Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
Some forms of cosmetic surgery should of course be included, but tattoos are self inflicted. If the state starts paying for tattoo removal, then won't that just encourage people to get that stupid tattoo they are thinking about, because they can always get it lasered off afterwards?
|
I suspect that the number of people who get tattoos, and then want to have them removed, is very small, and that the hassle of providing them the care they want at the same convenience level as any other non-essential healthcare (anti-smoking drug prescriptions? acne treatments? scar removal surgery? wart removal?) wouldn't be a great drain on the system.
For any system, there will be someone who scams it--some former rich teen punk who tattoo'd half his torso and both his arms, who later realized that his foolish history is going to cost him the ability to get a job, who would cost the healthcare provider thousands of dollars to remove the evidence of his careless youth. However, there will also be plenty of ex-gang-members, who got a cluster of small tattoos in prison, and would now like to try to hold down a straight job, but have trouble getting one with a knife tattoo on the back of one hand.
The question is not, "do they really NEED this service?" Obviously, nobody NEEDS to have tattoos removed. On that same vein, nobody NEEDS straight teeth, either. Nor any teeth. Dentures are less expensive than multiple root canals, so anyone with bad teeth should have them all removed, right? Erm.
The question isn't even, "should they have to pay for it themselves?" If fairness and "should" were a part of the debate, smokers would have no coverage for lung problems, and people who don't exercise (regardless of weight) wouldn't be covered for high blood pressure treatments. By that logic, prenatal care shouldn't be covered, either. (And hey, that's the American system! "You got yourself into this trouble; now you deal with it.")
The relevant question is, "what are the pros and cons of covering this treatment?" For tattoo removal, the cons are (1) it costs money (always an issue) and (2) it might encourage some level of recklessness. However, I doubt it'd cause much; tattoos are painful, and the number of them isn't likely to dramatically spike if removal is potentially free.
The pros are (1) people who are stigmatized because of foolish decisions in their youth might be better able to get good jobs, and be more productive; (2) people who regret one of their past choices might be more confident, less ashamed; (3) the rest of us wouldn't have to look at as many ugly tattoos; (4) people actively trying to "clean up" their former rough lifestyle get a boost in that direction.
I don't know the exact money costs involved, but they'd have to be pretty extensive to overbalance those, in my mind.