American Psychological Association: "Traditional Masculinity" Is Harmful

The American Psychological Association ("APA") recently came to a formal conclusion that many of us in the gay community have known for a very long time: the ideal of traditional American masculinity is harmful.  It's harmful to men themselves, women and society at large in terms of violence and un-diagnosed mental health issues and even the failure to engage in healthy practices. And it goes without saying that being gay places one on a head on collision with the expectations of this toxic ideal of masculinity.  In my own case, it took years of therapy to get over the damage done to me by this stereotype of masculinity, not to mention the brainwashing of my Catholic upbringing. A piece in the Los Angeles Times looks at the APA's new warning (the actual report linked in the article is dry and full of professional jargon, but makes the case that this toxic ideal of masculinity is literally killing men and a causation of harm to women, families and society):

The American Psychological Association has issued its first official warning against toxic masculinity.

The new “Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men,” marks the first-ever report published by the association aimed at helping practitioners care for their male patients “despite social forces that can harm mental health.”

Citing more than 40 years of research, the APA warns against the “masculinity ideology,” which it defines as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure risk and violence.”

“Traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict and negatively influence mental health and physical health,” according to the 36-page report, featured in January’s issue of Monitor on Psychology.

Conforming to the norms of the “masculinity ideology” can result in suppressing emotions and masking distress in young boys as well more risk-taking and aggressive behavior and a lack of willingness to seek out help. The report additionally contends this can lead to traits like homophobia and pave the way for sexual harassment, bullying and violence against others and themselves.

The APA also invoked a series of of sobering statistics to emphasize that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

For example, despite being 4 times more likely to die of suicide than women, men are significantly less likely to to be diagnosed with internalizing disorders because they don’t “conform to traditional stereotypes about men’s emotionality.” Men in the United States also commit an estimated 90% more homicides than women and are also much more likely to be arrested for domestic violence.

“Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men” additionally calls on those treating male patient to recognize their own bias and urges them to address how “power privilege and sexism work, both by conferring benefits to men and by trapping them in their narrow roles.”

With grandsons, I truly hope they can avoid some of the toxicity traditional American masculinity.  Hopefully having gay grandfathers will open their minds to throwing off the shackles of this harmful stereotype.

At Last a GOP Alternative to Obamacare - Which Leaves Many Kicked to the Curb

For years we have heard members of the GOP whining and belly aching about the Affordable Health Care Act , a/k/a Obamacare, and seeking its repeal.  During the same period we never had any definitive alternative proposed by the GOP.  Now, the outline of a GOP proposal has been brought forth and (i) it keeps many of the Obamacare provisions and (ii) leaves many more uninsured.  Once again we see that in the eyes of the GOP many Americans are simply disposable trash.  This from the political party pretends to honor Christian values.   A column in the New York Times looks at the proposal and its negatives.  Here are some excerpts:

FROM the moment the ink dried on March 23, 2010, Republicans said they intended to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. They have voted more than 40 times to wipe the law from the books. But Republicans have never gotten around to describing, in detail, the set of policies they believe should replace Obamacare. That is, until yesterday.

After nearly four years, we finally have a Republican counterproposal: the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment (or Patient CARE) Act.

[W]hile it is lacking in important details, this plan contains some interesting ideas that might have enabled bipartisan compromises had they been offered in 2009, when I was a health care adviser to the Obama administration and the Affordable Care Act was being debated.

Despite all the heated rhetoric from Republicans about Obamacare laying ruin to America, the plan would actually keep some of the law’s key provisions. It would preserve some subsidies for lower-income people to buy private insurance, though it would change the way they are calculated. Those $700 billion worth of Medicare savings Mitt Romney denounced during the 2012 campaign?  Republicans would keep them. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plan until age 26? Republicans would keep that, too. And the ban on lifetime insurance caps, so people with very expensive diseases don’t lose insurance? Republicans wouldn’t touch it.

But in other crucial ways, the Republican plan is different. First, Obamacare’s absolute ban on withholding coverage from people with pre-existing conditions would be rolled back. Those who remained continuously insured would stay protected, so they couldn’t be charged higher rates or be excluded entirely. But if their insurance lapsed, health insurance companies could charge more or refuse to cover them. 

Second, it would shrink the Medicaid expansion. Pregnant women, children and families below the poverty line would still be eligible, but childless adults would not. States would be given a fixed amount per person enrolled in Medicaid to reduce spending. 

And employees of large companies, even if those companies did not offer health insurance, would be exempt, regardless of income. 

The largest difference is in cost control. Currently, employer-sponsored health insurance is tax free; the Republican plan would make employees pay income tax on at least 35 percent of what their company pays for their plan. 

On a more individual level, this is what the Republican plan means: If you are one of the 150 million Americans who get their health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan, get ready for a big tax increase. For a family in the 28 percent tax bracket (earning around $150,000 per year), according to my calculations, it would add up to about $1,470 per year. 

People who don’t get insurance through their employer would also be likely to pay more. The Republican plan would provide the unemployed, people in the individual market and those working for small businesses that don’t provide health insurance a tax credit to buy private insurance. But the credit increases only by age, not by need — which means people with lower incomes would pay much more than they would under Obamacare. 

In addition, the proposed plan would take us back to the old days when insurance companies could charge women more than men for the same health plan. And older people would also be penalized.

The plan would bring back many insurance company shenanigans.  . . . . if you lose your job and therefore your employer-sponsored health insurance, you would not be excluded for a pre-existing condition if you immediately bought your own insurance. But if there were a gap in coverage, insurance companies could deny you coverage. 

What if the paperwork you filled out is “lost”? The history of insurance companies’ tricks for denying coverage to high-cost patients — like revoking the insurance of a cancer patient who failed to disclose that she had back problems — does not inspire confidence. 

Finally, there is the issue of prevention. The Affordable Care Act made preventive services free. To save money, Republicans want to reverse that . . .

There is more, but the bottom line is that the GOP plan would cost citizens more for less coverage. And some would be thrown on the trash heap. 

Romney Still Clueless: "No One Dies Because They Don't Have Insurance"

One of the biggest failings of healthcare in America is the huge number of Americans who do not receive preventive medical care.  As a result, medical treatment is not sought all too often until the situation becomes serious and as a consequence the medical costs of treatment too late are not only catastrophic but often the patient dies from the illness that might have been curable/treatable if addressed earlier.  The other consequence is that because hospitals have to treat so many uninsured patients, the costs for everyone else skyrocket and vastly exceed the cost of similar treatment in virtually every other advanced industrialized nation.  Sadly, through his latest statements it is evident that Mitt Romney - who has never in his life had to forgo medical treatment because of cost worries - does not understand the reality that most Americans face daily.  Even with decent health care insurance many still think twice about seeking preventive or early diagnostic testing because of deductibles and/or copays.  Likewise, he doesn't grasp that its the millions of uninsured who do precisely what Romney describes that cause our medical cost to be so exorbitant.  Think Progress looks at Romney's utterly out of touch  statements as he talks about repealing "Obamacare."  Here are excerpts:

Mitt Romney doubled down on his suggestion that uninsured Americans can find the care they need in emergency rooms, telling The Dispatch that people will always receive the treatment they need, and do not die or suffer because they can not pay for care. He pointed to federal law that requires hospitals to admit emergency patients, repeating his advice that patients rely on the most expensive form of care reserved strictly for emergencies. Romney told the Columbus Dispatch:

“We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’  ” he said as he offered more hints as to what he would put in place of “Obamacare,” which he has pledged to repeal.

“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”

He pointed out that federal law requires hospitals to treat those without health insurance — although hospital officials frequently say that drives up health-care costs.

Emergency rooms serve as a place of last resort, but 45,000 Americans still die every year because they lack health insurance, or one every 12 minutes. Uninsured adults under age 65 are also at a 40 percent higher death risk. Hospitals may treat patients for emergency medical conditions regardless of legal status or ability to pay, but patients with chronic conditions that don’t require emergency interference are often unable to access needed care.

Romney’s health care proposal would leave 72 million Americans without health insurance and wouldn’t provide all uninsured Americans with a stable source of insurance.

Romney is not only a shameless liar but totally out of touch with the reality that most Americans face ever day of their lives.  Those born to wealth like Romney AND Paul Ryan simply have no clue because neither they nor their families have ever had to worry about how necessary medical care will be paid for.