Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
These studies are all lies!
Not more that two weeks ago I heard all the Republican candidates agree that the US has the best healthcare system in the world.
While I don't want to dismiss the possibility that women do suffer more preventable deaths at the hands of, or because of neglect by, the healthcare industry (or because of their own reluctance to seek health care soon enough, as with the heart attack issue discussed around Thanksgiving), what is the reason they chose age 75 as their maximum? What would happen to the percentages if they picked as the maximum 65 or 60 - ages at which most women AND men are far less likely to die because of a health problem? Before the age, in other words, that more men start dying due to non-preventable health problems.
I could not see the whole study, only an abstract.
I keep on clicking on the link for the anti-marriage thing and it keeps on bringing me to the index, for which the top two articles remain this thing on healthcare and the quote from Chris Matthews about Clinton.
The group that consumes the most health care, in total dollars, is women of childbearing age.
Men die more often of unpreventable things, which are typically, the result of poor or inadequate preventive care?
So basically, we're (men) already behind the curve in terms of health management, lets' make your side even better by focusing on giving us less.
How is that possible if they are superior divine goddesses?
Please don't turn our poor healthcare delivery system into a gender issue. Our system sucks. Period. End of story. The gender thing is a pointless diversion. There is no war on women, healthwise.
I'm a 50 year-old male who has lost his job through no fault of my own. Lost my insurance, too. I'm looking for a job, but they're hard to come by where I live. In the meantime, I got nothing. Me and women who are also uninsured are looking at exactly the same scenario, the exact same disparity.
For Gods sakes, not everything is part of a vast conspiracy against women.
It could be that women have more elective surgeries, or that women spend more time in the hospital in old age because they live longer, or because women's reproductive systems results in more surgeries and/or hospitalizations then men .... Speculating about the reasons for a differences is not helpful, does not further the dialogue about women's health issues, and spreads untrue propaganda.
Of course this has nothing to do with women living 4 years longer then men on average. In fact a white woman's life expectance is 14 years longer than a black man's! Talk about the Sisterhood vs. Brotherhood. If Obama had any balls he would confront Hillary with this but I think he is so focused on opposition to white men only that HRC skate by.
but on the whole I just think people, men and women, don't get preventative treatment because it costs so much even if you are insured and if you're not, just forget it. I mean getting a colonoscopy, a mammography, an MRI, all that stuff which is essential at a certain age is pretty spendy. It seems to me that contemplating the results of these tests being positive puts quite a few people off. That being said, I work for doctors and having a chronic condition of my own I always have a regular doctor. Maybe they just hate my guts (understandable) which I'm beginning to suspect is the case but it seems that neither men nor women doctors listen to a word I say. Just get in get out. I have to add this. My aunt who had been a single parent, age 60, living on her own, developed breast cancer, never told anyone, never got treatment, keptagoing to work and then one day called in sick and when her sisters took her to the hospital, she died. She struggled financially all of her life. There was no doubt that she knew she had the cancer as the tumor was huge. I just don't think she was up for the fight and I'm sure this kind of thing happens a lot to men and women. Sorry.
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.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
