POLL: Should insurance pay for cosmetic procedures like circumcision?

I know that insurance does not usually pay for any type of cosmetic surgery, but it does pay for newborn circumcision, which IS cosmetic, since it is NOT medically necessary and may actually do much more harm than good.





Since it is a $200M a year industry and affects EVERYONE'S premiums, do you think it should be covered by insurance?

POLL: Should insurance pay for cosmetic procedures like circumcision?
The bottom line is it goes into everyones premium. Why should I have to pay that small extra bit when I shouldn't have to, as it isn't "needed".





It is clearly not needed. 80% of the men in the world are uncircumcised and doing just fine. Most outside of the US and Middle east are appalled that we do this to our boys.





I think I read that 61% of insurance companies still pay for this, but I bet in 10 years, it is half that.





Currently Medicad doesn't pay for it in 15 states, and another 14 are considering it.
Reply:Yes because I don't think its medically unnecessary - I think it's very necessary.
Reply:No I don't think so. And more and more insurance companies are choosing not to pay for it. It was a procedure done for Religious reasons people not medical reasons. Rarely do people medically need to be circumcised.
Reply:Yes.
Reply:our insurance DID cover his 100% and I never knew that some companies didn't cover....


its your opinion that its NOT medically necessary, some of us moms do believe it is necessary.


all of us pay premiums for many different things people may THINK is medically unnecessary so what is the problem??
Reply:Nope it shouldn't be covered.
Reply:No, I dont think so. It has nothing to do with being medical at all. Plus its really not as common anymore.
Reply:I have never heard of a circumcision doing more harm than good, but the contrary. Where did you get your facts?
Reply:Your opinion of circumcision doesn't determine whether it is cosmetic or not. I'm very thankful that my insurance covers it. I'm due soon with a boy and plan to have him circumcised. One of the major benefits is having a good self esteem and I don't want to take that away from my son.
Reply:There have been studies that having a boy circumsised will help him have less of a chance of contracting STDS when he is older and also lowers his chances of getting UTIs and such. My insurance covered kyle's but I dont know how many insurances still cover it at all. From what I understand Medicaid does not even cover it anymore. Though it is not medically necessary in most cases, it does have benefits to the child. I think that insurance should cover it because if we let insuance exclude this, what next? they will not cover c-sections because it is not natural? Or an epidural because it is not 'medically necessary'? I think the insurance companies have been sticking it to us for so long, they should have to cover everything!
Reply:Your belief is that it may actually do more harm than good, and that's fine. However, many others have the belief that it does NOT do more harm than good. My son was circumsized, my husband was, all the males in our families were, my friends' husbands were... no harm done with any of them, they haven't been traumatized in any way.





I see no problem with it being covered by insurance.
Reply:No I don't think it should be covered.





And for all of you saying it IS medically necessary.........read and you'll see how wrong you are.
Reply:There are many, many sites both PRO and CON and of course, everyone has a right to own opinions.





Here's a link to two sites, both PRO and CON, but please be forwarned that the 2nd link is very graphic. That link itself is not, but if you were to view some other pages they will warn you that they are very graphic, as they may show images of the male sexual organ.





It is obviously a very personal choice.





As far as insurance paying for it? Hmmm....... that's a very good question and I'm not sure I have an answer to that right now, as some think it's cosmetic and others think it is medically necessary.
Reply:Great question! It certainly doesn't make sense for insurance to automatically cover newborn circumcision.... Meanwhile, there are desperate people faced with miles of insurance red tape as they seek treatment for serious illnesses. (For newborns as well as the elderly, and ages in between.)





Seems there are better options for that $200M. I vote "no".
Reply:Absolutely not. It is purely cosmetic (and I know seeing as how neither baby nor daddy are circumcised).
Reply:No, male genital mutilation should not be paid for with my premium dollars.





In the countries were they do not sell the harvested foreskins to cosmetic or pharmaceutical companies doctors are against the procedure. In Australia they have banned "circumcisions" from state hospitals because they have found that they cause at least as many problems as they are supposed to solve.
Reply:absolutely NOT. I do not want any part of MY insurance premiums going to pay for the mutilation of baby boys. over 80% of the world is INTACT and they aren't all keeling over from penis rot and infections. Being intact is natural and healthy. As an added bonus it may dissuade some parents from cutting their children unnescarily. If insurance NOT covering saves even one baby boy, I'd be happy. -Neb
Reply:A lot of insurances don't cover it and I expect more will follow suit. No I don't think it should be covered I think if parents are sick enough to want it done they should have to pay. Unfortunately the downside is doctors get rich off this and that's why they promote it. I would rather see it banned.
Reply:More and more insurance companies are refusing to cover circumsizion for the reasons you described.


A lot of people argue that its a "personal choice". Surely breast enlargement, penis enlargement, facelifts, etc are all personal choice too, yet they aren't covered by insurance!


Give it a few more years, and the vast majority of insurance companies will NOT cover this *elective* procedure.
Reply:Yes it should be covered by insurance. It is the more sanitary option. Not being circumsized as a young child can lead to infections, rashes etc.
Reply:Yes
Reply:This is a tough question, because one report will say it's not medically necessary and then another will say that there's a greater risk of AIDS in uncircumcised men.





Before my son was born, I agonized over whether to do it or not. I started asking everybody what their opinion was.





My dermatologist: Well, I'm Jewish. :)





Nurses and doctors, absolutely.





Pediatrician, who was from Russia--no need.





My father who worked in a nursing home around really old people--definitely. He'd seen all kinds of problems with old men not being able to take care of themselves anymore.





The final opinion was from an uncle who had to have it done as an adult. Definitely do it when he's a baby. Poor guy, he cringed and practically doubled over when he remembered all the pain he had when he was grown, and it had been over 20 years.





It's one of those questions that I wish had a final, definitive answer, but doesn't yet. So for now, I'll say yes, it should be covered.





So should sterilization.





I've asked my son if he thinks I was wrong to have it done and he says he's glad we did.
Reply:YES IT SHOULD BE COVERED. As a mom to a little boy, I did a lot of research. Circumcised boys have far fewer issues with keeping things clean and good hygiene. Also, it might interest you to know that uncircumcised men are much more likely to not only get various STD's including AIDS, but they are much, much more likely to spread those diseases to partners. So the way I see it-this is EVERYONE'S issue, I would rather pay to have this done in a safe and sterile manner as a child (and you can tell the doctor to use a local so pain is not an issue) than pay to treat STD's down the road. Or in more clear terms, it costs less up front to provide this procedure than to treat future partners for any number of STD or some types of ovarian cancer.
Reply:It should be. My two older sons are not circumcised (their dad, my ex husband is not) both of them have had issues with their non circumcised penis. They are both clean kids, but have had issues and did as babies even when I kept them clean.





My youngest from my new husband is circumcised and we have never had a problem. I do not believe it does more harm then good and it is a cosmetic procedure.