"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:25:18 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:45:13 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can
be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big
boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are
available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that
those
who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that
provide
things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera.


I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in
some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects
or
injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I
don't
consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch

How about replacements due to breast cancer?


Absolutely.

Eisboch

I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender change
operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for.


Is this something you're planning? I've heard March Madness is when
vasectomy operations increase in frequency.

--
Nom=de=Plume