Poor People Not Entitled to Circumcision

The state of Florida will no longer allow poor families to bill medicaid for circumcisions performed on their infants. Lawmakers say the procedure is not medically necessary and Florida says it will save $2.3-million of taxpayers' money each year.
Karen Woodall, a social services advocate, says this change is unfair to parents who want the procedure for cultural reasons. The reimbursement for the operation is between $151.19 and $222.79. Hearing aids, dentures and eyeglasses were also cut.
The American Academy of Pediatrics says that circumcision is a cosmetic operation. Doctors used to say it prevented infants from getting urinary tract infections. 65% of US males are circumcised a year compared to 20% of the males on Earth.

St. Petersburg Times Online

To be honest, I really don't see anything wrong with this either.

In light of current monatary/fiscal problems states are having, its only feasiable that the states will find ways to save money. I see this as another one of those "money saving" solutions, that Florida has opted to enact/adopt.

regards
seekerof

Sounds like a good idea. Afterall its more of a cultural / religious issue than anything else, and can't be that expensive.

Reminds me of the cartoon with Moses on Mt Sinai looking to heaven and asking ..."You mean you want us to cut the end of our dicks off?"

"The reimbursement for the operation is between $151.19 and $222.79." - good grief, that's 92 pounds to
136 pounds! They must be awesomely well-equipped in Florida!There are people in China who'd cut your head off for less than that.
The odd cents means, I assume, it must be taxed -do the different prices refer to sizes?

Bad k=joke, not to offend anyone, but the 151.$ is for whites and asians, the 222$ is for blacks and hispanics.


One question to guys, have you ever been kicked so hard in the groin it turned black and blue? But even though it is black then, it stays the same size.

Anyways, who cares? It isn't needed. Besides, poor people shouldn't have kids. If they are poor, they have no money to raise the kid. Like in Africa where one couple has 80 kids. Only 30 live, but still have the 80 kids. But are starving, no food, money, clothes, housing, yet they keep having more and more. A solution? Do what china does and limit kids. Not one though, cause in China girls get killed off and all that is left is 1.5 billion chinese guys. Make the limit 3, maybe 4.

Well, Florida sucks anyways. They lost how many kids? Come on, a parent loses one, they get in trouble. Florida loses hundreds of them, they go oops, not my fault, blame the democrats.

heh heh,
Home kits are available,
they sell them in korea.. involves a string tied around your tally wacker, and cuts off the blood flow. eventually the foreskin drops off.

as all the doods in this board go shhhhhhhishhick and cross thier legs.

Originally posted by Estragon
"The reimbursement for the operation is between $151.19 and $222.79." - good grief, that's 92 pounds to
136 pounds! They must be awesomely well-equipped in Florida!There are people in China who'd cut your head off for less than that.
The odd cents means, I assume, it must be taxed -do the different prices refer to sizes?

bwaaaaaa!!! quit it, you're hurting me...

Seriously, there are a few disadvantages to being poor in a capitalistic society...one of them is obviously a few more ounces of skin...fore that is.

so they wont get snipped down there.

who in gods name would advocate cutting a new borns penis based on religious and/or myths?

and who is gonna storm the capitol and say "i want my boys penis snipped!"???

is it really that important? if so then have a bris done. otherwise please leave your newborn babys body alone.

we've become a socitey that gets rid of anything we dont think we need. if we were not meant to have foreskin we wouldnt be born with it. its that simple.

kthxbye

I feel particularly able to comment on this as my 7 day old son just got out of the hospital. He was circumsized yesterday and I must say that I was absolutley against it. I was talked out of my decision by my wife and the doc. I have always argued that it is cosmetic, and close to ritual mutilation. My arguement against the procedure is that it is cosmetic and does not increase the health of baby boys; plus I don't care if they can't "remember" the procedure, I feel certain it hurts.
90% of boys in the US are cut, the percentage in Europe and the rest of the world is far far lower. I am glad to see this happening in Florida. It will force some familes to really think about whether or not they want this done on their kids.
My son had complications, he would not stop bleeding for about 9 hours (nothing too serious but he was in significant pain). This much pain (for him AND me watching my boy hurting needlessly) for a cosmetic surgury.
I was convinced that he would feel uncomfortable when he noticed that dad was different than him (I am circ'ed). And that he would be made fun of in gym class, since most kids would be circ'ed. I now say, WHO CARES, being different is just that, being different. If I had yesterday to do over, my boy would NOT have this horrific procedure done unless he decieded to convert to Judaism later on in life.
Yeah Florida.

How did circumcision become so widespread in the US ? Propaganda from jobless jewish docs ?

There really are medical benefits to it. There is a lot of upkeep involved when it is not done. And unless you want to take the time to swab his little willy every evening until he's old enough that you can be darned sure he'll do it himself, you've taken the easier way.

by in large look at it this way...first, yes, I'll give you a heads up ( )...i'm sorry, that got me... women prefer the look. Second, it avoids a lot of medical issues that can come up if a great deal of attention isn't given (and let's face it, little boys and teenage boys do good to get their teeth brushed). Third, if by chance it causes some kind of permanent emotional damage...it's okay, he'll just fit in with the majority of the dysfunctional men from the rest of the developed world.

You did good.

[Edited on 18-7-2003 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
Third, if by chance it causes some kind of permanent emotional damage...it's okay, he'll just fit in with the majority of the dysfunctional men from the rest of the developed world.
[Edited on 18-7-2003 by Valhall]

You mean USA and muslim africa ?

I read somewhere that the most senstive portion of the unit with the most nerve endings is c ut, thereby taking away some sexual pleasure. I don't know uncut ones just look kind of creepy. I'm glad I went under the knife.

I dunno,
i'm giving my son the chop.
We have to support the canadian chewing gum market...

*ducks once again snickering*

Originally posted by Valhall
There really are medical benefits to it. There is a lot of upkeep involved when it is not done. And unless you want to take the time to swab his little willy every evening until he's old enough that you can be darned sure he'll do it himself, you've taken the easier way.

by in large look at it this way...first, yes, I'll give you a heads up (

)...i'm sorry, that got me... women prefer the look. Second, it avoids a lot of medical issues that can come up if a great deal of attention isn't given (and let's face it, little boys and teenage boys do good to get their teeth brushed). Third, if by chance it causes some kind of permanent emotional damage...it's okay, he'll just fit in with the majority of the dysfunctional men from the rest of the developed world.

You did good.

[Edited on 18-7-2003 by Valhall]

easier way=lazy way. thats pretty much what it boils down to. life isnt easy and its obvious that we try to get by doing the bare minimum. its called being lazy no matter how you look at it. and if you cant teach your own child how to clean himself i think you have bigger issues than think. seriously.

women like the aesthetics of it? well some guys like giant implants on a woman does that mean women should get implants? be serious, i dont care if any woman likes how it looks or not, its made for function not form. your argument is invalid. if most men were not circumcised "most women" would think being uncut as normal. and again i reiterate if we were not meant to have it we wouldnt be born with it.

more education about hygiene goes a long way more than removing a part of a body that isnt attached to yourself. there are female "circumcisions" that are performed in other parts of the world and everyone pretty much universally agrees this is wrong. but when its done to a boy its acceptable. why??? how is one "procedure" really different from the other???? you're multilating someone elses genitals according to your own standards/beliefs.

I'm going to contradict Val for once

As a british woman, my personal experience points towards the non-circumcised male as being the norm. I don't have a particular problem with how a gentleman is um 'attired' but will admit to finding certain things easier when a foreskin is present. Hygiene has never been an issue frankly.

The minority I have encountered who have been circumcised have had it done past childhood for medical reasons such as uncomfortably tight foreskins, or at birth because of their family's religion. None of them have any regrets about this.

In comparison to female circumcision which is a totally barbaric act designed to remove all chances of sexual pleasure and rightfully illegal in my country.

In answer to the original point of the thread, yes I agree that it is a non-vital procedure that can be reduced to save money. So long as the poorer families can still get it done when it is very much needed for medical reasons.

Perhaps those families whose culture/religion demand circumcision should use some of the money donated each year towards their place of worship to employ a qualified person to perform the operation

*cranks up for a diatribe*

I do not like the idea of circumcision. In fact, make that: I hate the idea of circumcision.
"They're so little, they don't remember it!"
Whatever. They're so little they probably won't remember you cutting their earlobes off, but does that mean we should all start doing that to infant boys?

My ex-husband is Jewish. I am not. If you're not familiar with Jewish custom, boys are always snipped when they're eight days old in a "ceremony" called a bris. The procedure is performed by a mohel.
Please note, I did not say a doctor. A mohel is not a medical doctor, and this procedure does not occur in a hospital.
Shortly after we were married, my ex-husband's cousin had a baby boy. I knew, in theory, what a bris entailed, but I didn't really *know*. We made the trek up to his cousin's house which was filled with people and a fancy spread of food was laid out.
Towards the middle of the afternoon, everyone crammed into the living room. The baby's father held the naked infant and the mohel did his work.
No anesthetic. In the freakin' LIVING ROOM of someone's house.
And that baby boy screamed like ... jesus, I can't describe what it sounded like. It was horrific.
I promptly burst into tears and left the house.

Custom, tradition, or just habit, I don't care. When the time comes for me to have little Banshees, any boy of mine is staying the way he was born. I'll brush his little teeth and wash behind his little ears and while I'm at this basic parental duty, I'll take a minute to wash his genitals!

Here's a site with information about circumcision. If you decide to check out the "What Happens During a Circumcision" page, be aware that it's graphic.

www.cirp.org...

There's no medical or health benefit to this procedure. It's nothing but intense pain on the most sensitive area of a boy's body.

And how can we be so sure a child doesn't "remember" this later in life? There sure seems to be an awful lot of men obsessed with their genitals and their "manliness." I have a theory that there'd be less strife in this world if we'd just leave our little boys' penises alone.

-B.

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by Banshee]

Originally posted by arc
I'm going to contradict Val for once

As a british woman, my personal experience points towards the non-circumcised male as being the norm. I don't have a particular problem with how a gentleman is um 'attired' but will admit to finding certain things easier when a foreskin is present.

Damned if you don't say...well, I have admittedly missed something ;D