Men pay $300 for drug, women pay $6 - "...not discriminatory" - Polidicks

[quote]OSTEOPOROSIS doesn't discriminate between sexes, but a drug used to treat it is being subsidised for women only. Pensioner Robert Hadley "cannot believe" he has to pay $300 a dose for a treatment for thinning bones that costs women just $5.90. The seemingly sexist subsidy for the osteoporosis drug Prolia has been confirmed by the Health Department. "Prolia is not currently available on the PBS for the treatment of male patients with osteoporosis," a departmental spokeswoman said. She said the reason was that the drug company which makes it has asked only that it be subsidised for women. Read more: [url]http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/osteoporosis-drug-subsidised-for-women-not-men-who-pay-more-than-50-times-the-price/story-fneuzlbd-1226671689488#ixzz2XXrIY6x4[/url] [/quote] My ass it's not discriminatory

The Australian government being stupid? Golly mate this sure is a new development!

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41229078]The Australian government being stupid? Golly mate this sure is a new development![/QUOTE] Oi cunt, what you saying 'bout 'Strayla?

[QUOTE=download;41229100]Oi cunt, what you saying 'bout 'Strayla?[/QUOTE] Ya fuckin colony aint shit, mate. Ya had a moralist, homophobic, atheist PM, ya upside down survivalist.

Wow thats so sexist.

But.. but the Patriarchy. Shouldn't it be men getting the cheaper medication? [QUOTE]"Companies cannot be compelled to apply for a PBS listing, or to expand the scope of an existing listing. However, the PBAC would accept a submission to amend the listing of medicines at any time,"[/QUOTE] Seems like the company and government are just mixed up because of some dumb regulation. The company is testing women so they get the testing subsidy because of this but they haven't applied for male testing so I'm not sure.

That's pretty messed up.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41229176]But.. but the Patriarchy. Shouldn't it be men getting the cheaper medication?[/QUOTE] sometimes the patriarchy hurts men as well bro.

This isn't an example of some concerted effort to keep men worse-off than women, all this is is an example of a Pharmaceutical company's relentless greed.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41229536]sometimes the patriarchy hurts men as well bro.[/QUOTE] What does patriarchy even mean then? Feminists just keep changing definitions and moving goal posts so they can ignore evidence that blatantly contradicts their ridiculous patriarchy conspiracy theory.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41229123]Ya fuckin colony aint shit, mate. Ya had a moralist, homophobic, atheist PM, ya upside down survivalist.[/QUOTE] Canada sucks.

I'd like to point out: [quote]Around one in two women aged over 50 will experience an osteoporosis-related fracture compared to one in three men aged over 60, he says. Companies developing new treatments for osteoporosis usually start their clinical trials in women. If the drug works in women only later will they trial it in men. [...] A spokesperson for drug company Amgen said Prolia was currently being reviewed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and in July would be assessed for a subsidy for men.[/quote]

Because it's more common in women still doesn't make it okay

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;41229609]I'd like to point out:[/QUOTE] Or not even greed, I was wrong. It's just a sensationalist headline.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;41229609]I'd like to point out:[/QUOTE] So what?

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41229582]What does patriarchy even mean then? Feminists just keep changing definitions and moving goal posts so they can ignore evidence that blatantly contradicts their ridiculous patriarchy conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] It's a stupid term that stupid feminists use in stupid, fallacy filled arguments about how holding doors for them is oppressing the entire female gender.

[QUOTE=Quark:;41229678]It's a stupid term that stupid feminists use in stupid, fallacy filled arguments about how holding doors for them is oppressing the entire female gender.[/QUOTE] Should point out that's the strawman feminist that is unfortunately quite accurate for many people who call themselves feminists

[QUOTE=Mac2468;41229630]Because it's more common in women still doesn't make it okay[/QUOTE] So is my ejaculate, but that doesn't mean dogs should have to pay more than women for it.

[QUOTE=download;41229650]So what?[/QUOTE] So it's because of statistics, not sexism. The drug wasn't subsidized because it wasn't tested in men yet (since far fewer men will buy it).

[QUOTE=download;41229650]So what?[/QUOTE] So it costs more money for men because they haven't received a government subsidy that would make it cheaper for men, but they are currently in the process of getting said subsidy.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41229740]So it costs more money for men because they haven't received a government subsidy that would make it cheaper for men, but they are currently in the process of getting said subsidy.[/QUOTE] Or, you know, they could have had said subsidy from day one?

[QUOTE=NeuFeX;41229733]So is my ejaculate, but that doesn't mean dogs should have to pay more than women for it.[/QUOTE] what

[QUOTE=download;41229754]Or, you know, they could have had said subsidy from day one?[/QUOTE] Again, it needed to be tested in men before it could get a subsidy. They weren't going to test it in men until their target demographic (women) had been tested.

[QUOTE=Quark:;41229678]It's a stupid term that stupid feminists use in stupid, fallacy filled arguments about how holding doors for them is oppressing the entire female gender.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Aidan_088;41229582]What does patriarchy even mean then? Feminists just keep changing definitions and moving goal posts so they can ignore evidence that blatantly contradicts their ridiculous patriarchy conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] Stop going on tumblr and basing your opinions of feminism on them. The patriarchy isn't an evil group of men sitting around a table saying "how can we oppress the bitches today?" it's a worldwide background phenomenon. Throughout the entirety of human history men have been the ones to rule and hold power. They have been the primary authority figures. That's what a patriarchy is by definition, mostly men in power.

[QUOTE=download;41229754]Or, you know, they could have had said subsidy from day one?[/QUOTE] Who fucking knows how Pharmaceutical companies work? Big companies use millions of weird tricks to skirt tax law and abuse subsidies. In order for this to be "sexist" you'd have to provide an argument that this was a concerted effort on the part of a group of women who harbor some sort of prejudice against men instead of just one of countless other abuses of a completely, globally fucked pharmaceutical industry.

[QUOTE=NeuFeX;41229594]Canada sucks.[/QUOTE] Sorry.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41229582]What does patriarchy even mean then? Feminists just keep changing definitions and moving goal posts so they can ignore evidence that blatantly contradicts their ridiculous patriarchy conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] nobody is changing the definitions. patriarchy is a system within society that views men as more powerful than women. gender roles, pay inequality, blatant misogyny, etc., are all examples of patriarchy. patriarchy doesn't just oppress women. if you have ever been called a wimp or a pussy for not living up to the male standard of behavior or beauty, if you have ever lost custody of your children because your ex-wife is automatically considered a better child caretaker simply because she is a woman, if you have ever had to pay more for car insurance because you are a man and automatically considered more reckless or impulsive based on that, then you are a male victim of patriarchy. but anyways, like other people have pointed out, this story isn't really an example of sexism. i just wanted to explain that most men and women are victims of patriarchal gender roles in their lives.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41229781]Stop going on tumblr and basing your opinions of feminism on them. The patriarchy isn't an evil group of men sitting around a table saying "how can we oppress the bitches today?" it's a worldwide background phenomenon. Throughout the entirety of human history men have been the ones to rule and hold power. They have been the primary authority figures. That's what a patriarchy is by definition, mostly men in power.[/QUOTE] The way I like to phrase it when im talking to nerdes is that it's an "emergent behavior". There is no conscious global conspiracy to keep women down, women being kept down is just a consequence of men having all of the money and power and wanting to keep that power to themselves, which in-turn coalesces into actual legal and social discrimination against women. That's what the patriarchy is. A single instance of men getting screwed when paying for medication or being disadvantaged when suing for custody is not evidence of anti-male sexism because it does not fit into a coherent, holistic global framework of a "matriarchy".

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41229801]Who fucking knows how Pharmaceutical companies work? Big companies use millions of weird tricks to skirt tax law and abuse subsidies. In order for this to be "sexist" you'd have to provide an argument that this was a concerted effort on the part of a group of women who harbor some sort of prejudice against men instead of just one of countless other abuses of a completely, globally fucked pharmaceutical industry.[/QUOTE] So what, unknowingly being sexist isn't sexist? Ignorance isn't much of a defence

[QUOTE=download;41229890]So what, unknowingly being sexist isn't sexist? Ignorance isn't much of a defence[/QUOTE] No, not being sexist isn't sexist. Read my other posts.