An article in the Money section of US Today titled “Cosmetic surgery gets cheaper, faster, scarier” seems relevant to drive home a few points. Basically, cosmetic surgery can go bad. When it does, the medical bills rise quickly, and most insurances won’t cover the medical bills because the procedures were elective. Are cosmetic surgery bills different than other types of health costs?
How are unexpected medical bills from a cosmetic surgery different than unexpected medical bills of the Republican debate hypothetical 30-year old who elected no medical coverage and then became sick? If you believe cosmetic surgery people “brought it on themselves” by choosing the procedure, how is that different than an uninsured person “bringing it on themselves” by not choosing insurance? Some people say choosing a medical procedure is different than not choosing, and only those affirmatively choosing should have the costs.
Do your thoughts stay consistent when applied elsewhere? Proponents of Obama’s health care plan argue that ~not~ choosing is the same as choosing and therefore non-choosers can be billed penalties. If non-choosers are “innocent” and deserve the safety net of our society, then why are non-choosers of Obama’s health care plan held responsible to subsidize costs of others with forced premiums or penalties?
In the end, caring for the innocent 30-year tends to evoke sympathy, and hence people want to spend Federal dollars. However, there is a Constitutional issue that Federal dollars are not to spent on named beneficiaries, but rather only for “common good” (see the last paragraph in my posting about not Federally subsidizing mortgages of home owners). Caring for the cosmetic patient tends to not evoke sympathy, and hence people are okay not pushing to spend Federal dollars. I am really interested in help to understand the difference in context of the prior paragraph. The different responses seem hypocritical or inconsistent.