Wednesday, September 11, 2019

When Someone Says It's Not the Money...

It's the money.

One of the biggest incentives for American doctors to promote and perform circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting infants is that it's easy money.

And yet whenever this is mentioned, people tend to downplay this factor.

"Doctors don't make much from circumcisions," some will say.

"What doctors make from circumcisions is nil," say others.

So how much does a circumcision cost?

It depends on who you ask, and it depends on what fraction of the cost is being reported.

Parents who want to have their child circumcised get quoted small-time three-digit numbers, ranging from 100 to 400 US dollars.

This doesn't sound like much, but then the question is, is this the full cost?

Is this only what parents pay out-of-pocket and the rest is covered through a co-pay system?

The last time I checked, at least one doctor in Canada charges up to 450 dollars Canadian a pop.

In an article released not too long ago, one doctor says he charges $700.

In this same article it is mentioned that after insurances pay, hospitals in Alaska still collect 340 dollars, which raises the question of how much exactly are insurance companies paying?

According to this article, at least one hospital, Alaska Regional, charges $2,110 per circumcision.

Given this figure, at 1.4 million babies being circumcised a year, American hospitals can be making as much as $2,954,000,000 on circumcision alone.

I thought $2,110 was a lot of money for circumcision, but it turns out this figure may actually be modest.

I recently ran across this revealing Tweet:

Here's a screen shot in case it gets deleted:

It is estimated that 1.4 American baby boys are being circumcised a year.

This means that, at $7,000 per circumcision, American hospitals can be making as much as $9,800,000,000 annually on circumcision alone.

To which I ask skeptics; you still think it isn't the money?

It's no wonder doctors and nurses gush on and on about male infant circumcision; there is money to be made, and hospitals make promoting male infant circumcision to parents their policy.

Reaping profit from non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals already constitutes medical fraud.

This has got to be the biggest medical scam in American history, and sooner or later those who perpetuate it will be held responsible.

1 comment:

  1. Hi Joseph, I have been following, with fascination, the raging American debate over IC since 2015. First I want to express my great admiration for Brother K and all other defenders of the rights of the Child. However it is hard to determine if they are succesful or not since there are no new statistics available. The latest are from 2010. My impression is that intactivists are fighting an uphill battle against a very strong Medical establishment that considers it under their dignity to take part in the debate. It is telling that in the State of Michigan where Robert Van Howe have worked for many years still have 80% of newborn boys cut. That proves that parents and his doctor colleagues remain totally unimpressed by his work to defend newborn boys.
    My impression is that American hospitals are greatly overstaffed, how come that busy gynecologists and obstericians have time to solicitate and persuade parents into unnessecary surgery and find time to perform the surgery? Aren´t they supposed to take care of women who are giving birth?
    In today´s medicine the trend is to avoid invasive procedures as much as possible f.e. the tratment of coronary diseases where open surgery now mostly is replaced by balloon dilatation, not to mention the treatment of gastric ulcers.
    It is well known, and stated on various hospital´s homepages, even Mayo Clinic, that the so called benefits of IC can also be achieved without surgery and that forms the riddle, why are American doctors and medical staff promoting invasive procedures when the same result can be obtained whithout high-risk surgery?