The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Should cosmetic surgery be funded by the government?
electricitylikesme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Here's my first answer: no.
But that's based purely off the number of people in America who get pretty bad healthcare. In Australia (where I live, because I was born here, but fuck if I'm ever leaving coz it's awesome) - I'd lean further towards "yes" because most of our health concerns are administrative, not necessarily funding related.
The reason I bring this up though is because the virtue of looking attractive is still one of the most unfairly handed out things that can happen to anyone today. Most of us, probably figured this one out in high school - someone like me who went on roaccutane had many years of beign positive he absolutely couldn't have a girlfriend because jesus christ I wouldn't want to date me. Roaccutane was probably the best thing that happened to me, precisely because I would look at myself and feel like I was actually decent looking.
Now I, had a curable condition. The thing which really gets me is everytime I see someone who doesn't. I end up being struck thinking "how is that remotely fair in life?"
Obviously, at the present time we don't necessarily have the technology to fix every type of problem like this but it is a virtual guarantee that we eventually will but it is going to cost a fuckload depending on what needs fixing. Hell, there are charities in the US today which specialize in say, fixing hair lips for those who can't afford the surgery.
So, my question D&D is, would you support a healthcare system under which we more generally include cosmetic/plastic surgery alteration or repair to people's appearance? And, considering our progressing technology, how far do you think this should go?
But that's based purely off the number of people in America who get pretty bad healthcare. In Australia (where I live, because I was born here, but fuck if I'm ever leaving coz it's awesome) - I'd lean further towards "yes" because most of our health concerns are administrative, not necessarily funding related.
The reason I bring this up though is because the virtue of looking attractive is still one of the most unfairly handed out things that can happen to anyone today. Most of us, probably figured this one out in high school - someone like me who went on roaccutane had many years of beign positive he absolutely couldn't have a girlfriend because jesus christ I wouldn't want to date me. Roaccutane was probably the best thing that happened to me, precisely because I would look at myself and feel like I was actually decent looking.
Now I, had a curable condition. The thing which really gets me is everytime I see someone who doesn't. I end up being struck thinking "how is that remotely fair in life?"
Obviously, at the present time we don't necessarily have the technology to fix every type of problem like this but it is a virtual guarantee that we eventually will but it is going to cost a fuckload depending on what needs fixing. Hell, there are charities in the US today which specialize in say, fixing hair lips for those who can't afford the surgery.
So, my question D&D is, would you support a healthcare system under which we more generally include cosmetic/plastic surgery alteration or repair to people's appearance? And, considering our progressing technology, how far do you think this should go?
electricitylikesme on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Then I thought...."It's not fair some people are so goddamned ugly"
However, given the dangers of surgery and the fact that many ugly people end up with very pretty people I don't think cosmetic surgery should be state supported. It's just "optional" and I don't feel like paying taxes for someone to change their nose every 6 months.
What kind of rating system would we use to measure who is deserving of such surgery? hotornot.com? lol. I think when I got Lasik 7 years ago it was an "optional" surgery so I had to pay out of pocket. No Insurance coverage. Not being able to see the big E is a lot more important than not having thick lips imo. Stuff like performance related physical correction should problably be covered first.
edit: but I'm not against the OP's idea provided all forms of medical treatment that are necessary to keep humans alive and functional have been discovered. Welcome to the year 60,000 A.D. though....
I ask because at least in Canada, all plastic surgery is not considered cosmetic, and I don't see how this isn't sufficient. Those born with massive cranial deformities can have their skulls resculpted without paying, and those who want lips the sizes of rolls of toothpaste have to shell out their own money for the privilege.
If it's "any and all plastic surgery" then the answer is no.
If it's stuff that will radically improve the lives on a medical level of those receiving it, then yes.
Can you justify "curing" ugliness as a means to radically improving someone's life, I say... "maybe".
Basically, there's a difference between just being "ugly" or "plain" and being "deformed". An abnormal deformity should be addressed, but normal levels of unnatractiveness are not so damaging to a person that their quality of life suffers too considerably. Most "ugly" people, in my experience, simply suffer from poor self-image and hygiene. Hell, the ugliest people I've seen typically have terrible teeth and hair, things that can be easily handled through regular healthy hygene practices.
As much as I might like for someone to pay for surgery for my baldness, I don't think that's the government's responsibility, they have more important things to pay for.
It is really an indisputable fact that Australia's healthcare system is a lot more efficient than the system of the USA. Why do you think that is? What could be done to update the US system?
As for the OP, just as soon as society as a whole could easily afford it, it should be funded, but currently it should not.
There is just not enough money/resources to go around yet for everyone to get every surgery that they would like, so we should concentrate on the medically necessary ones first.
Having said that though I think cosmetic surgery should be provided free of charge to people with genuine need for it (as it has been pointed out).
PSN:TheRockingM
Dental Health is far more then just a cosmestic concern too.
No kidding. I don't think #1 flatmate has eaten anything I've cooked since I moved in, and its not just because I'm a fuckawful cook. Its because all his back molars had to be removed, and he has to wait months to get prosthetics that cost like $4000 each.
also, goddamnit now I'll be youtubing Rollins all night...
For example, my Mother-in-Law had breast cancer. After all was said and done, she survived, but was missing a breast. After she hit her 5 year mark, she had plastic surgery to get her back to where she was before cancer. I have no problem with that.
I have no desire to pay for some rich guy's daughter to get breast implants for her 16th birthday.
Ugly people don't deserve to be ugly, and appearance has a massive fucking effect on one's happiness and opportunities in life.
Publicly fund the knife!
edit: I mean, that should be part of normal treatment; imagine if it was normal for surgeons to do any old godawful shit to you so long as you kept functioning.
Girls are in a different spot though. I feel bad for women because a lot of women have been taught to derive their self-esteem from their looks. At least I, as a man, can be average looking and still have confidence. But, women have a lot more avenues available to them that aren't as drastic as plastic surgery. I'm reminded of a saying, "There's no such thing as an ugly woman; just a lazy one."
Anyhow, if the US were to have socialized healthcare, I think plastic surgery should be covered if it were being used to reform someone who were disfigured, either by birth, or by accident. There are a lot of health reasons for plastic surgery outside of vanity.
I agree with this, if only because I doubt a line can be drawn anywhere, and I certainly wouldn't want politicians to be the ones trying to do it. But this leads to a question of utility: if we cover the cost of major, hugely expensive operations that improve the life of the patient tremendously, shouldn't we also cover relatively trivial operations that only improve people's lives a little? Because if our answer is no, then we're back at drawing the line that's really difficult to draw.
As a side note, I think it's time we did something about symmetry.
What do you mean by trivial? Are you talking about facelifts, etc.?
Basically anything that doesn't cost a fortune. Let's assume that technology advances to a point where a minor nose job can be done at the cost of, say, removing a mole today.
I'd say no. If it's already a cheap, easy procedure there's no need to get bureaucracy involved.
Maybe where you live.
Then it should have to go through a second opinion and possibly even a third. If three experts in the field say that someone definitly needs a new nose insted of therapy then that's enough for me as long as there's a check and balance system and they're not just giving away nose jobs like they give ritalin to treat ADHD.
It's a moot point anyhow, seeing as getting a nose job or other such things will probably always involve someone going under anesthesia.
If I lived in the US, I would have had to have medical insurance to cover the surgery, but I know of women in the US whose insurance wouldn't cover them because they had a pre-existing medical condition. Til puberty, a girl with Polands Syndrome won't know if her breasts will both grow, but it's still classed as pre-existing. I'm so glad I live in the UK, here I just had to ask about surgery, was referred to a surgeon, and eventually had the surgery.
I didn't physically need the breast surgery, in fact the second time caught MRSA afterwards, and was quite ill, but I'd push for it again tomorrow if I ever needed it again.
I don't think you can legislate about what should be free and what should be paid for - each case should be decided on its own merits. When I had the first breast surgery (I was 16) there were women on the same ward having apparently frivolous plastic surgery - nose jobs, tummy tucks, but when I talked to them, I could see the real impact having a massive nose/ very wrinkled stomach post x4 children had on the women there.
Yes, on the whole I'm against 16 year old girls having breast enhancement/augmentation, but I was 16, too. Does it make a difference that I only had 1 implant? I'm not sure. do I get let off cos of my disability? I don't know about that, either. I think it says more about our society when girls feel the need to have surgery when they are only 16.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
If there's a legitimate medical reason, or if it's to correct an actual birth defect or something similar, sure. If it's purely cosmetic, fuck off and pay for it yourself.
I think it's interesting to note how an emphasis on good looks has made its way so far into peoples' psyches that they feel as though ugliness is crippling.