Why do you care what I decide to do to my son's penis when he is born?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess for the reason for infections is that the generation born in the 60s-80s in the US was heavily circumcised. Since those are now the parents, it makes sense to me that they are not teaching their uncirced sons how to clean themselves, because they don't know.

But nothing special has to be done. There is pretty much nothing to teach other than to wash yourself thoroughly which kids should be doing anyway.

I disagree. Before the foreskin retracts maybe. But once it does you must rinse underneath it. By that age kids are unsupervised in the bath and if mom or dad doesn't know to tell son, I can see it not occurring to everyone.

You really don't have a clue about a natural penis do you. No, you do not need to rinse underneath any more than you need to "douche" your vagina.

Natural penis? I didn't realize that circumcised penises were somehow fake. I'm sure that there are many men out there who will be quite surprised to learn that.

They are not fake, but they are no longer in their naturally born state.

Good point. Circumcision is a type of elective plastic surgery, no more no less than a nose job. What is different is that it is practiced on someone who has no say on the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that European studies and procedures are affected by financial aspects as well? There are multiple socialized systems over there where care is rationed based on availability of medical doctors in a particular field and cost/benefit ratio analysis. Maybe all studies need to be taken with a grain of skepticism.

Strange that you would say that. Perhaps you should look at other studies in Europe that relate to elective procedures. Fertility is a good one. Do you suggest that European health care is not at the leading edge of fertility treatment because they may be trying to keep costs down? If that's the case how is it that IVF was pioneered in the UK?

Americans almost universally misunderstand how health care works in Europe. It would not be called "socialized" by almost anyone who lives there. Most Americans also misunderstand or mischaracterize how health care works in the US. For example, health care rationing occurs frequently in the US, with Medicaid or insurance companies calling the shots - or simply health care is rationed through ability to pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that European studies and procedures are affected by financial aspects as well? There are multiple socialized systems over there where care is rationed based on availability of medical doctors in a particular field and cost/benefit ratio analysis. Maybe all studies need to be taken with a grain of skepticism.

Strange that you would say that. Perhaps you should look at other studies in Europe that relate to elective procedures. Fertility is a good one. Do you suggest that European health care is not at the leading edge of fertility treatment because they may be trying to keep costs down? If that's the case how is it that IVF was pioneered in the UK?

Americans almost universally misunderstand how health care works in Europe. It would not be called "socialized" by almost anyone who lives there. Most Americans also misunderstand or mischaracterize how health care works in the US. For example, health care rationing occurs frequently in the US, with Medicaid or insurance companies calling the shots - or simply health care is rationed through ability to pay.

I am intimately familiar with health care both here and in Europe (particularly the UK). And I would choose the US for any sort of major health care issue. This is not even a little bit of a debate. Anyone who believes otherwise is very suspect in my mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that European studies and procedures are affected by financial aspects as well? There are multiple socialized systems over there where care is rationed based on availability of medical doctors in a particular field and cost/benefit ratio analysis. Maybe all studies need to be taken with a grain of skepticism.

Strange that you would say that. Perhaps you should look at other studies in Europe that relate to elective procedures. Fertility is a good one. Do you suggest that European health care is not at the leading edge of fertility treatment because they may be trying to keep costs down? If that's the case how is it that IVF was pioneered in the UK?

Americans almost universally misunderstand how health care works in Europe. It would not be called "socialized" by almost anyone who lives there. Most Americans also misunderstand or mischaracterize how health care works in the US. For example, health care rationing occurs frequently in the US, with Medicaid or insurance companies calling the shots - or simply health care is rationed through ability to pay.

I am intimately familiar with health care both here and in Europe (particularly the UK). And I would choose the US for any sort of major health care issue. This is not even a little bit of a debate. Anyone who believes otherwise is very suspect in my mind.

pp here. I have spent almost 25 years in the UK and 15 years here. I suspect that I am a lot more familiar with both than you are, but certainly with the UK. This isn't the place for a debate on the pros and cons of each system, but I will tell you hands down that I would pick the UK for my health care. I had a major accident as a teen and the care was first rate and there was no quibbling with insurance companies or problems with lack of coordination of care or in fact any bills. My surgeon was amazing and he spent 5 hours of complex surgery to reassemble my broken limbs - now it's difficult to tell I even had an accident. My brother had a major accident as a young adult and was on a ventilator for a few days, very seriously ill. Again, amazing care in the hospital and follow up and all without a single bill. I had routine surgery as a young adult and then the same surgery a decade later in the US and still I'd pick the UK over my US experience (though my US experience was fine, just in the UK there were no insurance hassles). My father recently had a knee replacement in the UK. The waiting time for surgery was less than it took for my husband to get an appointment with an orthopedist here in the UK. His follow up treatment has also been excellent. There may be an illusion of "choice" here but the reality is that it often takes just as long to get an appointment, it's much more expensive and the care is no better (evidenced by outcomes research) particularly if you look at the population as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that European studies and procedures are affected by financial aspects as well? There are multiple socialized systems over there where care is rationed based on availability of medical doctors in a particular field and cost/benefit ratio analysis. Maybe all studies need to be taken with a grain of skepticism.

Strange that you would say that. Perhaps you should look at other studies in Europe that relate to elective procedures. Fertility is a good one. Do you suggest that European health care is not at the leading edge of fertility treatment because they may be trying to keep costs down? If that's the case how is it that IVF was pioneered in the UK?

Americans almost universally misunderstand how health care works in Europe. It would not be called "socialized" by almost anyone who lives there. Most Americans also misunderstand or mischaracterize how health care works in the US. For example, health care rationing occurs frequently in the US, with Medicaid or insurance companies calling the shots - or simply health care is rationed through ability to pay.

I am intimately familiar with health care both here and in Europe (particularly the UK). And I would choose the US for any sort of major health care issue. This is not even a little bit of a debate. Anyone who believes otherwise is very suspect in my mind.

pp here. I have spent almost 25 years in the UK and 15 years here. I suspect that I am a lot more familiar with both than you are, but certainly with the UK. This isn't the place for a debate on the pros and cons of each system, but I will tell you hands down that I would pick the UK for my health care. I had a major accident as a teen and the care was first rate and there was no quibbling with insurance companies or problems with lack of coordination of care or in fact any bills. My surgeon was amazing and he spent 5 hours of complex surgery to reassemble my broken limbs - now it's difficult to tell I even had an accident. My brother had a major accident as a young adult and was on a ventilator for a few days, very seriously ill. Again, amazing care in the hospital and follow up and all without a single bill. I had routine surgery as a young adult and then the same surgery a decade later in the US and still I'd pick the UK over my US experience (though my US experience was fine, just in the UK there were no insurance hassles). My father recently had a knee replacement in the UK. The waiting time for surgery was less than it took for my husband to get an appointment with an orthopedist here in the UK. His follow up treatment has also been excellent. There may be an illusion of "choice" here but the reality is that it often takes just as long to get an appointment, it's much more expensive and the care is no better (evidenced by outcomes research) particularly if you look at the population as a whole.

Government payor = socialized medicine. There is no getting around that. Sounds like part of what you love about the UK system is that you did not have to deal with a third party payor.

When dealing with some of the socialized systems, certain treatments are not provided to those who are too ill or too old. That is a fact. Its called rationing.

Yes, insurance companies to have a say here in what treatments they will pay for. However, if you are in the hospital and need a specific treatment that is deemed necessary by your health care provider, you will get it, even if your insurance company won't pay.

So yes, I do wonder European or American, if some studies are swayed by the background economic culture. There are many here who say the European studies are better than the American ones because the American ones are swayed by economics. Who can say for sure that they both are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that European studies and procedures are affected by financial aspects as well? There are multiple socialized systems over there where care is rationed based on availability of medical doctors in a particular field and cost/benefit ratio analysis. Maybe all studies need to be taken with a grain of skepticism.

Strange that you would say that. Perhaps you should look at other studies in Europe that relate to elective procedures. Fertility is a good one. Do you suggest that European health care is not at the leading edge of fertility treatment because they may be trying to keep costs down? If that's the case how is it that IVF was pioneered in the UK?

Americans almost universally misunderstand how health care works in Europe. It would not be called "socialized" by almost anyone who lives there. Most Americans also misunderstand or mischaracterize how health care works in the US. For example, health care rationing occurs frequently in the US, with Medicaid or insurance companies calling the shots - or simply health care is rationed through ability to pay.

I am intimately familiar with health care both here and in Europe (particularly the UK). And I would choose the US for any sort of major health care issue. This is not even a little bit of a debate. Anyone who believes otherwise is very suspect in my mind.

pp here. I have spent almost 25 years in the UK and 15 years here. I suspect that I am a lot more familiar with both than you are, but certainly with the UK. This isn't the place for a debate on the pros and cons of each system, but I will tell you hands down that I would pick the UK for my health care. I had a major accident as a teen and the care was first rate and there was no quibbling with insurance companies or problems with lack of coordination of care or in fact any bills. My surgeon was amazing and he spent 5 hours of complex surgery to reassemble my broken limbs - now it's difficult to tell I even had an accident. My brother had a major accident as a young adult and was on a ventilator for a few days, very seriously ill. Again, amazing care in the hospital and follow up and all without a single bill. I had routine surgery as a young adult and then the same surgery a decade later in the US and still I'd pick the UK over my US experience (though my US experience was fine, just in the UK there were no insurance hassles). My father recently had a knee replacement in the UK. The waiting time for surgery was less than it took for my husband to get an appointment with an orthopedist here in the UK. His follow up treatment has also been excellent. There may be an illusion of "choice" here but the reality is that it often takes just as long to get an appointment, it's much more expensive and the care is no better (evidenced by outcomes research) particularly if you look at the population as a whole.

Government payor = socialized medicine. There is no getting around that. Sounds like part of what you love about the UK system is that you did not have to deal with a third party payor.

When dealing with some of the socialized systems, certain treatments are not provided to those who are too ill or too old. That is a fact. Its called rationing.

Yes, insurance companies to have a say here in what treatments they will pay for. However, if you are in the hospital and need a specific treatment that is deemed necessary by your health care provider, you will get it, even if your insurance company won't pay.

So yes, I do wonder European or American, if some studies are swayed by the background economic culture. There are many here who say the European studies are better than the American ones because the American ones are swayed by economics. Who can say for sure that they both are not.

The UK for example is not a socialist country, so I would never use the term "socialized medicine" but I'll take it that you say that it is paid for by the government. However, in the UK if your health provider says that you need a particular treatment you will get it. If that treatment is elective and not for medical reasons you can certainly get it, but just like in the US you will need to pay (and go private). Elective circumcision, just like elective plastic surgery is an example. Doctors and hospitals treat everyone regardless of their socio economic status, race or any other variable. And they will treat them the same. The difference is that unlike in the US where if you have insurance you can self diagnose using Dr. Google and refer yourself to a neurologist and demand a CAT scan (for example) in the UK it's the doctor who makes that decision (I guess nominally it is here too, but I've encountered too many people who've simply insisted they want a certain kind of expensive and unnecessary procedures and got them) and if they don't see a medical need it won't happen. Treatment is not rationed according to age or how ill people are, but according to medical judgment. Not only that but long term care (in home or hospital or care home) is provided for people with serious disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that European studies and procedures are affected by financial aspects as well? There are multiple socialized systems over there where care is rationed based on availability of medical doctors in a particular field and cost/benefit ratio analysis. Maybe all studies need to be taken with a grain of skepticism.

Strange that you would say that. Perhaps you should look at other studies in Europe that relate to elective procedures. Fertility is a good one. Do you suggest that European health care is not at the leading edge of fertility treatment because they may be trying to keep costs down? If that's the case how is it that IVF was pioneered in the UK?

Americans almost universally misunderstand how health care works in Europe. It would not be called "socialized" by almost anyone who lives there. Most Americans also misunderstand or mischaracterize how health care works in the US. For example, health care rationing occurs frequently in the US, with Medicaid or insurance companies calling the shots - or simply health care is rationed through ability to pay.

I am intimately familiar with health care both here and in Europe (particularly the UK). And I would choose the US for any sort of major health care issue. This is not even a little bit of a debate. Anyone who believes otherwise is very suspect in my mind.

pp here. I have spent almost 25 years in the UK and 15 years here. I suspect that I am a lot more familiar with both than you are, but certainly with the UK. This isn't the place for a debate on the pros and cons of each system, but I will tell you hands down that I would pick the UK for my health care. I had a major accident as a teen and the care was first rate and there was no quibbling with insurance companies or problems with lack of coordination of care or in fact any bills. My surgeon was amazing and he spent 5 hours of complex surgery to reassemble my broken limbs - now it's difficult to tell I even had an accident. My brother had a major accident as a young adult and was on a ventilator for a few days, very seriously ill. Again, amazing care in the hospital and follow up and all without a single bill. I had routine surgery as a young adult and then the same surgery a decade later in the US and still I'd pick the UK over my US experience (though my US experience was fine, just in the UK there were no insurance hassles). My father recently had a knee replacement in the UK. The waiting time for surgery was less than it took for my husband to get an appointment with an orthopedist here in the UK. His follow up treatment has also been excellent. There may be an illusion of "choice" here but the reality is that it often takes just as long to get an appointment, it's much more expensive and the care is no better (evidenced by outcomes research) particularly if you look at the population as a whole.

Government payor = socialized medicine. There is no getting around that. Sounds like part of what you love about the UK system is that you did not have to deal with a third party payor.

When dealing with some of the socialized systems, certain treatments are not provided to those who are too ill or too old. That is a fact. Its called rationing.

Yes, insurance companies to have a say here in what treatments they will pay for. However, if you are in the hospital and need a specific treatment that is deemed necessary by your health care provider, you will get it, even if your insurance company won't pay.

So yes, I do wonder European or American, if some studies are swayed by the background economic culture. There are many here who say the European studies are better than the American ones because the American ones are swayed by economics. Who can say for sure that they both are not.

Germany, for instance, does not have socialized medicine. Treatments are not rationed, and you can see any specialist you want without referrals. Insurance routinely pays for treatments, such as fertility treatments and some alternative medicine, which aren't necessary and aren't so widely covered in the US. And yet the doctors there don't recommend or practice routine circumcision. There were even some court decisions trying to ban it, which didn't happen because of the pushback from religious groups.

The argument that Europeans don't circumcise because of "socialized" medicine is as tired as it is wrong, and always betrays ignorance of how healthcare in Europe actually works. Europeans (other than Jews and Muslims) don't circumcise because they never got caught in the trend that was started in this country (and the UK) in the 19th century based on false beliefs in medical benefits (much larger than those purported today) and a puritan agenda. So it never caught on there, and Europeans don't have an ingrained practice to justify.

[Anonymous]

Way way way off topic. Please start your own thread.

[Anonymous]

No one said anything about lower rates of circumcision in Europe being a result of socialized medicine. Please read more carefully next time and without such emotion. The question is, are European studies also biased by economics in the setting of more widespread socialized medicine?

[Anonymous]

Referring to 9:59 and friend. Your story about broken limbs wait ted ect ect ect. Open your own topic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one said anything about lower rates of circumcision in Europe being a result of socialized medicine. Please read more carefully next time and without such emotion. The question is, are European studies also biased by economics in the setting of more widespread socialized medicine?

How would you imagine such bias to come into the picture, if not in order to keep circumcision rates down so the system doesn't have to pay for it, an allegation that I addressed in my post? Your question doesn't make sense. Also, name the other countries that have government-run healthcare like the UK does. Because most don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Way way way off topic. Please start your own thread.

Why don't you just get off the thread if the tangents bother you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said anything about lower rates of circumcision in Europe being a result of socialized medicine. Please read more carefully next time and without such emotion. The question is, are European studies also biased by economics in the setting of more widespread socialized medicine?

How would you imagine such bias to come into the picture, if not in order to keep circumcision rates down so the system doesn't have to pay for it, an allegation that I addressed in my post? Your question doesn't make sense. Also, name the other countries that have government-run healthcare like the UK does. Because most don't.

The question makes as much sense as questions regarding economic biases of American researchers which was mentioned upthread several pages. Its just a question. Does it happen? Could it happen? Maybe yes or maybe no. But one should think about these things when citing ressearch and basing medical decisions on said research. Are there any secondary gains to be had by those doing the research? I find it amazing that anyone would blindly follow European research just because its European.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said anything about lower rates of circumcision in Europe being a result of socialized medicine. Please read more carefully next time and without such emotion. The question is, are European studies also biased by economics in the setting of more widespread socialized medicine?

How would you imagine such bias to come into the picture, if not in order to keep circumcision rates down so the system doesn't have to pay for it, an allegation that I addressed in my post? Your question doesn't make sense. Also, name the other countries that have government-run healthcare like the UK does. Because most don't.

Oh and to answer your question, the following European countries have a single payor system:
Norway
Sweeden
UK
Finland
Slovenia
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Spain
Iceland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PP. I think its cruel and unnecessary, and I probably think a little less of you privately. But I have bigger things to worry about.

+1