According to their definition -- which included deaths under age 75 from certain surgical procedures, bacterial infections, diabetes, certain cancers and heart disease -- preventable deaths account for 32 percent of deaths for women and only 23 percent of deaths for men.

Two of the items listed above are hospital-related. What's the female:male ratio of surgical intervention? I always thought that women were more likely to seek medical attention than men in the first place. If more women are seeking medical attention, more women will be having surgery, and more women will be dying from surgical complications. If you control for the number of people actually *having* surgery, are more women dying from complications than men, or are the mortality rates actually the same?

Heart disease is interesting, because I think women are still in the dark about how heart disease is actually the #1 killer of women in this country. I think most still believe its cancer. That's not lack of treatment, or lack of access to healthcare, its ignorance on the part of the patient population that yes indeed you do need to stop smoking, cut back on the hooch, eat well, and exercise or you will drop dead. Also, heart attack symptoms are very different for men than they are for women. Everyone knows the primary symptoms for men: chest pain, shortness of breath, pain or numbness in the left arm. For women? Symptoms are identical to a mild 'flu: fatigue, headache, nausea. Why would anyone go to the ER when they think they the just have a winter flu?

Does this study track patient compliance at all? I'm thinking of diabetes in particular. Are women more or less likely to be compliant with their treatment? When instructed to make dietary changes, are they less compliant than men? I have a sample set of exactly three to go by but anecdotally I can tell you that yes, the women in my family are 100% noncompliant with their prescribed regimen, while the men (man) is probably about 70% compliant.

There is so much granularity to look at here, I think throwing out a number like "Women die from preventable causes 10% more than men!" is an exercise in facile thinking and kind of irresponsible and meaningless without actually looking at the data (the site charges for access to the report itself.) It's like the "9 out of 10 women will have abortions" study, which if you actually looked at the numbers didn't say anything even close to that.

I can't imagine having to pay money to see my doctor

Unless doctors in Canada are all independently wealthy and actually work on a volunteer basis, you do pay money to see your doctor. You pay it through taxes, and the physicians are paid through your NHS, or whatever its called there. Americans pay it on a fee for service basis either in cash or through an insurance company.

Oh c'mon, KitchenGirl, you know what we mean when we say "having to pay for the doctor". Imagine having a co-pay and then a bill for firefighters coming to your house to put out a fire, or for police having to come to your house. You really believe the person who wrote that didn't know about the taxes? Give me a break. It's ironic, actually, that you're playing dumb so that you can make a "smart" comment. Give this tired, full-of-shit republican argument a rest, will you?

I *do* pay for the availability of the fire department, in the form of state income tax. If I paid no taxes to support them, then I *would* expect a bill for their services; how would you propose they get paid? How do you propose doctors get paid?

I never said fee for service is better, just that it probably shakes out to about the same. What percentage of gross pay is deducted from Canadian paychecks to fund the NHS? Is it roughly equal to what I pay in monthly insurance premiums?

Also, I'm not a Republican; I actually embody the worst excesses of New Deal Democrats.

The trees are all the right height? What does that even mean?

In Ireland the grocery stores simply charge for bags (I think its 25 cent per, but I can't remember offhand.)

If he's more beholden to her, such as she's offering goods and services at the best price or best quality he can get, or she provides him work projects and assignments, he needs to nicely let her know he's unavailable, like, say, letting her know your wedding date. :) If he's in the power seat anyway, and she's as obnoxious as you're painting her, he can get a little caustic about it.

He's the client, he holds all the cards. Regardless of whether or not he can get a good deal through her, he can get a better deal elsewhere if other vendors find out he's looking to switch suppliers. Any threat to her -- or more to importantly, to her management -- of losing his business should be enough to stop her antics dead in their tracks (especially if she's doing the babealicious thing to try and drum up business -- is she a pharmaceutical rep, by any chance?)

Tangentially, as a single gal myself it makes me very happy for you that your partner has a) told you about this, and b) told you how uncomfortable he is around her now. With all the internet trolling, TV, movies, and weekend bar assholes around it makes me fret that there really aren't any men of good character out there anymore. Of course, the one in this story is by definition already spoken for so maybe I really am fresh out of luck.

Best of luck to you, this is a really crummy situation to be in.