Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: intacto
Uh-oh, it's the "helmets" versus the "anteaters".
6 posted on 11/10/2001 1:32:40 PM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: snopercod
Yes, Medicaid should pay for it, and this is why. While most middle-class parents would properly care for an uncircumcised baby and maintain good standards of cleanliness, I'm not so sure about welfare mothers.

Occasionally uncircumcised babies and toddlers DO get infections. Again, most middle-class moms would run their kids right to the pediatrician, and treating the infection would be no problem. Welfare mothers, on the other hand, would most likely let the infection get quite extreme before showing up at the emergency room, which ultimately costs the state more.

The final issue is the link between no circumcision and cervical cancer in women. Right now there's an indication that lack of circumcision leads to cervical cancer in the female partner. This is a significant public health problem in and of itself, and if the woman who gets cervical cancer is also on Medicaid, then there's just more public health cost down the line. While no one should be *forced* to have their boy circumcised, on the other hand it seems that paying for it for the poor would be justfied as a public health measure.

7 posted on 11/10/2001 1:38:04 PM PST by ikanakattara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: snopercod
LOL!!! (stress 'out')
22 posted on 11/11/2001 9:32:34 AM PST by mlocher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: snopercod
snopercod - my Aussie pal in Perth prefers "Cavaliers" versus "Roundheads"...
27 posted on 11/11/2001 10:03:15 AM PST by ErnBatavia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson