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: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

Not true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

None of these systems is comparable to the NHS.

[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?

It's been mentioned in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Well, bless your heart. You're right. Wikipedia schooled me again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually don't believe American researchers are economically biased in favor of circumcision. I think they are culturally, and possibly religiously, biased. And you still did not explain how you imagine economics coming into the picture in Europe with this issue. I agree with you that one should consider that possibility, but I do not find the argument persuasive with regard to European research and circumcision. To be honest, I don't even know if there is research by Europeans on the issue. Maybe there is. It doesn't matter to me, because not circumcising (i.e. leaving the body in its natural state) is the default, and there would have to be research convincing me of its benefits in order to even consider it. I have not seen such convincing research from either the US or Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, bless your heart. You're right. Wikipedia schooled me again.

Where did you get your info from? Just curious what your definition of "single-payor system" is that lets you group all those countries under it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, bless your heart. You're right. Wikipedia schooled me again.

Where did you get your info from? Just curious what your definition of "single-payor system" is that lets you group all those countries under it.

Yeah, your group doesn't even make any sense. In Finland, for example, there are both public and private hospitals, and the public hospitals are funded in part by access fees paid by patients (so not single payor). Italy, on the other hand, has the SSN, which is pretty similar to the NHS in the UK.

Anyway, your question would be a valid one if you could argue some sort of universal bias in the European community. But given the extremely wide variety of health care systems in Europe, I think that would be hard to do. The only commonality is that most systems are trying to drive down costs, though, arguably, that's becoming a goal in this country as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, bless your heart. You're right. Wikipedia schooled me again.

Where did you get your info from? Just curious what your definition of "single-payor system" is that lets you group all those countries under it.

Yeah, your group doesn't even make any sense. In Finland, for example, there are both public and private hospitals, and the public hospitals are funded in part by access fees paid by patients (so not single payor). Italy, on the other hand, has the SSN, which is pretty similar to the NHS in the UK.

Anyway, your question would be a valid one if you could argue some sort of universal bias in the European community. But given the extremely wide variety of health care systems in Europe, I think that would be hard to do. The only commonality is that most systems are trying to drive down costs, though, arguably, that's becoming a goal in this country as well.

And don't forget - if circumcision really had such clear health benefits, those cost cutting European countries would be advocating it as a way to get treatment costs down, because then surely it would make sense from a public health perspective, just like vaccination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, bless your heart. You're right. Wikipedia schooled me again.

Where did you get your info from? Just curious what your definition of "single-payor system" is that lets you group all those countries under it.

Yeah, your group doesn't even make any sense. In Finland, for example, there are both public and private hospitals, and the public hospitals are funded in part by access fees paid by patients (so not single payor). Italy, on the other hand, has the SSN, which is pretty similar to the NHS in the UK.

Anyway, your question would be a valid one if you could argue some sort of universal bias in the European community. But given the extremely wide variety of health care systems in Europe, I think that would be hard to do. The only commonality is that most systems are trying to drive down costs, though, arguably, that's becoming a goal in this country as well.

And don't forget - if circumcision really had such clear health benefits, those cost cutting European countries would be advocating it as a way to get treatment costs down, because then surely it would make sense from a public health perspective, just like vaccination.

+1,000,000 THANK YOU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, bless your heart. You're right. Wikipedia schooled me again.

Where did you get your info from? Just curious what your definition of "single-payor system" is that lets you group all those countries under it.

Yeah, your group doesn't even make any sense. In Finland, for example, there are both public and private hospitals, and the public hospitals are funded in part by access fees paid by patients (so not single payor). Italy, on the other hand, has the SSN, which is pretty similar to the NHS in the UK.

Anyway, your question would be a valid one if you could argue some sort of universal bias in the European community. But given the extremely wide variety of health care systems in Europe, I think that would be hard to do. The only commonality is that most systems are trying to drive down costs, though, arguably, that's becoming a goal in this country as well.

And don't forget - if circumcision really had such clear health benefits, those cost cutting European countries would be advocating it as a way to get treatment costs down, because then surely it would make sense from a public health perspective, just like vaccination.

+1,000,000 THANK YOU.

Baaaa. Baaaaa. Baaaaaaaaa. Sheepie. Baaaa.

[Anonymous]

it is clear that American researchers are anti foreskin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, bless your heart. You're right. Wikipedia schooled me again.

Where did you get your info from? Just curious what your definition of "single-payor system" is that lets you group all those countries under it.

Yeah, your group doesn't even make any sense. In Finland, for example, there are both public and private hospitals, and the public hospitals are funded in part by access fees paid by patients (so not single payor). Italy, on the other hand, has the SSN, which is pretty similar to the NHS in the UK.

Anyway, your question would be a valid one if you could argue some sort of universal bias in the European community. But given the extremely wide variety of health care systems in Europe, I think that would be hard to do. The only commonality is that most systems are trying to drive down costs, though, arguably, that's becoming a goal in this country as well.

And don't forget - if circumcision really had such clear health benefits, those cost cutting European countries would be advocating it as a way to get treatment costs down, because then surely it would make sense from a public health perspective, just like vaccination.

+1,000,000 THANK YOU.

Baaaa. Baaaaa. Baaaaaaaaa. Sheepie. Baaaa.

The sheep are the ones cutting their kids because that's what they think they should do based on what they think is the culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, bless your heart. You're right. Wikipedia schooled me again.

Where did you get your info from? Just curious what your definition of "single-payor system" is that lets you group all those countries under it.

Yeah, your group doesn't even make any sense. In Finland, for example, there are both public and private hospitals, and the public hospitals are funded in part by access fees paid by patients (so not single payor). Italy, on the other hand, has the SSN, which is pretty similar to the NHS in the UK.

Anyway, your question would be a valid one if you could argue some sort of universal bias in the European community. But given the extremely wide variety of health care systems in Europe, I think that would be hard to do. The only commonality is that most systems are trying to drive down costs, though, arguably, that's becoming a goal in this country as well.

And don't forget - if circumcision really had such clear health benefits, those cost cutting European countries would be advocating it as a way to get treatment costs down, because then surely it would make sense from a public health perspective, just like vaccination.

+1,000,000 THANK YOU.

Baaaa. Baaaaa. Baaaaaaaaa. Sheepie. Baaaa.

The sheep are the ones cutting their kids because that's what they think they should do based on what they think is the culture.

Good thing you're here to tell them what they are thinking when they are making parenting decisions for their own children. They may not know what their thoughts are otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, bless your heart. You're right. Wikipedia schooled me again.

Where did you get your info from? Just curious what your definition of "single-payor system" is that lets you group all those countries under it.

Yeah, your group doesn't even make any sense. In Finland, for example, there are both public and private hospitals, and the public hospitals are funded in part by access fees paid by patients (so not single payor). Italy, on the other hand, has the SSN, which is pretty similar to the NHS in the UK.

Anyway, your question would be a valid one if you could argue some sort of universal bias in the European community. But given the extremely wide variety of health care systems in Europe, I think that would be hard to do. The only commonality is that most systems are trying to drive down costs, though, arguably, that's becoming a goal in this country as well.

And don't forget - if circumcision really had such clear health benefits, those cost cutting European countries would be advocating it as a way to get treatment costs down, because then surely it would make sense from a public health perspective, just like vaccination.

+1,000,000 THANK YOU.

Baaaa. Baaaaa. Baaaaaaaaa. Sheepie. Baaaa.

The sheep are the ones cutting their kids because that's what they think they should do based on what they think is the culture.

Good thing you're here to tell them what they are thinking when they are making parenting decisions for their own children. They may not know what their thoughts are otherwise.

There are indeed many people who never question circumcision until they realize it's a problematic and controversial subject. In fact, in a culture where circumcision is the norm, very few people will question the practice until they encounter people who don't do it and start think about the issue.

[Anonymous]

*start thinking*

And to add, just because YOU have obviously decided to continue the practice despite being aware of the controversy, it doesn't mean the discussions are lost on everyone.

[Anonymous]

Insurance does not pay for vaccines either or birth control. Not doing that either? Talk about cheap!