But I couldn't help noticing the parallels between this study and the recent rankings on gender parity; in the area of "health and survival" the U.S. was ranked a pathetic 36 out of 128 countries, and France was ranked No. 1.

I hope this means you didn't actually read the study in question, since that makes for a pretty poor parallel: the US' rating in that particular gender partiy category was .9795, with 1 indicating full equality. France's rating was .9796. It tied for first with 35 other countries, which is why the US' rating -- despite being all of .0001 worse -- resulted in such a "pathetic" ranking.

If the differences in the study you're actually writing about are that small -- which I doubt -- there wouldn't be much of a story.

The post says that "preventable deaths account for 32 percent of deaths for women and only 23 percent of deaths for men." It infers that this means that "preventable deaths strike women more often than men." But this does not necessarily follow. If there are more deaths in a given age group for men, then it could mean that exactly the same percentage of women and men are killed by preventable causes, but many more men are killed by OTHER causes, thus making preventable death a smaller percentage of all male deaths. This might not be the case, or it might be a combo of the two, but either way, the logic that led from the numbers to that statement is flawed.

well that's really about all there is to say isn't it?

It's not just one column. It's the majority of her output.

All of it pits one group against another, time after time taking positive sum games and turning them into zero sum games.

Here Ms. Lloyd could be stressing the need for better healthcare for all, but she does not want better health care for all, she wants a) to blame men, and b) to state what a victim she is, and c) better healthcare for women only.

I resent people who constantly miss opportunities for win win solutions and love to watch people fight just for her little victimization and power games.

What a piece of work she is. (Where work is pronounced "shit")

Just wanted to correct the faulty statement that war kills predominantly men. Forget your WWII Hollywood movies about male soldier friends and think city bombings and landmines, genocide, rape and sexual mutilation as war strategy etc.

Read for example: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3229

Can you please point that part out to me?

Thanks!

... the gender disparity in funding for health care reseach disproportianately favors women. We do not have a basis to cry foul and complain that health care treats women worse than men. We receive more funding, more free testing, and more programs. We even have our own well funded agency to ensure all of this. Others have digested the statistical analysis quite well and shown this to be bupkus. Which brings me to the link http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3229

This gender feminist thinking and oversight thereof, which permeates UNHRC, as it does most agencies in the UN bring up valid issues, but extend them too far by manipulating data for a flawed ideology. The goal there, like this article, is to create a self fulfilling prophecy that all women are victims of the patriarchal structure. Facts and reasoned analysis do not bear this out to the conclusions this author or that poster reach.

No as a group that's true. Mostly because of Ob GYN. As a group.

Individually about 4/5ths of all healthcare consumed in your entire life is consumed in the last year of life. For most people that's old age, for women of childbearing age who are in fact bearing children that's skewed a little earlier.

makes me glad that I am Canadian. Our system isn't perfect but but everyone has health care coverage. I can't imagine having to pay money to see my doctor or becoming a slave to my health insurance.

The article states that "though the number of uninsured women is rising more rapidly than that of uninsured men, there are still more men without insurance."

"Mostly because of Ob GYN. As a group."

Well, if we're parsing information like that, it seems to me we should split those health care dollars in half: since OB/GYN care is for the woman and her fetus, and most of those dollars are actually spent in labor and delivery, when the fetus is inarguably a baby. So, perhaps it's more accurate to say that "as a group", most of the health care dollars are spent on "women of childbearing age *and* soon-to-be-born babies". Which are 49% male.

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.

Let's restate this as fewer woman are paying for the healthcare they need. Why is it woman always want to contribute less and take more ? Why are woman more affected by poverty, why are woman contributing less in taxes, why are more woman not covered by healthcare plans ? I blame the patriarchy. It must suck to not have choices.

Yes of course Canadian doctors get paid and yes it does come out of our taxes. The difference is if you don't make a decent living you are covered anyway, if you have a 'pre-existing condition' you are covered anyway, if you leave your job you are still covered, there is no one to reject my claim or tell me which doctors I can and cannot see.

I am not trying to slam America, it just that you deserve better.

You know, that "more women die of preventable deaths than men" (and the inevitable conclusion that "fewer women are getting the healthcare they need") is even more disturbing considering that women are more likely to have health insurance than men, and women are more likely to see a doctor than men.