Circumcision Coverage Comes Into Focus
(snip)
Like a dozen other states, Florida ended Medicaid coverage of routine circumcisions for newborns after the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a lukewarm statement on the practice in 1999. While the organization concluded that removing the penis's foreskin has potential benefits, it found the data more insufficient to recommend it as a routine procedure. So Florida lawmakers justified their decision in part as a way to save money on what the AAP had deemed an unnecessary procedure.
Now, a revised policy statement by the AAP that takes a more favorable stance toward circumcision, along with a series of academic studies examining the impact of reduced coverage of the procedure, has cast a new spotlight on the decision by Florida and other states not to cover it under Medicaid. In 2012, the AAP concluded that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks and justify "access to this procedure for families who choose it." The organization stopped short of recommending routine circumcision, however. Public funding of routine circumcisions for newborns has been hotly debated in recent years. Supporters of the practice say it helps prevent urinary tract infections in babies and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, later in life. But groups opposed to circumcision say the procedure is medically unnecessary and an unnatural, antiquated practice.
(snip)
Ending Medicaid coverage of routine circumcisions may have stuck the state with a bigger bill instead, according to a group of University of Florida Health researchers. Costs for circumcisions more than doubled in the five years after the 2003 policy change, the study asserts. That was largely because families were opting to have the procedure done when boys were older—a more costly operation that Medicaid still covers if it is deemed medically necessary.
(snip)
Of the 18 states that no longer cover routine circumcisions, 12 made the decision in the wake of the AAP's 1999 policy statement. When the AAP came out with its revised position in 2012, some states weighed changing their policies. Medicaid officials in Utah recommended restoring circumcision coverage in 2013, but the legislature hasn't acted. Another effort by Colorado lawmakers to reinstate such funding failed last year, though the issue is likely to come up again this year... Around the same time, a team of Johns Hopkins University researchers published a study estimating that a 20-year decline in U.S. circumcision rates had resulted in $2 billion in health care costs to treat sexually transmitted infections and other illnesses in uncircumcised men and their female partners.
(snip)
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304419104579327013566659736
(If you cannot open by clicking, try copy and paste the title onto google)
= new reply since forum marked as read
are the "crazies"...
I could not help but laugh my ass off at the fact that an article about circumcision started with (snip) and had tons of snips while reading the parts quoted here. 
All joking aside, I personally would not circumcise a son if I ever had one. I just wouldn't want to chop things off my son if I ever got lucky enough to have one.
Still, knowing that circumcision has been shown to protect more against STDs than uncircumcised, and other benefits to health, I have to wonder why it wouldn't be covered for those who do want to chop off part of their son after he is born. 
I will go 
now because I'm gonna get it. I just know it.
are medical procedures done by M.D.'s and backed up by plenty of research.
Right?
it's no skin off...
O.k. That was way too cheap and easy and I am deeply ashamed.
