Should the government spend equal amounts on men’s and women’s health and well being?
October 27th, 2009 | by admin |Equal spending on on men’s and women’s health issues.
Equal spending on women’s and men’s non health related specific issues
In other words, are you for or against equality?
Either shut down all programs specifically for women or start equivalent men’s programs.
In terms of need: Men DIE from disease 5-7 years YOUNGER than women on average.
My household includes a woman who believes in equality for all.
Professor: News flash! Heart disease and cancer are the top two killers of men AND women.
Yes. If we are to advance health in the US, we need R&D and that means we need more grant money from NIH to be equally distributed toward male and female pathology (with respect to Federal money). Private organisations can do what they want, but as a taxpayer, I feel there is an absolute need to equalize how much money is directed toward male disease (both prevention & treatment). Modern Feminists oppose this.
11 Responses to “Should the government spend equal amounts on men’s and women’s health and well being?”
By iblockidiots on Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
It’ll never happen.
Feminism and NOW is not woman’s rights, they’re woman’s advocacy.
They get women women-only grants. Billions in women-only grants.
0 men-only grants.
Feminism is a special interest movement, plain and simple.
.
References :
By Chris H on Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
You have to understand something about equality in America. Women’s rights and Minority rights are civil rights. White rights is racism and Men’s rights is sexism. There will always be more people standing up for Women than men and more standing up for minorities than white people.
References :
By James Lyons on Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
Men and women should receive the same amount of government aid. Children should get more. Disabled people should be given aid dependent on the severity of their condition.
There’s more government programs for women, I think, because there’s more single mothers than fathers, and single parents apply for more government aid than childless people.
References :
By R. Gaspari on Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
Yes. If we are to advance health in the US, we need R&D and that means we need more grant money from NIH to be equally distributed toward male and female pathology (with respect to Federal money). Private organisations can do what they want, but as a taxpayer, I feel there is an absolute need to equalize how much money is directed toward male disease (both prevention & treatment). Modern Feminists oppose this.
References :
By Meilien on Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
The simple answer is no. Women are higher maintenance, due in no small part to the fact that child bearing is complex and costly, and due to the fact that men are more likely to have broader private medical cover.
I’m all for equality, but frankly any government that offers equal funding to men and woman to cover pre and post natal services, and maternity services, is wasting tax dollars.
Besides, these days with all of the money that the government is spending patching up war veterans I wouldn’t be surprised if the balance had been redressed somewhat. Or maybe you think that the state should hand out artificial legs to women who don’t need them to redress the balance for all of those veterans who get free legs just because they got their own ones blown off defending your freedom.
References :
By Dominic on Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
I’m all for equality but feminists will never, ever let equality prevail. Their modus operandi belies their pretension of wanting equality.
References :
By Deity of Peace on Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
Most funding that goes into scientific medical research is either donated by private organizations, persons (celeberties) or charities that raise the money to support the issues. This is way I sort of get annoyed when I see male posters come here complaining about how much attention and funding is raised for issues involving women’s health.
Do note that the majority of the illnesses that woman suffer from men can and do suffer from as well (i.e. pancreatic, colon, breast cancer; Alzheimer’s, HIV/AIDS and various STDs). Being a woman and man means that you’re still made up of the same material (bones, flesh, and blood). The same illnesses that kill us, kill you guys as well. So when you see these pink ribbons (which seems to be the target of ridicule for most male posters here) that symbolize breast cancer; do realize that men are affected by it this disease as well. Just think about how you would feel if you lost your mother, sister, aunt, or daughter to breast cancer. Would you join the fight to find a cure that’s affordable for all, or would you still pout about the fact that you feel there’s not enough attention towards testicular cancer.
Finding a cure for one of these illnesses is equality because we all would benefit from it. May you be the patient, or someone close to you be the patient, the medical miracles found (through the funding raised by advocates) is what’s needed for everyone. The government doesn’t really fund most of the medical research that some of you guys come in here and complain about. But maybe if some of you guys would stop complaining about what you assume is a feminist conspircy theory to come to the aid of women only, and actually get invovled in the causes that you protest here, you would know first hand that private and charitiable organzations is what keeps the march going for these supposed "female only" illnesses.
Become an advocate! Find out what these women and men did to bring such attention to these illnesses and do the same for the things for what you feel is male only. You’ll find that a lot of advocates and organizations reach across lines and assist one another in finding cures; they don’t spend as much time complaining like some of you guys do, the get up and do something about it.
References :
By ProfessorC on Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
No- and I answered this in another question. Health issues are not equal. Spending should be based upon impact. What takes the most years of life away, what impacts quality of life, causes disability, etc., not what affects people with a penis or a vagina.
You do understand your household may someday include a woman. Are you going to explain to her that you advocated for removal of a program that could have kept her alive, but men did not have a similar one so tough.
EDIT Causes of death for males: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mens-health/MC00013
Note the item that says MOSTLY PREVENTABLE-
References :
By amandamaria1432 on Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
There had been discrepancies as far as funding for women, which (I believe at least) is why there were programs catering to women.
From places I’ve done work for, I get the idea this also had a lot to do with women needing better care when it came to pregnancy, far too many women were not getting adequate prenatal care due to the cost, and babies were suffering for it.
I do support equal funding for both, but believe creating aid especially for women is what did make it more equal.
Can’t honestly say I know what’s happening across the US, and even in Canada since a few years ago, not aware really of if anything new has happened, it could very well be imbalanced now favoring women. If it is, then of course I don’t agree that’s fair or equal =o)
References :
By BratRich's Friends on Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
I am in touch with the health field, not tangentially at all.
I am of the firm belief that DHHS should get the special interest group, men, women, children and all, the F^cK out of their budgetary consideration
They must focus on the diseases and their social impact. If breast cancer is more prevalent than lung cancer, it should get more funds.
If prostate cancer has more socio economic impact than breast cancer, it must have more funds.
People, we are talking about lives. Fu^c^k your feminist or anti-feminist ideologies.
If your group needs more grants, go to charities.
References :
By Elf #3 on Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
I don’t agree with your premise that equal spending defines equality.
Equality is a big picture concept which cannot be boiled down to dollars spent on one aspect of life.
I do agree that men die earlier than women, but that is more a function of individual choices than govt. fund allocation.
It would be difficult to discern whether money spent on prenatal care, for example, was socially more beneficial to women or to the children eventually born.
I believe in promoting healthy choices for everyone. Proactive measures save money and lives.
References :