Because obviously masculinity = not being responsible for your health.

Well then,
So this is how Mr Mangina GP, "diagnoses" his male patients?
It makes me wonder with that list of blather, wether he is actually a real doctor.

If he is any real sort of a doctor, why does he need to bash men in a "paper" like the Times, others don't.

In my experience it's women who whine the most about their medical problems. Women go to the doctor for a cold, we men, we get medicine over the counter.

Here in the US we don't have socialized medicine so many men don't have any health care at all. I am in that group actually.

For women, the government is glad to pay once they have a kid. If the kid is on medicaid, then so is the mother. For men, no.

...and they wonder why men don't go to the doctor. WE DON'T GET FREE HEALTHCARE!

Besides, shaming is no way to gain more business.

Speaking of business, going to the doctor is expensive, more expensive than it should be. It's irritating to pay a few hundred dollars for 2 min of the doctors time. You go there and wait in the room for 20 minutes and the nurses come in to tell you "the doc will be in here in a few minutes". Doctor comes in, spends 2 minutes and then writes a prescription for antibiotics. You just paid a few hundred dollars for nothing!

To make matters worse, when you have the same problem in the future and you know what you need to take...you still have to go back in and waste a few hundred dollars just so you can get a refill.

It's a rip off.

Well said Garak,

One thing that pisses me off about my doctor, is he has a computer in his consulting room.

Now that could be construed as a good thing, I say not.
While you are trying to talk to him, he is pressing the keys and is moving the mouse and clicking on your last visit, finding out what you were there for.
Now don't get me wrong, I do see my doctor quite frequently, once every 2-3 months, I had a scare with HIV last year at a car accident and have been looking for a full clearance in that respect.
But, why oh why are doctors visits so expensive for MEN?, women over here seem to have a "Club Card" that entitles them to almost free health care.
This is discrimination to say the least.

Quote from MikeT

But, why oh why are doctors visits so expensive for MEN?, women over here seem to have a "Club Card" that entitles them to almost free health care.
This is discrimination to say the least.

Hm I must ask for help here as I am not sure how the american system works. Can someone explain it to me? Is there a study on what women and men have to pay? Sounds interesting...

Quote from Feckless

Hm I must ask for help here as I am not sure how the american system works. Can someone explain it to me? Is there a study on what women and men have to pay? Sounds interesting...

Simply put Feck, In this country (USA) there is no "national healthcare"... yet... The Messiah is working on it... for some anyhow... the rest? Well, they (mostly blue collar men) will have to PAY for it.

BUT!

If you are here illegally, or are a woman (mother is even better), you can get all you WANT.. not need... WANT!

Of course, the other end of the spectrum is that if you have enough $$$, you can get everything you WANT as well.

TMOTS

Quote from themanonthestreet

Simply put Feck, In this country (USA) there is no "national healthcare"... yet... The Messiah is working on it... for some anyhow... the rest? Well, they (mostly blue collar men) will have to PAY for it.

BUT!

If you are here illegally, or are a woman (mother is even better), you can get all you WANT.. not need... WANT!

Of course, the other end of the spectrum is that if you have enough $$$, you can get everything you WANT as well.

TMOTS

Universal Health Care is not the answer. You want the government to be more socialist?




http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:
HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable.
HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors – especially obstetricians – out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.
HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits – yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

Universal Health Care is not the answer. You want the government to be more socialist?

No not really but what choice is left?

If Keith Hopcroft is in any way typical of British GPs, then we should not be surprised that men are steering well clear of their lousy clinics. It's certainly why I stopped going to mine many years ago. And to think my hard-earned taxes are helping to inflate this patronising moron's bloated salary. That's enough to make anyone feel sick.

Incidentally, did anyone notice that the original article appears in the "Life and Style" section of Times Online, under the "Women" tab? Says it all, really. Men's health is relegated to a joke article designed to pander to female notions of sexist superiority.

MM I think you misunderstood my post. Or maybe I just wasn't very clear. I most certainly am not a proponent of universal healthcare....

TMOTS

Quote from themanonthestreet

MM I think you misunderstood my post. Or maybe I just wasn't very clear. I most certainly am not a proponent of universal healthcare....

TMOTS

Yea I think I did. i think its mostly women pushing for UHS.

They are afterall scoialists.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/brown6.html

Quote from Garak

No not really but what choice is left?

It's not even about the government becoming more socialist, but universal healthcare being impossible to create, without degrading the level of the healthcare. Do you want to see how public clinics look where I am from?



And you will stop having people die because they don't afford healthcare, you will have people die because they're waiting on queue list to get it. BTW, the pics above are of a place that looked like that since my dad was a child. It's the epitome of what happens to places after 50 years of socialized garbage.

http://rebelliousvanilla.wordpress.c...e-and-the-who/
I'm not going to write the same thing again.

Holy....really not a good place in my "boyfriends bed"....Where are you from?

I don't think medicine should be a "for profit" business. When I was still watching TV I remember seeing loads and loads of ads for prescription drugs, just who do you think was paying for those ads? Yep, people who need medical care pay extra for everything to cover costs.

Medicine is not like selling TV's, nor should it be treated as such.