Skip to content

Health Insurance Quotes For Children Question & Answers

2015 September 23
by Sarah Fields

Nancy asks…

When is a child to old to get circumcised?

My husban and i have decided to adopt, it is my sisters baby and her and her ex-husband no longer want the baby. he will be a year old in november and i am debating on getting him circumcised but don’t know if there is an age limi or if it is best if we leave it be. so any help would be great. thanks!

Sarah Fields answers:

He is likely to suffer serious psychological damage from having this unnecessary surgery done just after you take over. He is likely to associate the loss of half his penile skin and the pain with you and be hurt inside the rest of his life. If you wait and do it later the damage will be even worse. He’s perfectly fine as he is. In fact he will have a better sexual experience with a whole penis. I have a god-daughter whose son was circumcised at three because of bad medical advice and he resents it deeply now at 10. He complains about the rubbing of his glans on his clothing and hates what was done to him.
Not one major medical organisation in the world recommends routine infant circumcision anymore. The US is the last western nation still doing this to about 50% of its newborn males but even there rates are falling and many insurance companies no longer cover it. It is very likely your insurance would consider this as elective surgery and since at one he would need a general anesthetic, there are significant costs and risks to his health.
The penis forms as one organ and at birth the foreskin is usually fused to the glans like a fingernail to its finger. So there is no cavity for germs and dirt to collect in until it separates naturally later, at an average age of 10. Only the boy himself should retract it and then he can be taught to skin back and rinse with plain water regularly.
Misguided attempts to retract too early, often by doctors and nurses, are the main cause of damage to boys’ foreskins and the real main reason for childhood circumcisions.
To perform a neo-natal circumcision the circumciser has to rip the foreskin away from the glans with forceps. Then the foreskin is either cut away or clamped until it falls off. Both methods cause the baby extreme pain and his raw glans and wound sting every time he urinates. It’s quite common for the raw edges of the cut foreskin to fuse to the raw glans during the healing process, forming skin bridges or tags. These complications and other more serious ones are often not found till puberty and do not show up in complication statistics.
More serious complications, though not common are immediate. Some babies lose their penis to infection, bleed profusely (often because they are haemophiliac) or even die each year.
The claimed benefits of circumcision are a beat up but medical authorities have worked out that the overall complication rate is higher than all the benefits claimed by the pro-cutting advocates. One by one the claims are disproved but the pro-cutting zealots come up with more and keep quoting the old ones despite the evidence against them. For example you have more chance of dying from a circumcision or losing your penis from wound infection than from penile cancer. The rate of penile cancer is higher in the largely-circumcised USA than in European countries where less than 1% of males are circumcised. The US Cancer Society does NOT recommend routine circumcision.
A study in New Zealand followed a cohort of boys through life from birth to age 32. About 40% were circumcised. The intact males had a slightly lower rate of sexually transmitted infections than the circumcised but there was no significant difference.
Using surgery to mutilate the genitals instead of washing in a modern western society makes no sense. Normal intact male genitals are even easier to wash than female ones and the same substance, smegma collects in the genital folds of both sexes.
Circumcision is the amputation of the foreskin, not extra skin but an integral part of the penis; measuring 15 square inches in an adult, over half the penile skin, including the most sensitive parts of the penis. The foreskin is packed with nerve endings, special anatomical features like the ridged band and has a unique elastic gliding action, allowing it to slide on itself and act like lube. This action is what most males use to masturbate with. Circumcised males use what skin they have left, except those who are cut so tightly that they have to use lube or just rub it dry. The intact male can stroke the entire length of his penis using his foreskin and also has the option to use lube too, if he wants to. During intercourse the foreskin acts like lube on entry and may act as a dam, preventing lubricating secretions escaping from the vagina. In one study women reported that sex with an intact partner was gentler and more satisfying since he doesn’t have to thrust as hard to feel enough stimulation. Removing the foreskin turns the surface of the glans from an inner mucosal membrane to outside skin. Newly circumcised adults usually go through some weeks of intense discomfort as the glans is constantly exposed to rubbing on clothing, until it develops a thicker keratin layer and becomes less sensitive.
Plese don’t put him through this further trauma. Just love him as he is.
I am one of many men who resents his own circumcision,
Geoff

Laura asks…

Public Defenders and Public Physicians: Is this what we will have with UHC?

Let’s not deceive ourselves: There will be no difference between the majority of us who would have to depend on a recent graduate Public Defender in a court of law while the wealthy will have the most top notch, most successful attorneys

It is apparent this will be the eventual case with Universal Health Care: We will be guaranteed medical care by recent interns while the affluent who pay private insurance and can afford the very best, experienced physicians to treat them.

We really must look at this whole picture! Everything sounds good when we are given no details.

Sarah Fields answers:

This is true and ALL UHC systems provide RATIONED care. Let’s be clear what that means: YOU ARE NOT WORTH TREATING. Yes, they do tell people that in UHC systems or ones that are government-funded.
“Jewish World Review Feb. 12, 2008 / 6 Adar I 5768

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/rosenblum_golubchuk.php3?printer_friendly

In Canada, the Schiavo case with an outrageous twist
By Jonathan Rosenblum
An elderly Orthodox Jew is on life support. His children have adamantly opposed his removal from the ventilator and feeding tube, on the grounds that Jewish law expressly forbids any action designed to shorten life. If their father could express his wishes, they say, he would certainly oppose the doctors acting to deliberately terminate his life. The director of the ICU told the children that neither their father’s wishes nor their own are relevant, and he would do whatever he decided was appropriate ”

The NHS, the oldest system, is in Britain:
“Staff are being laid off, and deficits are at an all time high (£1.07bn for 2005-2006)” (Hazel Blears, Labour Party Chair and Minister Without Portfolio, labourachievements.blogspot.com/2006/08/23-investment-in-nhs.html).
In the National Review Online article, Coburn & Herzlinger state “more than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S.” Just recently Alex Smallwood of the BMA (British Medical Association) was quoted in the Scotsman as saying: “’Rationing is reduction in choice. Rationing has become a necessary evil. We need to formalise rationing to prevent an unregulated, widening, postcode-lottery of care. Government no longer has a choice.’” (Moss, “NHS rationing is ‘necessary evil,’ says doctors,” 26 June 2007).

Japan doesn’t fare any better:
“According to Japanese legislator Takashi Yamamoto, who was just diagnosed with cancer, “abandoned cancer refugees are roaming the Japanese archipelago.” Patients are told they¹ll never get better, even when treatments exist, and many are not even informed of their diagnoses. Cancer mortality rates in Japan have been steadily climbing and are now more than 250 per 100,000, while U.S. Rates are now around 180 per 100,000. (Glueck, “Far East illustrates the limitations and dangers of universal health care,” 26 January 2007, jewishworldreview.com)

Japan Doctors Say New Health Funding Won’t End Death-by-Delay
By Kanoko Matsuyama
Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) — Japan’s plan to spend an extra $1.4 billion on hospital doctors won’t alleviate the shortage of staff causing treatment delays and fatalities, doctors said.
The 150 billion yen package will help hospital emergency rooms meet increased demand for medical and surgical services, the health ministry said in a report on Jan. 30.
Trauma doctor Hisashi Matsumoto said he gets $6 an hour, or less than the average minimum wage, for a 16-hour night shift. The low pay and long shifts have left hospitals short-staffed nationwide, resulting in a case in August when a woman with labor complications lost her baby after she was refused treatment at 10 hospitals that said no doctors were available.
“The funding won’t help,” said Kunio Kobayashi, a doctor who headed the emergency center at Tokyo’s Teikyo University Hospital until he switched to teaching paramedics in 2005. Increases in medical reimbursements don’t reach hospital doctors because the medical centers are losing money, he said.
In 2006, 667 women in labor were turned away by more than three hospitals because of a lack of doctors, government records show.
More patients are seeking hospital care as Japan’s society ages. Older patients have greater medical needs to treat heart disease, stroke, dementia and other chronic conditions, leaving fewer resources for emergencies such as heart attack and obstructed labor.
The proportion of people aged 65 or over that needed ambulance services rose to 38 percent of the total in 2006 from 29 percent 10 years earlier in Tokyo, according to government statistics.
“The additional payments to hospitals will benefit management not doctors,” said Tohru Aruga, a doctor and vice director of Showa University Hospital in Tokyo.
Too Full
About 14 percent of emergency centers across Japan lack 24- hour specialists on duty and were unable to treat some emergency cases, citing a particular shortage of obstetricians, according to survey by Asahi newspaper on Feb. 4. Thirteen centers out of the 187 surveyed didn’t have any emergency doctors, the report said.
The Asahi said it contacted all 205 emergency centers in Japan and received response from 187. One hospital in Hokkaido had to close its emergency room because all the doctors quit, the newspaper said.
“Something must be done to improve the work environment for hospital doctors,” says Matsumoto, 45, one of 13 doctors in the emergency room at Nippon Medical School’s Chiba Hokusoh Hospital, near Tokyo. “Staff are exhausted.”
Ambulances
Ambulance officials called 11 Tokyo hospitals to treat a 95-year-old woman complaining of chest pains last month. Each said it was too full to accept her, a fire and ambulance department spokesman said. She later died in another hospital.
“The balance of demand and supply is changing,” said Aruga at Showa University Hospital in Tokyo. “Patient numbers are rising as a result of the aging society, but the capacity of hospitals remains the same. That increases the workload for individual hospitals.”
Rejection of patients is sometimes unavoidable, Aruga said in an interview on Jan. 24. His hospital recently had to decline to accept a coronary patient because it was already treating four people with heart conditions and had two others waiting, he said.
The national ambulance service fielded 4.89 million emergency calls in 2006, a 3 percent increase from 2003, according to the internal affairs ministry.
Death by Delay
“It’s taking more time to pick up patients,” said Keiji Araki, head of Japan’s fire and ambulance department. Still “public expectation of saving lives remains high,” he told a conference for paramedics in Shizuoka, west of Tokyo, on Jan. 24.
The incident last August involving a 38-year-old woman and the death of her newborn baby in Nara prefecture, near the city of Kyoto, “made us realize again that we need greater collaboration with hospitals,” Araki said.
Costs deter some women from seeking antenatal care in Japan, where the public health-care system doesn’t fully cover monthly checkups for pregnant women that cost at least 3,000 yen or deliveries that cost about 400,000 yen ($3,750). The mother in Nara had no record of regular checkups, which made it harder to find a hospital willing to treat her, according to reports by the local government.
Japan’s government in December committed to spending about 16.1 billion yen in the year starting April 1 to develop a system to dispatch doctors on emergencies, and to improve emergency, obstetric and pediatric services.
More Pay
“We will implement measures that enable hospitals to accept emergency patients more smoothly,” Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda told parliament on Jan. 22. He promised more enrolments at medical schools, a better shift-work system and more pay for hospital doctors. The national average minimum pay is 673 yen ($6.30) an hour.
Convenience store attendants receive more on an hourly basis than some doctors working extended shifts in hospitals, said Kobayashi, the former head of the emergency center at Teikyo University Hospital.
“Doctors feel it’s their mission to save lives,” Kobayashi said. “Are they getting paid for what they sacrifice? No.”
Trauma surgeon Matsumoto spent eight years removing tumors from cancer patients before switching career paths.
“I’m doing this job because I want to improve the country’s health system and its ability to deal with emergency medical services and natural disasters,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kanoko Matsuyama in Tokyo at at kmatsuyama2@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 5, 2008 18:36 EST

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ayBXYNH0bUWc&refer=home

I hate to break it to the kids in Congress who didn’t ever study economics, but the Japanese, the Canadian, and the Brits are extremely civilized and compasionate people. If they can’t make it work the fault lies in UHC not in the morals of the people.

Richard asks…

can my girlfriend put me on her health insurance?

me and my girlfriend have lived together about a year and have a child on the way. is there any law saying we can be one anothers insurance? like a domestic partner thing?

Sarah Fields answers:

Usually not, try this site

http://heinsurance.notlong.com

here you can get quotes from different companies so you can find the best option for you.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Leave a Reply

Note: You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS