Women aren't getting the same quality of health care that men are, and if the Republican Party has its way, that's about to get a whole lot worse. But what if men's health care was treated like women's health care? It might seem hard to compare the two, but after breaking everything down, it should become obvious to even the most willfully ignorant politician, greedy insurance company, or paternalistic doctor that women are getting the shaft when it comes to health care, and taking more rights away is a step backward, not forward.
According to Marie Claire, women are more likely to suffer from chronic pain than men, yet they're less likely to be prescribed painkillers. Women are also less likely to receive the proper diagnosis for a heart attack or a concussion, because some doctors still think of those as men's conditions. Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies were allowed to charge women higher premiums than men. The law prohibiting "gender rating" didn't even go into effect until 2014, and now it might be repealed by a group of wealthy, old, white men with no medical knowledge, because they hate paying taxes. But how would they like it if the roles were reversed? Here's how that would look:
How about instead of the aforementioned bros, health care was decided by an all-woman Senate panel? And just for good measure, let's make sure that some are older, some younger, some queer, and some women of color (with many of these identities overlapping, because that's how it works). They won't be required to identify a testicle on a diagram, though, because actually knowing anything about health is unnecessary.
That's not a heart attack, silly man, you're just hysterical. Or maybe you're just looking for attention? Has your girlfriend been ignoring you, honey? You're not really in pain; that's psychosomatic. Of course you don't have a brain tumor; you're probably just tired or depressed. But remember that depression isn't a real medical condition; it's just your hormones making you crazy, as usual.
Who cares if the drug will be exclusively prescribed to men, for a condition only men can have? Humans are humans. The dosage should probably be the same, too, even though men are generally heavier than women. What's the difference?
Men who are under 40, have less than three kids, or don't have their wife's blessing would get a stern lecture from their doctor if they asked them to shut down their baby factory.
Why should women subsidize erectile dysfunction medication just because some man can't keep it in his pants? If he wants to run around town and have sex willy nilly not to procreate, he can pay for it himself. And insurance companies shouldn't be required to cover prostate exams. More than half the population doesn't even have a prostate!
Men better be careful when they leave the house, because if they accidentally pick up a tick or some other parasite, they probably won't have access to a doctor who will remove it. And if it turns out it's been there for a while, it'll actually be illegal to remove it, even if it's dead. Don't like it? You shouldn't have been out in the woods to begin with.