Well, it's about time we get a male-centric mandate. Regular readers may recall our exposé of the double-standard regarding breast cancer screenings:
"Raymond Johnson, a 26 year old with no health coverage, just found out two horrible things:
First, that he has breast cancer.
And second, that even though there's a special Medicaid program for breast cancer victims, he's not eligible. That's right, the obscenely mis-named "Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act" is available only to those without the Y chromosome."
As we noted at the time, HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious also mandated that health insurance plans must cover women's (although not men's) wellness visits, as well as STD screenings and a host of other "freebies." None of these were applicable to men, which make up, at last estimate, something around half of those actually paying for these benefits.
Now comes word that circumcision is, um, under the knife:
"But a new study published Monday by health economists with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine ... says that if circumcision rates were to decline to the 10 percent level currently seen in Western Europe, it could add up to $505 million annually in direct health care costs."
Hey, a half a billion dollars is a lot of scratch, even by DC standards. So it should come as no surprise that there's growing support for mandating circumcision coverage (for men).
Mandates are, of course, another hidden tax (in the form of increased premiums), but this is one who's time may have come.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
"Raymond Johnson, a 26 year old with no health coverage, just found out two horrible things:
First, that he has breast cancer.
And second, that even though there's a special Medicaid program for breast cancer victims, he's not eligible. That's right, the obscenely mis-named "Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act" is available only to those without the Y chromosome."
As we noted at the time, HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious also mandated that health insurance plans must cover women's (although not men's) wellness visits, as well as STD screenings and a host of other "freebies." None of these were applicable to men, which make up, at last estimate, something around half of those actually paying for these benefits.
Now comes word that circumcision is, um, under the knife:
"But a new study published Monday by health economists with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine ... says that if circumcision rates were to decline to the 10 percent level currently seen in Western Europe, it could add up to $505 million annually in direct health care costs."
Hey, a half a billion dollars is a lot of scratch, even by DC standards. So it should come as no surprise that there's growing support for mandating circumcision coverage (for men).
Mandates are, of course, another hidden tax (in the form of increased premiums), but this is one who's time may have come.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
Posts
