He's a known domestic abuser. Therefore, when he has a joint or bone problem, he needs to live with it, because he's used his arms and legs to hurt others. Same with any nervous system fault or his ability to breathe/speak. If he can't breathe, can't spew invective, can't move, and/or can't act on his violent urges, he's not a threat to those around him. He has lost the right to have society enable his abuse by healing him.
As an abuser, he's also lost the right to his boner. Therefore, no prostate care, no viagra, no urology.
And since he's proved he's heartless, he doesn't need cardiac care. So we won't pay for that, either.
Further, since men are statistically more violent, more likely to be shot, stabbed or beaten, and more likely to shoot/stab/beat someone else, they've lost their right to trauma treatment. Men are most likely to engage in risky behavior, so I don't want to pay for any coverage that would include treatment for traffic accidents, boneheaded ski/snowboarding events, Hold My Beer chainsaw incidents, middle aged men popping wheelies, or turkey fryer burns. It makes actuarial sense -- remove any one of trauma, orthopedics, cardiology and respiratory coverage from men, and insurance costs drop significantly more than removing OB/GYN care from women.
(Poe ends. That was all sarcasm.)
See how this bullshit is ridiculous? It's the rank misogyny of the MGTOWs/MRAs, premised on the faulty assumption that they're the natural default. (What these wastes of molecules don't realize is their precious Y chromosome is both a maladaptive mutation, and it's eroding.) Fragile little boys who never moved past their third grade cooties and live in a superstitious dread. They'd be pitiable if they weren't so contemptible.
= new reply since forum marked as read