes and monthly premiums.

So, m/f is not going to kill off men to extend the lifes of women.

BUT, the big deal for me will be that my Medicare that is withhld from my monthly SSI is going up $200. SSI is my only source of income. Kugelis might be back on my table 4 nights a week, like when Dad was feeding a family of seven on a carpenters pay in 1960.

Trade off for society? 'Free Health Care" but now we''ll have oldsters going bankrupt due to the cost of the healthcare insurance. And men will lead the statistics. (Suicide rate rise? )

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Men don't have a cervix. Men don't get pregnant. Men are much less likely to get Osteoporosis. Women are at higher risk for being victims of domestic violence. That explains most of those.

Women have specific health-care needs that usually don't apply to men.

Actually if you look up there are study showing there is probably as much domestic violence against men than against women, but men domestic vbiolence is ignored, laughed at, the victim even more shamed, and end up underreported. Just like in case of domestic violence against women they found out that half of it was actually a tit for tat. I can't remember the article , but domestic violence and a few of the other things like AIDS, make no sense to make women only test. Men do get those as well.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

This is only because of the investment in women's health over the past hundred fifty years. Time was about a quarter of women died of pregnancy.

Takes a lot of preventive maintenance t keep a woman is such a state that it is safe for her to become pregnant.

Would not that mean it is time to invest, you know, a bit in men health specific problem and prevention ?

[meg]

Originally Posted by Edx

As someone who doesnt live in the US, maybe I misunderstand. Do men have all these services as well? In which case why are they specifying women on here at all? If men are equally able to receive the same services, where does it say they do? If they don't why doesnt this apply to men as well?

For someone who doesn't live in the US, I imagine it does look weird. If you live in any other 1st world country, you likely have all your health care covered, and the notion that a government might pick and choose what medical services a citizen may receive for lower or no cost based on their sex probably seems pretty outrageous.

Here is the US, we put a price on everything, though. Because we love capitalism. And one of the principals of capitalism is that if you can put a price on it, you can make a profit off it. And you know how we like profit..

But, anyway, the medical price for being a dame has always been higher than being a dude, by about a third.

According to this paper, "Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

Woman's medical cost over a lifetime: $361,200
Man's medical cost over a lifetime: $268,700

About 40% ($37,000) of the difference is just because women live longer. The other 60% ($55,500) of the difference is just because we have different parts, and these parts can get different conditions, like "be pregnant" or breast cancer.

American insurance companies have accounted for this inequity in the past by either considering "being a gal" as a pre-existing condition, and charging women about a third more than men to get health insurance, or just refusing to cover several of the more girly related expenses. The Obama administration has declared this "unfair", though, and has mandated that insurers may not charge differently based only on sex.

One of the ways (quite smartly) they plan to reduce the actual risk involved in this is to try to insure that some particularly expensive womens medical problems, like premature babies with STD related problems or later stage breast cancer are drastically reduced by actively encouraging every women to participate in regular screenings and checkups. Paying a small amount early reduces the risk of paying large amounts later.

It's not because they don't care about men as much as women or anything at all like that. It's just a sound program of looking at expenses and minimizing risks on the most costly ones that are in fact preventable.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

Prostate cancer strikes much older men than breast cancer strikes women, and is usually slow developping, and the cost/usefulness of treatment (both to the taxpayer and the patient) is not so clear in many cases. Yes, there are aggressive cases and what not, and it would be nice to be able to detect those more easily, but the current screening methods simply don't warrant widespread aggressive screening of a large population, covered by the government.

(ETA comment snipped see original for full comment)

I took the time to provide evidence for what you said in case anybody is interrested.

Whereas it is true that female get breast cancer a few year earlier in average, in the end the prevalence by age is higher for men, most probable reason the lifetime risk is higher for female is the longer age they live.

breast cancer , start 34 statistically, female lifetime risk 1 out of 8 but look at the prevalence per 100K, it is never above 500.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/canc...statistics#age

prostate cancer start about a decade later 40-45 lifetime risk 1 out of 9 (other stats from US shows 1 out of 6 ... maybe a lack of prevention?) but prevalence reach nearly 800 per 100k.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/canc...statistics#age

Heck they have a statistic on which stage breast cancer is detected ( 41% were Stage I, 45% stage II, 9% stage III and 5% stage IV) showing very early detection for women, but they don't even have that stats for men. So for all we know the later age could be because all those were actually undetected much earlier.

I could not find As for the death statistic, If I understand it corectely 1 diagnosed men out of 12 die of prostate cancer and 1 out of 3 diagnosed women die of breast caner


So basically prostate cancer is slow, not very killing, come later, but breast cancer is more dangerous, comes aerlier and more deadly. No idea on what stage prostate cancer is detected though but msot breast cancer are detected early stage 1 or statge 2. Only about 10% are detected stage 3 or 4.


Testicular cancer on the other hand appear very early by age 14. And peaks at age 30-40. Which surprised me a LOT. But it does not seem deadly (70 death out of 1700+ cases if I read correctely?).

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/canc...nce-statistics

So yeah, totally what you said

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by meg

And you know how we like profit..

And ehre I thought that Ferengi were fictions .

[CaptBang]

Originally Posted by meg

...It's not because they don't care about men as much as women or anything at all like that. It's just a sound program of looking at expenses and minimizing risks on the most costly ones that are in fact preventable.

Sound logic like this tends to hamper the men's rights movement from growing beyond the fringe. Poor sexists masquerading as equal rights advocates just can't catch a break!

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by CaptBang

Sound logic like this tends to hamper the men's rights movement from growing beyond the fringe. Poor sexists masquerading as equal rights advocates just can't catch a break!

There are good reason for fighting against men unequal right in some domain (usually in the domain of divorce, and domestic violence, rape, among others). Calling those men fighting for those right "sexist masquerading as equal right advocate" reflect poorly frankly.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The OP is arguing emotion and a false premise instead of fact.

With no evidence except some perceived belief the Affordable Health Care Act was some kind of political pandering to the female vote, Edx stamps his feet crying, "unfair, unfair".

In fact, the AHC Act was written and voted into law at the beginning of Obama's first term, long before the Republics dumped the female vote into the Democrats' laps.

And in fact, the requirement certain preventative services be offered without copays was based on the concept it would save health care spending for all if health insurers focused more on encouraging prevention over treatment.

And, in fact, the identified preventative services to be included were determined by an evidence based health care provider think tank. They were not devised by women for women or by politicians with votes in mind.

Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute

From the Wiki entry on PCORI:

Quote:

The body is charged with examining the "relative health outcomes, clinical effectiveness, and appropriateness" of different medical treatments by evaluating existing studies and conducting its own. Its 19-member board is to include patients, physicians, nurses, hospitals, drug makers, device manufacturers, insurers, payers, government officials and health experts. It will not have the power to mandate or even endorse coverage rules or reimbursement for any particular treatment. Medicare may take the Institute’s research into account when deciding what procedures it will cover, so long as the new research is not the sole justification and the agency allows for public input.[3]

More on how the recommendations came about: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations

Quote:

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent panel of non-federal experts that conducts reviews of scientific evidence on preventive health care services. The USPSTF develops and publishes recommendations for primary care clinicians and health systems in the form of recommendation statements.

The preventive services that appear in this list are relevant to the Affordable Care Act. All of the recommended services receiving grades of A or B must be provided without cost-sharing when delivered by an in-network provider in the plan years (or, in the individual market, policy years) that begin on or after September 23, 2010. (For recommendations that have been in effect for less than one year, plans and issuers will have one year from the effective date to comply.)

The A and B recommendations of the USPSTF appear in the list linked to below. It includes a description of the topic, the text of the USPSTF recommendation, the grade the recommendation received (A or B), and the date the recommendation went into effect.

Complete list of USPSTF Grade A and B recommendations
See USPSTF Definitions of A and B grades
Learn more about the USPSTF and the recommendation process, or comment on draft recommendation statements

So if you have issues with the AHC Act, Edx, you really should address the source of the recommendations, not imaginary feminists' political influence or the lame excuses the Republic's are trying to sell for why they lost the election.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Duplicate deleted.

[CaptBang]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

There are good reason for fighting against men unequal right in some domain (usually in the domain of divorce, and domestic violence, rape, among others). Calling those men fighting for those right "sexist masquerading as equal right advocate" reflect poorly frankly.

Indeed. But, it reflect badly on you, and that was my point.

Don't waste time with me, I actually like women, and support equality of the sexes. Instead, spend your valuable time finding us a link to the study you seem to recall but cannot link to (see your previous post)

You wrote: "...study showing there is probably as much domestic violence against men than against women."

Such an study might be fun to analyze.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Would not that mean it is time to invest, you know, a bit in men health specific problem and prevention ?

As funds become available, yes. But, if you have a limited research fund, you have to put it where it will have the broadest impact on the survivability of the species. Our species will go on successfully reproducing even with a drastricly smaller number of fertile men available.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Edx

Kinda making my point for me aren't you? We invest more in womans health than mens, so now women on average live several years longer than men, so doesnt that mean we ought to invest some back into mens health so it evens out a bit more?

Treating women's healtrh concerns directly effects the health of their children. If a man croaks the instant he delivers his sperm, it has zero effect on the health of the offspring that result. If he gives the woman herpes or AIDS at the same time, society gets a huge on-going problem dumped in its lap. If she was already carrying some disease that showed no symptoms, it may make it harder for her to carry the pregnancy to term and may lead to a sickly and expensive child.

A man's effect on the health of the next generation generally end at the tip of his penis or the reach of his fist.

[Fizil]

Originally Posted by CaptBang

Indeed. But, it reflect badly on you, and that was my point.

Don't waste time with me, I actually like women, and support equality of the sexes. Instead, spend your valuable time finding us a link to the study you seem to recall but cannot link to (see your previous post)

You wrote: "...study showing there is probably as much domestic violence against men than against women."

Such an study might be fun to analyze.

I do remember some studies that indicate this, but off the top of my head don't remember which. According the the ABA statistics page 1.3 million women and 800 thousand men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner in the US annually. Given nearly equal populations of men and women in the US, that means women experience a little over 60% more domestic violence than men.

I can't post URLs yet, but just check the ABA domestic violence statistics page for my source.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Fizil

I do remember some studies that indicate this, but off the top of my head don't remember which. According the the ABA statistics page 1.3 million women and 800 thousand men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner in the US annually. Given nearly equal populations of men and women in the US, that means women experience a little over 60% more domestic violence than men.

I can't post URLs yet, but just check the ABA domestic violence statistics page for my source.

Actually all the studies that I know of that ask the relevant questions to both men and women show gender symmetry in domestic violence even for severe partner violence such kicking, attacks with objects, choking. With evidence showing women are actually on average more violent and abusive than men.

Here are a few such studies:
-- GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE: THE EVIDENCE, THE DENIAL, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRIMARY PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
--DOMINANCE AND SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE BY MALE AND FEMALE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN 32 NATIONS
--Estimating the Number of American Children Living in Partner-Violent Families
--Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence
-- Teen Dating Violence: A Closer Look at Adolescent Romantic Relationships
Also, you have things like this...
--" Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female."
and...
--" Sexual crimes committed by women are minimized, partially because they are often seen as sexual in nature, rather than as violent. This is true even when the perpetrating female is much older than the male victim"

Regarding intimate partner homicides these make up only a small fraction of domestic violence cases, although its worth pointing out that women are many times more likely to be acquitted on "self defence" grounds than men are. Also according to StatsCanada, men aged 55 are more than twice as likely to be murdered by their female partners and the rate of murder against male partners aged 65 and over is extreme.

With the one-sided statistics and evidence presented to the mainstream by politicians and the media is it any wonder you get this kind of reaction to female on male violence?

[Edx]

I also havent had an explanation for why HIV screenings are available for any sexually active women despite women making up a very small percentage of those living with HIV.

Regarding prostate cancer screening, if the argument against screening by Jorghnassen is the best there is then Im frankly too disgusted to argue with it. At least I know thats very best rationalism there is.

And no explanation for the lack of any push to get men to seek medical and psychological treatment since regardless of cost men dont go.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by CaptBang

Indeed. But, it reflect badly on you, and that was my point.

Don't waste time with me, I actually like women, and support equality of the sexes. Instead, spend your valuable time finding us a link to the study you seem to recall but cannot link to (see your previous post)

You wrote: "...study showing there is probably as much domestic violence against men than against women."

Such an study might be fun to analyze.

Scroll a bit down.

There is gender assymmetry in some case in disfavor of women in other in disfavor of men. At the moment one can argue that there is more in disfavor of women than men. That does not mean men are on the advantage everywhere. If you are not rational enough to recognize that then , there is no need to discuss with you, you are on a belief trip and you don't care about facts. And your call of "equality" are feint.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Scroll a bit down.

There is gender assymmetry in some case in disfavor of women in other in disfavor of men. At the moment one can argue that there is more in disfavor of women than men. That does not mean men are on the advantage everywhere. If you are not rational enough to recognize that then , there is no need to discuss with you, you are on a belief trip and you don't care about facts. And your call of "equality" are feint.

The fact that he says "I actually like women, and support equality of the sexes" implies that you dont like women and dont support equality. Its a common tactic to poison the well in this way. Many folks like him seem to believe that equality means only focusing on the needs of one gender.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Men don't have a cervix. Men don't get pregnant. Men are much less likely to get Osteoporosis. Women are at higher risk for being victims of domestic violence. That explains most of those.

Women have specific health-care needs that usually don't apply to men.

And women can apparently no longer be charged a higher rate for those specific needs...

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Edx

That is actually entirely false. Women are not more at risk. There has been study after study including various government studies that shows when you ask the questions of both men and women that there is gender symmetry in perpetration of domestic violence and that goes even for more severe partner violence such kicking, attacks with objects, choking etc and they do it for much the same reasons men do.

Some how I doubt you will substantiate this with any sort of actual data.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Edx

Kinda making my point for me aren't you? We invest more in womans health than mens, so now women on average live several years longer than men, so doesnt that mean we ought to invest some back into mens health so it evens out a bit more?

Also lacking data and evidence.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Some how I doubt you will substantiate this with any sort of actual data.

Do scroll up a bit.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Also lacking data and evidence.

I was paraphrasing leftysergeant.

[Dancing David]

On average, more than three women and one man are murdered by their intimate partners in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. Intimate partner homicides accounted for 30% of the murders of women and 5% percent of the murders of men.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S. 1993-2004, 2006.)

The demographics of physical battery in DV are well documented, the incidence of reporting on male victims is not an old trend. Men still predominately perpetrate the most violent and destructive forms of DV, now the froms of verbal dominance and abuse are equally distributed.

http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/viol...urces/C61/#hom

Quote:

Domestic violence and male victims*

Due to cultural norms that require men to present a strong façade and that minimize female-perpetrated abuse (Mooney, 2000; Straus et al, 1997; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005), men are less likely to verbalize fear of any kind. (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005; Hines et al, in press)
(Dutton, D., & Nicholls, T. (2005). A critical review of the gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part I – Theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680-714.
Hines, D., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (in press) Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence.
Mooney, J. (2000). Gender, violence, and the social order. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Sorenson, S., & Taylor, C. (2005). Female aggression toward male intimate partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 78-96.
Straus, M., Kaufman-Kantor, G., & Moore, D. (1997). Change in cultural norms approving marital violence: From 1968 to 1994. In G. Kaufman-Kantor & J. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.)

Individuals who are controlling of their partners are much more likely to also be physically assaultive, and this holds equally for both male and female perpetrators.
(Felson, R., & Outlaw, M. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence and Victims, 22 (4), 387-407.
Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence: Implications
for treatment programs. Presented July 9, 2007 at the International Family Violence and Child Victimization Research Conference, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.)

Societal norms support female-perpetrated abuse in the home. (Straus et al., 1997; Straus, 1999)
(Straus, M. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women. In X. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17-44).)

Structural power does not necessarily translate to individual power.
(Felson, R. (2002). Violence & gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.)

Surveys find that men and women assault one another and strike the first blow at approximately equal rates.
(Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (5), 651-680.
Dutton, D., Kwong, M., & Bartholomew, K. (1999). Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31, 150-160
Morse, B. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10 (4), 251-269.
Straus, M. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. Gelles & D. Loseky (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.)

Men and women engage in overall comparable levels of abuse and control, such as diminishing the partner’s self-esteem, isolation and jealousy, using children and economic abuse; however, men engage in higher levels of sexual coercion and can more easily intimidate physically.
(Coker, A, Davis, K., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H., & Smith, P. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 23 (4), 260-268.
Hammock, G., & O’Hearn, R. (2002). Psychological aggression in dating relationships: Predictive models for male and females. Violence and Victims, 17, 525-540.)

*Thanks to John Hamel, LCSW, for assistance with this webpage section.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Edx

I was paraphrasing leftysergeant.

Do show that women are living longer because of medical intervention and not lifestyle, in fact the rates of mortality have been lowering for women as men's are rising, on an age distributed basis.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

On average, more than three women and one man are murdered by their intimate partners in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. Intimate partner homicides accounted for 30% of the murders of women and 5% percent of the murders of men.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S. 1993-2004, 2006.)

Murder in domestic violence only covers a small fraction of what constitutes domestic violence.

In one of the articles I posted earlier:

Quote:

In cases of homicide, which make up a tiny fraction of PV, it is estimated that 9.6% of homicides perpetrated by women meet legal criteria for self-defense, compared to .5% of homicides perpetrated by men (Felson & Messner, 1998). Other homicide studies use different criteria and estimate higher rates of self-defense (e.g.Mann, 1988; Mann, 1992), though no study has found self-defense for a majority of cases

...

It is most often assumed that self-defense and battered women syndrome explains the vast majority of these female-perpetrated instances of severe violence and homicide. In other words, we assume that women harm their partners either to protect themselves or as a result of a long and traumatic history of victimization. However, the previously reviewed evidence shows
that self-defense explains only a mall proportion of female violence.

- GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE:
THE EVIDENCE, THE DENIAL, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR
PRIMARY PREVENTION AND TREATMENT

And also as I said StatsCanada has a graph showing that men over 55 are vastly more at risk of murder by their female partner.


EDIT: Quoting DV groups that dont like to tell you about all the research about male victims in order to present to you the idea that its predominantly a male crime isnt impressing me. I do like how a couple of studies there seem to suggest the opposite of what you'd like to claim though.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Do show that women are living longer because of medical intervention and not lifestyle, in fact the rates of mortality have been lowering for women as men's are rising, on an age distributed basis.

Again, i was paraphrasing leftysergeant :

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Originally Posted by Edx

"There are specific things that I've mentioned there that show they keep throwing money at womans health and ignoring mens, despite men dying younger and leading women in all the major causes of death"

"This is only because of the investment in women's health over the past hundred fifty years. "

So I was saying that if thats the reason why womens health is better than mens, should we not put some more effort in supporting mens.

[Fizil]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

On average, more than three women and one man are murdered by their intimate partners in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. Intimate partner homicides accounted for 30% of the murders of women and 5% percent of the murders of men.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S. 1993-2004, 2006.)

It is disingenuous to quote worst case statistics to make a point. It is incredibly rare for both men and women to kill their intimate partners. Consider scale here, for every ~1.3 million women who are abused by their partner, ~1200 were killed, and for every ~800k men, ~400 were killed.

Considering the scale, the 1.3 million vs 800 thousand is far more relevant when discussing domestic violence. Of course this is still skewed with women far more victimized than men, but it is not nearly as extreme as you are trying to imply with your numbers. Relative rates can only be made sense of in terms of total prevalence.

[Edx]

Thanks Fizil, though other than intimate partner homicide women are still not more victimised and as I say every study that has asked the relevant questions to men and women has come to the same conclusion. Though as I said if youre a man over 55 you're way more at risk than a women is at being murdered by your (female) partner.

I recommend reading a bit of this book written by criminologists:

New Visions of Crime Victims.

Domestic violence against men is often ignored, trivialised or mocked. Unless you perform a proper study that asks the right questions you get the one-sided skewed false impression that its mainly a female issue.

[Fizil]

Originally Posted by Edx

Thanks Fizil, though other than intimate partner homicide women are still not more victimised and as I say every study that has asked the relevant questions to men and women has come to the same conclusion. Though as I said if youre a man over 55 you're way more at risk than a women is at being murdered by your female partner.

I recommend reading a bit of this book written by criminologists:

New Visions of Crime Victims.

Domestic violence against men is often ignored, trivialised or mocked. Unless you perform a proper study you get the one-sided skewed false impression that its mainly a female issue.

I am afraid you are incorrect, the 1.3 million vs 800 thousand number I quoted
comes from a survey asking an equal number of men and women the same questions as far as I can tell. So while there are studies that indicate a parity, not "all" of them do.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Fizil

I am afraid you are incorrect, the 1.3 million vs 800 thousand number I quoted
comes from a survey asking an equal number of men and women the same questions as far as I can tell. So while there are studies that indicate a parity, not "all" of them do.

I just quoted various studies, if anything the data shows that women commit even more domestic abuse than men do.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Edx

Kinda making my point for me aren't you? We invest more in womans health than mens, so now women on average live several years longer than men, so doesnt that mean we ought to invest some back into mens health so it evens out a bit more?

Women live longer than men in every country, as far as I know. It has nothing to do with the level of healthcare coverage in the US specifically targetted at women.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Women live longer than men in every country, as far as I know. It has nothing to do with the level of healthcare coverage in the US specifically targetted at women.

As I told David, that wasn't my claim or position:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=66

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by Edx

I also havent had an explanation for why HIV screenings are available for any sexually active women despite women making up a very small percentage of those living with HIV.

Yes you have. It's the babies.

Women may be a small percentage of HIV sufferers, but they're the ones who'll have babies-------very expensive babies. In the US, follow the money.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Yes you have. It's the babies.

Women may be a small percentage of HIV sufferers, but they're the ones who'll have babies-------very expensive babies. In the US, follow the money.

I guess I shouldnt point out that not all women are capable of having babies, but lets assume that all these points are about money, ok that is a fair point.

But we still have those other 2 aspects I brought up, one is rejecting reality in regards domestic violence and the other is uncaring about trying to help in male specific medical and psychological problems because they dont have babies and it doesnt raise as much money to offer those services despite the need for it. Doesnt say much for their intentions as far as I can see.

PS: I havent commented on this yet but Im not sure why Ginger assumes Im a Republican or a Republican supporter or that I am saying Obama attracted womans groups only because of free contraception, I do believe it was Ginger that specified contraception no one else. Might be worth not having so many assumptions.

[carlitos]

Edx, any comment on the numbers in meg's post? I thought that info was quite helpful.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Edx, any comment on the numbers in meg's post? I thought that info was quite helpful.

Yes sorry meg's explanation was quite good and I appreciate it. Thanks meg.

But really just shows me that it comes back to politics and money rather than what is good for society and men and women as humans and actually trying to make us healthier as the main intention. My last post to Silly Green Monkey still stands for me, and isnt apparently going to go away because of the aforementioned political reason for Obamacare. I also strongly disagree with the prostate cancer argument by Jorghnassen, Im left shocked at how anyone could be so cold, so I dont even care to argue against it and Im happy to let that sit as an example of the best rationale one can make.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Edx

Murder in domestic violence only covers a small fraction of what constitutes domestic violence.

In one of the articles I posted earlier:



- GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE:
THE EVIDENCE, THE DENIAL, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR
PRIMARY PREVENTION AND TREATMENT

And also as I said StatsCanada has a graph showing that men over 55 are vastly more at risk of murder by their female partner.


EDIT: Quoting DV groups that dont like to tell you about all the research about male victims in order to present to you the idea that its predominantly a male crime isnt impressing me. I do like how a couple of studies there seem to suggest the opposite of what you'd like to claim though.

So the post of all the research articles about male victims of DV was ignored by you, color me shocked.

I stated clearly that violent assault and battery were part of male perpetrators, I made no claims about women not being perpetrators. So any inference you make is based upon your own biases, I made no such claim.

The societal role of the power difference between genders causes demographic differences in the violence engaged in by perpetrators.
I have discussed the role of female perpetration and will continue to do so.

and since you missed it from the same
"Quoting DV groups that dont like to tell you about all the research about male victims in order to present to you the idea that its predominantly a male crime isnt impressing me"

did you not read the second quote or just ignore it?

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

So the post of all the research articles about male victims of DV was ignored by you, color me shocked.

Um I originally posted DV articles, you're the one thats ignored them, in fact you didnt even see my post and I had to tell you to go find it. The problem with articles that do not refer to the gender symmetry is that they only focus on women and not men so you're only being shown one side. All the studies I know about that ask the relevant questions of both men and women always come to the same conclusion. That women are just as violent in relationships, and if anything more so.

Quote:

I stated clearly that violent assault and battery were part of male perpetrators, I made no claims about women not being perpetrators. So any inference you make is based upon your own biases, I made no such claim.

The societal role of the power difference between genders causes demographic differences in the violence engaged in by perpetrators.
I have discussed the role of female perpetration and will continue to do so.

Then if you're saying we agree then please stop acting like we dont. Men should be allowed to have domestic violence services as well, and this goes way beyond Obamacare.

[Dancing David]

here it is again: I only bolded a view of the many citations, so did you actually read what I posted before your responded?

Quote:

Domestic violence and male victims*

Due to cultural norms that require men to present a strong façade and that minimize female-perpetrated abuse (Mooney, 2000; Straus et al, 1997; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005), men are less likely to verbalize fear of any kind. (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005; Hines et al, in press)
(Dutton, D., & Nicholls, T. (2005). A critical review of the gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part I – Theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680-714.
Hines, D., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (in press) Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence.
Mooney, J. (2000). Gender, violence, and the social order. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Sorenson, S., & Taylor, C. (2005). Female aggression toward male intimate partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 78-96.
Straus, M., Kaufman-Kantor, G., & Moore, D. (1997). Change in cultural norms approving marital violence: From 1968 to 1994. In G. Kaufman-Kantor & J. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.)

Individuals who are controlling of their partners are much more likely to also be physically assaultive, and this holds equally for both male and female perpetrators.
(Felson, R., & Outlaw, M. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence and Victims, 22 (4), 387-407.
Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence: Implications
for treatment programs. Presented July 9, 2007 at the International Family Violence and Child Victimization Research Conference, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.)

Societal norms support female-perpetrated abuse in the home. (Straus et al., 1997; Straus, 1999)
(Straus, M. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women. In X. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17-44).)

Structural power does not necessarily translate to individual power.
(Felson, R. (2002). Violence & gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.)

Surveys find that men and women assault one another and strike the first blow at approximately equal rates.
(Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (5), 651-680.
Dutton, D., Kwong, M., & Bartholomew, K. (1999). Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31, 150-160
Morse, B. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10 (4), 251-269.
Straus, M. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. Gelles & D. Loseky (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.)

Men and women engage in overall comparable levels of abuse and control, such as diminishing the partner’s self-esteem, isolation and jealousy, using children and economic abuse; however, men engage in higher levels of sexual coercion and can more easily intimidate physically.
(Coker, A, Davis, K., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H., & Smith, P. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 23 (4), 260-268.
Hammock, G., & O’Hearn, R. (2002). Psychological aggression in dating relationships: Predictive models for male and females. Violence and Victims, 17, 525-540.)

*Thanks to John Hamel, LCSW, for assistance with this webpage section.

[Dancing David]

empty repeat