SC Medicaid no longer covering routine circumcision!

[bedheadmaestro]

Originally Posted by pcjs So, basically, we should go down the list of every health insurance and if someone doesn't believe the treatment is "morally" right then the insurance shouldn't pay. I think that's very close minded for a group that prides themselves on being open-minded but I guess openminded is only open as long as you believe specific beliefs. So, where does the insurance should not pay for XXX. Do we stop paying for IVF? That could be considered elective???? Maybe you all should lobby tricare and insurance company's to stop paying for that or heavily subsidizing that? Parenting technically is not a right? Maybe we should stop paying for cancer treatment? If cancer consumes ones body, maybe it was meant to be that that person should die? For those liking alternative medicines - chiropractors, mid-wives, and anything out of the "norm" should health care stop paying for that too?

IVF, cancer treatment, chiropractors, midwives all have proven medical benefits and are treatments of conditions. IVF is considered a treatment of a medical condition-infertility. Circumcision is not a moral issue when it comes to insurance. It is simply that a foreskin is not a medical condition. Every human male is born with one. Circumcision has zero medical benefits when performed on a newborn baby. It CAUSES the medical problems. Insurance will still pay for circumcision needed to treat phimosis (a medical condition) that is causing problems later in life.
And IVF, chiropractic and midwives aren't paid for by lots of insurance companies, either. And you have to really fight to get cancer paid for, too (from personal knowledge). All the more fuel for the fire about the fact that circ is paid for.

[pcjs]

Originally Posted by bedheadmaestro IVF, cancer treatment, chiropractors, midwives all have proven medical benefits and are treatments of conditions. IVF is considered a treatment of a medical condition-infertility. Circumcision is not a moral issue when it comes to insurance. It is simply that a foreskin is not a medical condition. Every human male is born with one. Circumcision has zero medical benefits when performed on a newborn baby. It CAUSES the medical problems. Insurance will still pay for circumcision needed to treat phimosis (a medical condition) that is causing problems later in life. And IVF chiropractic and midwives aren't paid for by lots of insurance companies, either. And you have to really fight to get cancer paid for, too (from personal knowledge). All the more fuel for the fire about the fact that circ is paid for.

Tricare pays for Chiropractors - I was offered one - turned it down as its not something I am comfortable with but the point is - to me, that's elective, just as infertility - so really, anything elective should be cut out by the standards posted here. Infertility may be a medical condition, but should insurance pay for it as it isn't a right to be a parent so why should insurance pay for it - that's 100% elective.

There are medical reasons, including infections and preventing infections and I know kids via my job who have had to have circ. at ages 2-6 because of them.

To me its no different than any other elective procedure and its a personal choice that I don't think someone has a right to decide for someone else.

[VeganCupcake]

Originally Posted by pcjs So, basically, we should go down the list of every health insurance and if someone doesn't believe the treatment is "morally" right then the insurance shouldn't pay. I think that's very close minded for a group that prides themselves on being open-minded but I guess openminded is only open as long as you believe specific beliefs. So, where does the insurance should not pay for XXX. Do we stop paying for IVF? That could be considered elective???? Maybe you all should lobby tricare and insurance company's to stop paying for that or heavily subsidizing that? Parenting technically is not a right? Maybe we should stop paying for cancer treatment? If cancer consumes ones body, maybe it was meant to be that that person should die? For those liking alternative medicines - chiropractors, mid-wives, and anything out of the "norm" should health care stop paying for that too?

A lot of insurance plans don't cover IVF or other assisted reproductive techniques, chiropractic care, or midwifery care anyway. Experimental treatments are also often not covered. Some people have no dental coverage, which clearly has medical benefit. Insurance companies are constantly making decisions of what is and is not covered and how much it is covered based on lots of issues, including efficacy, cost cutting, and all kinds of other reasons.

[bedheadmaestro]

Originally Posted by pcjs Tricare pays for Chiropractors - I was offered one - turned it down as its not something I am comfortable with but the point is - to me, that's elective, just as infertility - so really, anything elective should be cut out by the standards posted here. Infertility may be a medical condition, but should insurance pay for it as it isn't a right to be a parent so why should insurance pay for it - that's 100% elective. There are medical reasons, including infections and preventing infections and I know kids via my job who have had to have circ. at ages 2-6 because of them. To me its no different than any other elective procedure and its a personal choice that I don't think someone has a right to decide for someone else.

Hoo boy, to say "infertility is elective" is not going to win you any friends on this forum. Giving birth to a biological child is elective. But infertility is something that can be treated.

Also, I guess I should just go ahead and chop my boobs and uterus out now because I (not my doctors) am thinking I probably will have problems with them in the future, based on my own faulty logic. And have insurance take care of that for me. Maybe if our culture would stop circumcising and learn how to take proper care of normal penises (including not retracting the foreskin to clean them, which is the reason for nearly all the problems with uncirc penises), there would be no infections. Nobody is stopping you from circumcising your kids. You just have to pay for it. Just like I have to pay to get my kid's ears pierced.

[CharlieInCharge]

Originally Posted by pcjs So, basically, we should go down the list of every health insurance and if someone doesn't believe the treatment is "morally" right then the insurance shouldn't pay.

This is where your argument falls apart, right here at the beginning. Routine or religious circumcision is not a "treatment" because there is no disease or abnormality present when it is performed; there is nothing to treat. It is an elective, non-therapeutic amputation of a healthy body part. There is no medical indication for it and no immediate medical benefit whatsoever. The only reasons to perform a routine circumcision are cosmetic or cultural, and therefore paying for it is no more the responsibility of subsidized medical coverage than paying for something like ear piercing.

Cultural or religious issues aside, being born a normal boy is not a birth defect by any definition of the term.

[an_aurora]

Originally Posted by pcjs There are medical reasons, including infections and preventing infections and I know kids via my job who have had to have circ. at ages 2-6 because of them.

A foreskin does not cause infection.

[jks06457]

I unfortunately had my boys circ'd. My ex and my DH would not budge on this choice no matter what I had them read etc. So I made them be the ones to sign the paper and be there when it was done. I will also make my DH explain later. Still a sore point to me.

If I was a single pregnant mom or had a DH that was on board with non circ it would be a different story.

Thank heaven for the rational that it is not necessary. I which it wasn't covered when I had my boys. What a huge reason I would have had!

That being said I would bring something into this argument...but I don't feel that this is the proper post for it.

[burnsis]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler Unfortunately, I've seen reliable confirmation that this isn't the case for West Virginia.

that's disappointing. I had read on a few different sites that WV stopped funding it this year.

[pcjs]

Originally Posted by burnsis that's disappointing. I had read on a few different sites that WV stopped funding it this year.

WV paid for my son's in late 2009 - so they were doing it then as his birthmom & dad signed off for it. Its nice people have the "right" to choose what is best for their child.

[pcjs]

Originally Posted by bedheadmaestro Hoo boy, to say "infertility is elective" is not going to win you any friends on this forum. Giving birth to a biological child is elective. But infertility is something that can be treated. Also, I guess I should just go ahead and chop my boobs and uterus out now because I (not my doctors) am thinking I probably will have problems with them in the future, based on my own faulty logic. And have insurance take care of that for me. Maybe if our culture would stop circumcising and learn how to take proper care of normal penises (including not retracting the foreskin to clean them, which is the reason for nearly all the problems with uncirc penises), there would be no infections. Nobody is stopping you from circumcising your kids. You just have to pay for it. Just like I have to pay to get my kid's ears pierced.

I personally think it should all be paid for, including your kids ears pierced as I would prefer a doctor to do it over a shop at the mall where the hygiene is not as good but it isn't the point I am making. Where do you draw the line and who decides what is elective or not. I never had a need to have a biological child - my need was to be a mom so that really is a bad argument to me. And, paying for my own infertility treatments given our issue would have been far cheaper than the nightmare we went through although our insurance/docs pushed us to have a biological child or basically get a child any means necessary just out of full support as they were just that wonderful - they helped in any way they could and we were very fortunate.

Some of the treatments I have access to could be considered elective to some. But, my doctors push me to do them - some I accept, some I don't. So, if someone on diaperswapper say's hey... that doesn't sound good, group think kicks in where the norm say's hey, that doesn't sound good, even though it may be best for me and my family... then... no more treatment for me and I should suffer? Or, what if I took another approach... everyone should adopt... nor more infertility treatment as I believe that is unnatural (now this is not what I think and I think people should do whats best for them but its not the point) and I went around and lobbied for that? I could use the argument a few people are abusing it and having crazy multiples, trading/selling their meds for a profit (to me, they should be donated, not sold if insurance paid for them) and all kinds of other things I've seen go on or have been told about by friends prior to them adopting. So, again, where is the line drawn where you begin to impose your values on someone else and deny them the right to make an informed choice for their child? Our gov't pays for all kinds of crazy things they probably should and for those of us who don't get tax breaks & credits it sucks but that's life and it is what it is. But, I personally want the choice as I want people like my son's birthparents to be able to make the choice for their children (and yes, they consulted us).