A $12k Surgery to Change Eye Color Is Surging in Popularity
wsj.com
wsj.com
I expect anyone going through with the plastic surgery wants to look that way.
but it looks impressive
I guess I would assume that the overlap of people that would be this motivated to get a six pack, people for whom a surgical sixpack would look reasonably convincing, and people who cannot otherwise achieve a sixpack would be relatively small, and it seems I would be wrong to assume that.
I think the historical taboo of nordicism not being consciously connected to this sort of practice is… interesting.
That said, cultural appropriation is bullshit. It’s a made-up word because they couldn’t say “stole”.
like half of asia
However, that might just be my perception.
My point is that holding Nordic ethnicities as being superior to others was a controversial take that was popular among a set of early to mid 20th century people who are today regarded as basically the definition of evil in common western culture.
People who are in this camp, that nordicism is wrong and evil and a direct source of many past horrors, unthinkingly mimic unique physical traits of Nordic people, without making the connection that they are engaging in a (very mild) flavor of that same nordicism themselves.
As a person of mixed heritage at this granularity, with some Nordic and some not, some blond haired blue eyed relatives and others not, I am not for it or against it, I just find it to be a rather curious juxtaposition.
My blue eyes come by way of Poland
There's no "cultural appropriation" here, it's just color. People are free to do whatever cosmetic nonsense they want and take on the health risks associated with it.
Reminds me of a car I had that was "Champagne Gold" and my buddy looked at it and and said "Nah, mate, that's metallic beige."
So - don't knock it!
Fwiw, I feel the same about: smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, extreme sports, etc.
Does moderate alcohol factor in? Being obese? What’s your line where a personal choice that has some risk disqualifies you?
why not? when you file for unemployment, you need to prove that you're looking for a job. if you want weight lose drugs that cost $1k+/month, you should show proof you aren't being a glutton. we have the technology, just not the political will.
This makes as much sense as "if you want anti-depressants, you have to prove you aren't being sad".
Folks desperately need to understand the dignity of risk before we can talk about health policy. You're advocating for diet eugenics. There is very little moral hazard to justify your rules because having serious medical problems is awful even without the bill.
I'm hate to be the one to inform you, but the court system is part of the government. Indeed courts pertaining to federal laws are part of the federal government.
Again, unless you are literally the federal government of the United States, the constitution doesn't constrain your actions.
In the context of this thread, I was replying to a comment saying that it was "unconstitutional" to "control" public healthcare funded elective procedures, as a form of "eugenics" ... quite ridiculous.
It's a common tactic to make an egregious error and the dial it back until with hedges and constraints until the other person concedes. It's embarrassing.
There are plenty of valid ways to make your point. Choose one of those instead.
Cosmetic procedures — no, wouldn't be covered.
Locking you out of public healthcare as described by the parent if you have ever engaged in behavior deemed too risky, absolutely not. That is the part that is controlling.
While I appreciate your effort to avoid constitutional violations related to health care, we already walk all over (and have historically simply ignored) the constitution with regards to zoning, taxation, bank loans, voting, protests, free speech, etc, that this seems like a silly hill to die on, especially given the upsides to single-payer healthcare.
And to be clear, all those constitutional violations are abhorrent and should be actively legislatively and judicially worked against (not executive-ly because that branch almost by definition works against the constitution). But given our history of red-lining, voter suppression, un-banking, rich tax exceptions, NIMBY zoning, etc, I'm okay with single-payer, so long as there are private options if you think surgically modified eye color can make you more employable or improve your quality of life.
The sight of somebody, seemingly seriously, describing this site's userbase in this way is the funniest thing I've seen all day.
We already heavily tax cigarettes anyway, so anyone who smokes is basically already paying for their future healthcare needs in small installments.
Besides, I like having an alcoholic beverage every now and then so I need society to help pay for my future liver/colon/throat cancer treatment.
[1] Nearly a quarter of people have cataracts before 70 and 10% of people have some form of age-related macular degeneration by 50.
Do you really believe that denial would not be controversial?
About 1/3 of Americans have a tattoo [1]. Of the people without tattoos 66% say seeing a tattoo on someone gives them neither a negative or positive opinion of the person.
A tattoo on the buttocks will not cause skin cancer on the face. (There is a small association between tattoos and skin cancer but that is skin cancers at the tattoo sight, and it is not so much that they cause the cancer but rather make it harder to notice the cancer so it tends to be farther along before detected).
So I don't see how it could not be controversial to cut of Medicare to someone over something that a solid majority don't care about and that almost certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with their skin cancer.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-ame...
Of course whenever you have taxpayers paying for something for individuals, those taxpayers may properly decide to exclude undeserving individuals from receiving benefits.
What would be controversial is classifying people as undeserving for past actions that
(1) were and are completely legal,
(2) are not even considered to be bad by a large fraction of the country, and
(3) have nothing whatsoever to do with what they are being excluded from.
For some context, Wikipedia says:
> In the United States, depending on the context, the term "welfare" ... can also include social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Medicare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_spending#United_States
But in any case, Medicare is literally denied to prisoners, which is an example of ... denying welfare benefits for antisocial behavior?
Even from a common sense perspective, someone who is blind and on disability because they had a risky procedure is unquestionably worse for the country and society than someone who is able to return to work and pay taxes.
What you're advocating for is literally just pettiness. It doesn't benefit anyone. It's not saving the taxpayers money. It's not reasonable in any way.
I don't see why universal or government provided healthcare has to be for "compassionate" reasons. It's perfectly consistent to interpret it as an insurance program, where you pay a premium to avoid catastrophic costs. Indeed in many countries that's how healthcare is structured (eg. [1]).
Should we also refuse to rescue people who went hiking in deep wilderness or boating in unsafe waters? Or negotiate the release of citizens taken prisoner by hostile foreign regimes or gotten seriously ill while vacationing against government advice? Since when is it good policy to refuse help to people who have made poor choices or taken risks?
Different people can have different reasons for supporting a program. The fact that you think government provided healthcare is "compassionate" doesn't mean that other people can't think that it's a purely transactional arrangement similar to home or car insurance. A grocery store providing food is arguably "compassionate", in the sense that it stops you from starving, but no one would claim "grocery stores are inherently compassionate".
>Why should someone not be eligible/worthy to avoid catastrophic costs? If someone is paying their premium (be it from a Medicare/Medicaid plan or from their tax dollars), why should they not be covered?
Most other forms of insurance often contain a clause saying that it doesn't cover intentional or negligent damage. If you're doing doughnuts in a parking lot and crash into a pole, that won't be covered by your car insurance.
>Should we also refuse to rescue people who went hiking in deep wilderness or boating in unsafe waters?
AFAIK in some circumstances people get billed for those rescues, so it's not as good as an example as you think it is.
> Or negotiate the release of citizens taken prisoner by hostile foreign regimes or gotten seriously ill while vacationing against government advice? Since when is it good policy to refuse help to people who have made poor choices or taken risks?
At some point.. yes? These sorts of scenarios exist on a spectrum. The state department is probably not going to send in Seal Team Six to extract some kid who traveled to Syria to join ISIS but got cold feet. On the other end of the spectrum are stuff like "preventable" car accidents: most car accidents are arguably preventable (eg. rear ending a car because you were following too close), however such accidents are nonetheless covered by car insurance. Drawing the line at "elective cosmetic surgery" isn't "outrageous".
I don't think a contrarian opinion to that should be considered outrageous.
The vast majority of the burden on the health care system comes from very preventable causes