Obamacare ...women only services

[Edx]

Originally Posted by 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?

Im completely lost David, what on earth is your point? What do you disagree with me about?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

And now you can't even be reasonable, I made my first post before reading through teh thread.

Quote:

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.

So you did not read the whole post?

Quote:

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.

yes and no, the comparative levels of damage caused varies widely, it is not uncommon for a women who is alleged to have started the battery to be the one with the more severe injuries.

Quote:

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.

the shelter i worked at could not provide residential services to men, it provided all other services to men.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Edx

Im completely lost David, what on earth is your point? What do you disagree with me about?

Your statement that the web page I cited was geared only towards violence against women.

here is the citation:
"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."

this describing the exact same page where I quoted exactly a lot of research titles about men as victims of DV.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Edx

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

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Political issues always come down to politics and money. That's why many conservatives are freaked out about the government getting more involved in health care. They hear horror stories about waiting lists and stuff, and think - gee, I hate the drivers license place; I wouldn't want my health care to be like that.

Quote:

=Edx;8815476]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.

I am at a very high risk for prostate cancer, and I'm weighing the costs / benefits of the various treatments vs. no treatment at all myself. I'm probably going to get it relatively young, and the medical tech is improving, so it's an easier decision for me. I'm not at all offended by someone noting that later-onset prostate cancer can reasonably go untreated. Depending on the side-effects, you could lose significant quality of life.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

yes and no, the comparative levels of damage caused varies widely, it is not uncommon for a women who is alleged to have started the battery to be the one with the more severe injuries.

Women perpetrate the same levels, if not more, domestic violence and abuse toward male partners. Many relationships men and women are just as violent as each other. It is a problem when we deny the problem of female violence and we end up "helping" violent women get away from reciprocal violent relationships but they can continue abusing their children because we wont acknowledge that they are also abusive. Thats why we have the Violence Against Women Act implying women are more likely be victims of violence (when in fact men are) and to suggest that this doesnt happen to men in relationships and that men dont suffer from it and if they do its to such an irrelevant degree its not worth mentioning and there's great backlash against suggesting otherwise.

Quote:

the shelter i worked at could not provide residential services to men, it provided all other services to men.

If you're suggesting that men receive in anywhere near the same level of support for domestic violence you're delusional. Ive provided articles and have a variety of others I havent. And FYI men are considered SO dangerous that in many DV shelters they wont even allow boys over 12 to stay there. All this just shows disparity between reality of violence perpetrated between genders and how we as a society view it and deal with it.

Btw posting "irony" gifs make you look silly because you clearly dont know what irony means.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I am at a very high risk for prostate cancer, and I'm weighing the costs / benefits of the various treatments vs. no treatment at all myself. I'm probably going to get it relatively young, and the medical tech is improving, so it's an easier decision for me. I'm not at all offended by someone noting that later-onset prostate cancer can reasonably go untreated. Depending on the side-effects, you could lose significant quality of life.

Prostate cancer can be treated effectively if caught early. The argument given was that it was a waste of time and money to diagnose and treat and because of sexual dysfunction is associated with treatment I suppose the implication is men would rather die, or they will die of something else first so why bother. If you dont find this insulting, then thats up to you. I wonder why we are bothering to research prostate cancer at all, and if perhaps someone should tell Movember guys they are wasting their time.

The main thing here is that men are leading the boards in causes of death and women beat men in life expectancy, while they also far less likely to seek out medical services and treatments than women are. We should be incentivising men to get treatment, but a women gets a "well women" checkup regularly where she can even bring up mental illness'. Yet men need more serious psychological support since they are killing themselves many times the rate than women do, which is true even when we look at suicide rates in young boys and girls. But this lack of support for men makes total sense if the answer is that there's no monetary or political benefit to provide those kinds of services.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Time was about a quarter of women died of pregnancy.
.

Where are you getting this statistic? I think it was more like 1 in 100.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Edx

Prostate cancer can be treated effectively if caught early.

Yes, I know this. It's something that I have like an 80% chance of dealing with.

Quote:

The argument given was that it was a waste of time and money to diagnose and treat and because of sexual dysfunction is associated with treatment I suppose the implication is men would rather die, or they will die of something else first so why bother.

Here was the point:

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.

Nothing about "waste of time." Nothing about sexual dysfunction. Nothing about "men would rather die." Unless you were replying to something else?

Indeed, many older patients will "die of something else first." That's the point. Everyone dies of something. Do you spend a lot of money treating thing A which probably won't kill you for 15 years, by which time you might be dead by thing B anyway? Not to mention the cost and side effects. Look at it logically.

[carlitos]

By the way, I'm not super happy with Obamacare today. I just filled out my paperwork, and the decrease in FSA allowance will probably cost me $800 or so in 2013. I'm very lucky that I work for a company that isn't cutting benefits this year.

[Edx]

@carlitos: You arent quoting the post where he said it was a waste of resources and that there is a "cost" in sexual dysfunction associated with treatment which implies men would rather not bother anyway (and presumably rather continue to die from it) than be treated. You can use his exact argument outside Obamacare since they are not specific to that, therefore something like Movember would be a waste of resources for the same reason he gives here.

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

The question of covering or not (from a public health point of view) is because treating prostate cancer is often not necessary as many men die of other causes. It's thus a waste of resources and comes at a cost to the treated too (impotence, incontinence, amongst other things) that is unnecessary because it does not improve life quality or length. Yes, some individuals get unlucky, have a rare, aggressive form of the disease young and it would be neat if we could catch those early and on time. The problem is that you can't do that without screening and treating a whole lot of non-cases and benign/minor cases that would have better been left untreated. As an analogy I like to give to the partisans of aggressive-screening, "every cancer must be treated" type: men also get breast cancer, now imagine we extended the breast cancer screening programs to cover all men. Well you just doubled the cost of screening (since you double the number of screenings) to save 1% of the cases. If we had infinite monetary and medical resources, it might make sense. In a world with limited resources, it simply cannot work, thus we must look for solutions in different ways.

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

You are making assumptions about risk that may not be valid.

Men with high risk include a man having receptive anal intercourse, even one time, multiple partners and IV drug abuse (IVDU).

For women, risk is any intercourse and IVDU.

Because women are more susceptible to infection when exposed, they are considered high risk by merely having unprotected sex.

For men, high risk starts to occur with receptive anal sex, other homosexual sexual behaviors, multiple partners, and sharing needles.

Free screening is available for anyone anyway through most public health departments, but with the AHCA, screening is available for anyone with risk factors. That just happens to include different things for each gender.

In addition, for pregnant women the idea is to screen because you can prevent HIV in the fetus/infant of an HIV infected mother with drugs.

[Fizil]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You are making assumptions about risk that may not be valid.

Men with high risk include a man having receptive anal intercourse, even one time, multiple partners and IV drug abuse (IVDU).

For women, risk is any intercourse and IVDU.

Because women are more susceptible to infection when exposed, they are considered high risk by merely having unprotected sex.

For men, high risk starts to occur with receptive anal sex, other homosexual sexual behaviors, multiple partners, and sharing needles.

Free screening is available for anyone anyway through most public health departments, but with the AHCA, screening is available for anyone with risk factors. That just happens to include different things for each gender.

In addition, for pregnant women the idea is to screen because you can prevent HIV in the fetus/infant of an HIV infected mother with drugs.

Perhaps this is best illustrated with a graphic:



Red bars are men, bluish bars are women. All three red bars on the left are homosexual men (at least I think that is what MSM means....)

I wonder what the factors are that are causing such high prevalence across the board with heterosexual African Americans. Is there a higher tendency to engage in unprotected sex?

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Edx

@carlitos: You arent quoting the post where he said it was a waste of resources and that there is a "cost" in sexual dysfunction associated with treatment which implies men would rather not bother anyway (and presumably rather continue to die from it) than be treated. You can use his exact argument outside Obamacare since they are not specific to that, therefore something like Movember would be a waste of resources for the same reason he gives here.

Thanks. I think that you should give the second half of his post (about the 1% of breast cancer victims that are male) another read. It's a pretty good parallel about early prostate screening.

Here are the side effects of prostate cancer treatment by protocol. The 'ectomies' can really shoot your sex life to hell. I have an older cousin that hates it. If I were 60, I'd probably monitor the cancer rather than treat it.

http://www.pcf.org/site/c.leJRIROrEp...de_Effects.htm

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Fizil

Perhaps this is best illustrated with a graphic:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/images/womens.jpg

Red bars are men, bluish bars are women. All three red bars on the left are homosexual men (at least I think that is what MSM means....)

I wonder what the factors are that are causing such high prevalence across the board with heterosexual African Americans. Is there a higher tendency to engage in unprotected sex?

MSM is indeed, men who have sex with men.

Notice in the blacks in this group, infected hetero women are more numerous than hetero men. It's the tip of the iceberg showing. Blacks, on the whole are less likely than whites to be tested. Infected black men are less likely to believe they are infected so they go about spreading infection. I'd have to look into it to know if unprotected sex was an ethnic issue, but it's my understanding that denial and avoidance of testing is.

Suspicion of the medical establishment is an issue.

[meg]

Originally Posted by Edx

Prostate cancer can be treated effectively if caught early. The argument given was that it was a waste of time and money to diagnose and treat and because of sexual dysfunction is associated with treatment I suppose the implication is men would rather die, or they will die of something else first so why bother. If you dont find this insulting, then thats up to you. I wonder why we are bothering to research prostate cancer at all, and if perhaps someone should tell Movember guys they are wasting their time.

Your own link says "the survival rate for men who have prostate cancer is nearly one hundred percent over five years if the cancer is caught early." It also says "about 90 percent of prostate cancer cases are caught early."

Right now, prostate screening tests are covered 100% by medicare, meaning they are free to any man over age 65.

According to here: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskf...ecprostate.htm

Approximate 80% of positive prostate screening tests are false positives, and..

Quote:

The evidence is convincing that PSA-based screening programs result in the detection of many cases of asymptomatic prostate cancer. The evidence is also convincing that the majority of men who have asymptomatic cancer detected by PSA screening have a tumor that meets histological criteria for prostate cancer, but the tumor either will not progress or is so indolent and slow-growing that it will not affect the man's lifespan or cause adverse health effects, as he will die of another cause first. The terms “overdiagnosis” or “pseudodisease” are used to describe both of these situations. It is difficult to determine the precise magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with any screening and treatment program. The rate of overdiagnosis of prostate cancer increases as the number of men subjected to biopsy increases. The number of cancer cases that could be detected in a screened population is large; a single study in which men eligible for PSA screening underwent biopsy irrespective of PSA level detected cancer in nearly 25% of men (2). The rate of overdiagnosis will also depend upon the age at which diagnosis is made. Cancer diagnosis in older men with shorter life expectancies is much more likely to be overdiagnosis.

The link above also details a number of "harms of detection and early intervention", which includes incontinence and erectile disfunction. It might not matter to you, but apparently a lot of men consider those to be very serious side effects for a treatment that might not be necessary.

The idea that prostrate screening tests should be automatically covered for men under of 65 is debatable. As a matter of fact, the idea that PSA tests are even particularly useful or effective for men not showing any other symptoms of prostate cancer is debatable.

Originally Posted by Edx

The main thing here is that men are leading the boards in causes of death and women beat men in life expectancy, while they also far less likely to seek out medical services and treatments than women are. We should be incentivising men to get treatment, but a women gets a "well women" checkup regularly where she can even bring up mental illness'. Yet men need more serious psychological support since they are killing themselves many times the rate than women do, which is true even when we look at suicide rates in young boys and girls. But this lack of support for men makes total sense if the answer is that there's no monetary or political benefit to provide those kinds of services.

Can you show any evidence that free mental health screenings or free checkups for men reduces mens' suicides? Is there a lower suicide rate for men in countries that have universal health care, for instance?

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by meg

<snip>
Can you show any evidence that free mental health screenings or free checkups for men reduces mens' suicides? Is there a lower suicide rate for men in countries that have universal health care, for instance?

I had to respond to this, as it's a bit of a touchy subject. I don't know if the cost is a major issue, as there's still a bias against men appearing weak.

Suicide rates among men are consistently high, no matter the country.

According to http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html 73% of all suicide deaths in the US are white males, and white men have a rate of 19.5 per 100,000. The next closest ethnic/gender based group has a rate of 9.3 per 100,000. Granted, the stats are a bit old, but the best I could find with a few moments on the googles.

This indicates to me that there are some serious issues that few care to talk about. I'm hesitant to bring it up, as most times that I do I'm met with some variation of "Oh, won't someone think of teh poor menz."

[meg]

Hi rustypouch,

I certainly don't want to seem uncaring about this, because I do care quite a bit about it. My only nephew died of what we think was suicide. I say "what we think" because he died of a drug overdose. A huge overdose, over twenty times a normal dose. He was addicted. He was depressed. He had racked up huge medical bills related to his drug use, and had no way to pay them. He had legal troubles related to his drug use. He wanted to stop, and was on the waiting list for 4 different rehab programs. Unfortunately, the waiting list for any of those programs was anywhere from 9 months to 2 years.


I bring this up not because I want to talk about him -- I'd rather not. But because this is a good example to understanding that suicide is complicated. There is rarely just one thing that causes people to consider or to attempt suicide.

Some of the factors that seem to commingle to contribute to suicide rates are:

Depression
Schizophrenia
Alcohol or other substance abuse
Isolation
Exposure to violence
Age
Homosexuality
Transgender
Debt

While some of these issues, like mental health and substance use disorders, can be addressed by the Affordable Care Act, and indeed they are: http://www.samhsa.gov/samhsanewslett...thCareAct.aspx

Other causal factors and suicide prevention strategies are possibly best addressed by other means within the community.

There is an excellent report here: http://actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org discussing the National Alliance for Suicide Prevention's action plan which shows several of the ways in which we as a society can work to greatly reduce the number of suicides in our country. It includes both health care based interventions as well as public awareness and suicide prevention training within certain groups and/or workplaces.

I think it is important to note that one of the most effective methods for preventing suicide is called "Means Restriction", which is restricting suicidal peoples' access to the most common methods of suicide. Because suicidal thoughts are often pretty spur of the moment, and tend to not last that long, limiting their ability to access their preferred method often means they stay alive long enough for help to arrive and/or the urge passes.

More info here:

Means Matter
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

Means Restriction
http://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/savingl...eans_rest.html

Suicide prevention strategies: a systematic review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16249421

More than half of all US suicides every year are with firearms (17,002 in 2005, of which 14,916 were men), yet pro-gun lobbyists have successfully worked it into the ACA to make it difficult for a health professional to even ask if a suicidal person has access to a gun, and impossible for them to keep records or collect data about how many do.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynm...is-in-the-law/


I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that those folks here so concerned that ACA might be pandering to women voters (without any evidence) won't give a damn that it most definitely is pandering to the NRA, and that doing so hampers our ability to collect information about and prevent suicides.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Fizil

Perhaps this is best illustrated with a graphic:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/images/womens.jpg

Red bars are men, bluish bars are women. All three red bars on the left are homosexual men (at least I think that is what MSM means....)

I wonder what the factors are that are causing such high prevalence across the board with heterosexual African Americans. Is there a higher tendency to engage in unprotected sex?

My own belief is that anal sex explains the difference. Or possible the rate of prostitution, with / without anal sex. It just seems to me that gay sex and anal sex are synonymous, but among women the stats are always called "heterosexual", Anal or not. Seems like selection bias to me, in not selecting "women who have anal sex with males".

And have I gone blind from too much neterosex, or did "hetero white male" not even make that list? Some 40% of the population only gets it in negligible numbers, yet the pols argue "it is NOT a 'life style disease', it affects EVERYBODY " ?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by casebro

.... Some 40% of the population only gets it in negligible numbers, yet the pols argue "it is NOT a 'life style disease', it affects EVERYBODY " ?

You may be misinterpreting that argument.

There was a time ("And the Band Played On") when during the Reagan politics in the US very little resources were being applied to the HIV epidemic because it was believed by many to be the "gay disease". Heterosexual people believed they were not at risk. In reality, it was just coincidental the US had the first HIV epidemic in the gay community. Patient Zero (an airline steward) and the fad of gay men having hundreds of partners in the bath houses and elsewhere combined to ignite the first Western epidemic of HIV. But elsewhere in the world the disease was infecting men and women equally and a lot of women were being infected by their husbands who were getting infected from prostitutes.

It's unfair to label everyone with HIV as being responsible for their own infection due to lifestyle. Lots of people have been infected from contaminated blood products, infants from their mothers, and monogamous people who slept with unfaithful partners. The point of emphasizing it not being a lifestyle disease was to combat the unfair discrimination against infected people.


That is a separate thing from identifying risk factors and screening people more often that have them, as well as finding ways to mitigate risks.

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by meg

Hi rustypouch,

I certainly don't want to seem uncaring about this, because I do care quite a bit about it. My only nephew died of what we think was suicide. I say "what we think" because he died of a drug overdose. A huge overdose, over twenty times a normal dose. He was addicted. He was depressed. He had racked up huge medical bills related to his drug use, and had no way to pay them. He had legal troubles related to his drug use. He wanted to stop, and was on the waiting list for 4 different rehab programs. Unfortunately, the waiting list for any of those programs was anywhere from 9 months to 2 years.


I bring this up not because I want to talk about him -- I'd rather not. But because this is a good example to understanding that suicide is complicated. There is rarely just one thing that causes people to consider or to attempt suicide.

</snip>

I'm sorry about your nephew, and thank you for your response.

I may get a bit ranty about this, as it's a bit of a trigger for me (that term is loaded, but it's apt here) as it's something I struggle with, but have been dismissed so often, in person, online, and by the impression I get from society in general, that I am hesitant to bring it up, and may over react when I do.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's unfair to label everyone with HIV as being responsible for their own infection due to lifestyle. Lots of people have been infected from contaminated blood products, infants from their mothers, and monogamous people who slept with unfaithful partners. The point of emphasizing it not being a lifestyle disease was to combat the unfair discrimination against infected people.

.

NOT recognizing the most common way any disease is spread is assinine. And poor science.

The most common way AIDS is spread is through "unnatural" sex. Anal, paid for, or in Africa "dry sex". I.E., choices. You can fall in love with whichever sex you want. But you, as a couple, can choose which sex acts to participate in.

Your argument is of a political basis rather than scientific.

And if you don't think anal sex is a 'lifestyle choice', you don't think.

The question in point here is "what is the cause of hetero black women getting the disease so much more than (my comparison) hetero males." And my proposed answer is anal sex. Which has nothing to do with the politics of fighting the disease, and all to do with the science.

But perhaps you can show me wrong, with a study of "prevalence of anal sex by race" or by "occupation: prostitute" or some such. Personally, I've read lots of charts and graphs. NONE list "hetero anal". They only list "hetero sex", among 'iv drugs', MSM, transfusion, accidental needle stick,...

Hey, that's an idea to remove the gay stigma. A little shift in thinking and it can become, instead of a "gay disease", an "anal sex disease". Would that please us both?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by casebro

NOT recognizing the most common way any disease is spread is assinine. And poor science.

Which is good that isn't the case then. The medical community does a good job collecting data and identifying HIV risks.

Originally Posted by casebro

The most common way AIDS is spread is through "unnatural" sex. Anal, paid for, or in Africa "dry sex". I.E., choices. You can fall in love with whichever sex you want. But you, as a couple, can choose which sex acts to participate in.

These HIV beliefs here are beyond ignorant.

Also, you are getting too far off topic. You are getting into heterosexual HIV denialism, believing it cannot happen to anyone who doesn't do those 'icky things'. Talk about bad science.

Originally Posted by casebro

Your argument is of a political basis rather than scientific.

Are you incapable of seeing there is both a medical aspect to this disease, and a separate but also important political issue?

Originally Posted by casebro

And if you don't think anal sex is a 'lifestyle choice', you don't think.

Straw man. You don't seem to get the fact medicine and politics sometimes both apply to different aspects of a disease.

Originally Posted by casebro

The question in point here is "what is the cause of hetero black women getting the disease so much more than (my comparison) hetero males." And my proposed answer is anal sex. Which has nothing to do with the politics of fighting the disease, and all to do with the science.

But perhaps you can show me wrong, with a study of "prevalence of anal sex by race" or by "occupation: prostitute" or some such. Personally, I've read lots of charts and graphs. NONE list "hetero anal". They only list "hetero sex", among 'iv drugs', MSM, transfusion, accidental needle stick,...

(bolding mine)

Your proposed answer? That's laughable. Why don't you look at what the actual research has found about the cultural reasons HIV in the US is hitting some ethnic minority populations harder than other populations?

In addition, you appear to be ignorant of the fact that females and uncircumcised males can and do both get HIV more easily than circumcised males from basic missionary style sex. And I'm not going to argue with you any more in this thread about it. It's like arguing with a truther or a YEC. You can disagree all you want. It's an ignorant belief, plain and simple.

HIV Transmission

Quote:

Unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection worldwide. At least five European and American studies have consistently demonstrated that male-to-female HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse is significantly more likely than female-to-male HIV transmission. In other words, HIV-positive men are much more likely to transmit the virus to HIV-negative women through vaginal intercourse than HIV-positive women are to HIV-negative men....

...There have been a number of studies showing that men who are uncircumcised have a higher risk of becoming infected with HIV or transmitting the virus if they are already HIV positive. However, it is important to stress that men who are circumcised can still be infected (or transmit the virus) if condoms are not used for vaginal sex.

The fact that anal intercourse is more risky doesn't negate other means of transmission.

Originally Posted by casebro

Hey, that's an idea to remove the gay stigma. A little shift in thinking and it can become, instead of a "gay disease", an "anal sex disease". Would that please us both?

It wouldn't be accurate.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by casebro

It just seems to me that gay sex and anal sex are synonymous,

Well, it just seems to me that you're talking out of your ***.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

Well, it just seems to me that you're talking out of your ***.

[casebro]

SG, I think paragraph cut and paste from you response to me will suffice to back me up:

Quote: Quote:
Unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection worldwide. (Casbro rebuts: world wide ain't Obamacare) At least five European and American studies have consistently demonstrated that male-to-female HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse is significantly more likely than female-to-male HIV transmission. In other words, HIV-positive men are much more likely to transmit the virus to HIV-negative women through vaginal intercourse than HIV-positive women are to HIV-negative men....


So penises are more susceptible than vaginas? But once again, they leave out hetero-anal. Especially hetero-anal F->M.

So how do you suppose the black males get it , to spread it amongst the black females? The males apparently dont' catch it vaginally...

But on a pro-gay forum, I suspect I'll have a hard time as an antidote to the "I didn't choose to be gay koolaid". Which I never argued with, I only argued that anal sex is a choice. But you probably didn't hear the distinction.

Let me remind you that the OP was about Obamacare, the side track is about why black females get aids. SG, you haven't proposed any reason.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

Well, it just seems to me that you're talking out of your ***.

You can hear me because I've never been in prison.

[casebro]

It just occurred to me that the bar graph in post #92 is about people. It's divided by 'kinds of people'. Looks like an appeal to emotion? A decade ago the PR was about babies born with aids.

When it could be about method of transmission. Except way to the right we see black IDUs (intravenous drug users). Perhaps the IDU is part of the answer for "the black aids epidemic" ? I do notice that f&m Black IDUs are nearly even, where as the black hetero M&F are waaaaay apart. ummmm, Maybe more black male drug users spread it vaginally to black hetero women? Then, obviously, the hetero black women don't sprad it as readily among the hetero black males, because v-p is not so efficient of a way to spread it?

What do you think of that, SG? Have YOU got a better reason?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by casebro

SG, I think paragraph cut and paste from you response to me will suffice to back me up:

Quote: Quote:
Unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection worldwide. (Casbro rebuts: world wide ain't Obamacare) At least five European and American studies have consistently demonstrated that male-to-female HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse is significantly more likely than female-to-male HIV transmission. In other words, HIV-positive men are much more likely to transmit the virus to HIV-negative women through vaginal intercourse than HIV-positive women are to HIV-negative men....


So penises are more susceptible than vaginas? But once again, they leave out hetero-anal. Especially hetero-anal F->M.

So how do you suppose the black males get it , to spread it amongst the black females? The males apparently dont' catch it vaginally...

But on a pro-gay forum, I suspect I'll have a hard time as an antidote to the "I didn't choose to be gay koolaid". Which I never argued with, I only argued that anal sex is a choice. But you probably didn't hear the distinction.

Let me remind you that the OP was about Obamacare, the side track is about why black females get aids. SG, you haven't proposed any reason.

Going back to the OP, the criticism was that the AHCA offered all sexually active women HIV screening and all men with risk factors HIV screening.

The complaint was more men than women in the US have HIV, all men should get free screening.

My reply was, a woman having any sexual intercourse (more accurately unprotected intercourse) has a risk factor.

For men, risk factors for HIV do not generally include vaginal sex with one partner if one is circumcised. Multiple partners, anal intercourse, sex while not being circumcised, IVDU, sex with prostitutes, and so on constitute risk factors.

It's not that the AHCA gives women a better deal, it's that risk factors are different. In both genders, at risk behavior is offered free HIV testing.


As I said, I'm not going to argue with your false beliefs about HIV transmission.