>>509840330
Coming from a socialist healthcare country, i've never understood this bias against properly treating undesirable, quality of life reducing conditions just because the problem has existed for a long time and was unfixable for 99.9% of that time. Or some halfassed "solution" involving constant hassle and discomfort was invented 100+ years ago so everything remotely contemporary is now this wasteful luxury that you're eNtItLeD and crazy for wanting to be a part of normal healthcare. Why do 70yo boomers get new titanium joints implanted at €10.000+ rather than being told to make do with a crutch but wanting to actually fix myopia surgically for €4000 instead of dealing with eye crutches is too much to ask for? And why are things that make you so ugly (studies show balding makes you 50% less attractive) as to be uncompetitive with your same age peers in the dating market diminished as "merely cosmetic" and everyone who thinks it should be treated on public insurance viciously mocked? We're not talking about making tattoos a part of the deal, some wholly subjectively preference where not doing it doesn't negatively affect you, these are things that have sometimes horrifying social consequences. Even weirder, if you're one of the lucky guys who keeps his hair until 70, then loses it from chemo, they'll buy you a wig. Lose it at 25 from shit genes, an age where just 15% have any visible loss, they balk and say it's laughable you think it's a big enough problem to expect treatment on their account. This makes no sense. Or teeth, why are dentures still a thing? It's such a brutal anachronism as to be comical. Crowns and implants need to be on the list too. They've been a thing for 70 and 50 years now.
