Should breast enhancement surgery be legally mandated and subsidized by the government?

Question

Rio Madeira: The flip-side to that coin, however, is that you can get other women to pay for your insecurities!

justaboutpeace: Breast......reduction? What....on.....earth?

Mike T: Are you hitting on me?

Stephen H: It wouldn't be elective if it were mandated!

nickipettis: Nuh uh!

Rebel F: You are the only woman in America qualified to be president!

Answer 1

It used to be subsidized in Sweden when I lived there, if you could prove that the size of your breasts have an impact on your self image/self esteem hence causing you psychological problems. Not sure if things have changed the past ten years.

Answer 2

If you are under 20 and haven't had a baby, don't fret. Your breasts will change as you get older and definitely when you have a baby. If you are older than 20 or have had a baby, then you are looking at thousands of dollars for such surgery, which could be painful. There's nothing wrong with a small chest. People on TV are fake and why would you want that? Most guys love natural breasts....look at Kate Hudson, she's small and adorable....

Answer 3

Now your just being silly again. We can't even get people to agree on feeding the poor in this country so how are you going to get them to agree to pay for someone else's boob jobs? It would be far better to help women develop better self-esteem so they don't feel the need to subsidize what God gave them.

Edit to add: I'd be for mandated subsidizing for plastic surgery for people who have been horribly disfigured by fires or serious accidents, breast enlargement excluded.

Answer 4

I've given this a lot of thought, and my answer is...PERHAPS...

It would really depend on the situation. The government provides funding to pay for treatment of conditions that are physically debilitating...so I don't see why they shouldn't provide in instances where something is emotionally debilitating.

For example, let's say a girl is a teenager, and by some odd fluke she has developed breasts that:
-are stretch marked
-are saggy (it's rare, but sometimes it happens, even in teens)
-have dinnerplate areolas
-are asymmetrical
-are veiny
-are any other bad thing you can think of


Now. Imagine the horrible life that girl is going to live. Breasts are extremely important, especially when a girl is young and is "expected" to have nice breasts. She will be so limited in the kinds of sexual experiences she can have, because of her insecurities about her breasts. She will be sexually repressed and unhappy and possibly suicidal. It would be nice if she would learn to accept herself, but the fact remains that we live in a shallow society and her breasts are simply not as good as most people's.

Should this girl have to go through so much suffering, when we can easily fix *some* of the problems with her breasts? I don't know. I haven't decided my opinions on that yet. I just know that people shouldn't take others' insecurities lightly. Sometimes they are really severe and have a hugely negative impact on someone's life. If any type of breast surgery was ever provided by the government, a girl like THIS definitely deserves it.


However there are many cases in which a woman wants to make her already attractive breasts bigger...which is just silly. The government should obviously not pay for that because that woman can (most likely) easily learn to get over her insecurity. In that situation, she's being a little vain, in the above situation, that poor girl just wants to be *normal*.


EDIT:

By "breast enhancement", I assumed you meant any treatment to improve the appearance of the breasts, not just implants. If you were only referring to implants, then disregard my response. As I see it, sometimes a reduction can "enhance" the appearance of breasts by making them look better, so I figured that would be considered enhancement too, but maybe I'm mistaken.


EDIT:

Also, I missed the "mandated" part...I don't think it should be mandatory. If a woman has terrible breasts but is happy with herself and doesn't want the surgery, let her be. (However, I doubt many women in that situation would turn it down, so I don't think you have much to worry about).

Answer 5

NO. That is a completely elective surgery, not in any way connected with a health issue. Breast reconstructive surgery following breast-cancer surgery I could see as being allowed, but NOT boob-jobs for any woman who thought of herself as merely the life-support system for a pair of breasts, and couldn't deal with the thought that another woman might have more than she did. Women complain about MEN being FIXATED on breasts, maybe some WOMEN need to get over their own OBSESSION with them as the quintessence of self.

Answer 6

Not by the goverment but if the size of a woman are the way that a child cant make proper use of it, then it shouldnt be considered beauty surgery and be covered by medaid. That doesnt entitel you GG Jumbo though ^^

Answer 7

you asked the question about mandated a day or 2 ago.

the subsidized part is new.

Answer 8

NO! As a hetero man who finds artificial breast tissue repugnant, I am an oppressed minority and my human rights would be violated by such a mandate!

WHADDO WE WANT?!
REAL BOOBS!
WHEN DO WE WANT 'EM?!
NOW!

Answer 9

I would only consider it for women who have undergone cancer surgery and need implants for reconstructive purposes. I would not consider it for those who have perfectly healthy breasts but believe that larger breasts will make them more successful and happier.

Answer 10

I can't speak for everyone but for me: definitely not. I have always been small, but I wouldn't have surgery unless I was disfigured by illness or injury.