Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hollandaa]

Be realistic and don't say they have to cover it for all of us. I'm 5'8 and i don't think insurance has to cover it for me and all males above 5'4

[Penguinn]

Insurance doesn't cover cosmetic surgery.

EDIT: If snowballs fell in hell and they ever did, it would be for people classified as 'midgets'. 4'8 and under or so. Definitely not for a 5'4 guy.

[hollandaa]

Insurance doesn't cover cosmetic surgery.

EDIT: If snowballs fell in hell and they ever did, it would be for people classified as 'midgets'. 4'8 and under or so. Definitely not for a 5'4 guy.

I think this surgery is really necessary for males under 160 cm, its a real and serious mental disease for them. You are 5'2 maybe your insurance can cover a bit if you can negotiate good. Btw how tall are your parents? Have you been malnourished in your youth?

[KiloKAHN]

Anything cosmetic is considered an elective procedure and not covered by insurance here in the States, although there are some insurance plans that will cover frame removal or corrections later. If you're perfectly healthy and just genetically short, I don't think CLL should be covered by insurance. Although perhaps it's reasonable to think that HGH can be covered if the height is low enough for the region where parents are convinced that their child will have a significantly reduced quality of life because of it. HGH is really expensive. 

[theuprising]

I believe in the case of people who are so short such as 4'8 as Penguinn mentioned they should be covered, not any guy who is under 160 cm. The criteria should be the people who are covered are those that would have to incur additional expense due to their shortness such as having to modify cars so they can reach the pedals and their houses so they can do basic tasks such as reach all their cupboards and counter tops.

[hollandaa]

I believe in the case of people who are so short such as 4'8 as Penguinn mentioned they should be covered, not any guy who is under 160 cm. The criteria should be the people who are covered are those that would have to incur additional expense due to their shortness such as having to modify cars so they can reach the pedals and their houses so they can do basic tasks such as reach all their cupboards and counter tops.

when i look to this forum i see many short males who're about 155 cm and it must suck to be their height. there are 178cm people over here who are depressed about their height. imagine how a 155 cm guy must feel. i think its a serious mental disease for them.

[increase]

when i look to this forum i see many short males who're about 155 cm and it must suck to be their height. there are 178cm people over here who are depressed about their height. imagine how a 155 cm guy must feel. i think its a serious mental disease for them.

this is true, I say by EXPERIENCE
I just wanted to be a normal short guy
give anything to be 1.65m

[microman]

i think hollanda was refering to people that heigth living where male average is 5 10.

arn't you living in india increase?

[increase]

i think hollanda was refering to people that heigth living where male average is 5 10.

arn't you living in india increase?

South America

the average is around 1.73 m

[Penguinn]

I think this surgery is really necessary for males under 160 cm, its a real and serious mental disease for them. You are 5'2 maybe your insurance can cover a bit if you can negotiate good. Btw how tall are your parents? Have you been malnourished in your youth?

Being ugly can cause severe depression, but insurance won't cover facial re-constructive surgery. My parents are 5'4.5 and 4'10/4'11, I'm at the right height considering how tall my parents are. I wasn't malnourished at all.

[Tallexpectations]

Yed it should

[Adam.bax]

I think it should be covered for those in the extreme percentiles of average height/limb length

So if your in the lowest 10% in height in your specific area or your limbs are disproportionately short for your overall size then it should be covered

[myloginacct]

Being ugly can cause severe depression, but insurance won't cover facial re-constructive surgery. My parents are 5'4.5 and 4'10/4'11, I'm at the right height considering how tall my parents are. I wasn't malnourished at all.

The thing is that beauty is subjective but height is an objective measurement. We can always look at the bell curve and check the percentiles at the lower end. The argument for covering treatment of low enough stature in the future, when we may have other options besides CLL and decades of research showing the psychological impact on very short persons, is more sound.

That also made me wonder if gender dysphoria/sex change surgery is covered by health insurance in first-world countries at the moment.

[Android]

The FDA did approve Humatrope for short stature in children after all. Like myloginacct said, height is objective, so it's easier to move thing along since you can measure what a normal range is.

[extremis]

The thing is that beauty is subjective but height is an objective measurement. We can always look at the bell curve and check the percentiles at the lower end. The argument for covering treatment of low enough stature in the future, when we may have other options besides CLL and decades of research showing the psychological impact on very short persons, is more sound.

That also made me wonder if gender dysphoria/sxx change surgery is covered by health insurance in first-world countries at the moment.

No, it isn't. This is another dumb platitude spouted by the crowd that really needs to vanish.

"Beauty" is based on geometric and biological axioms

https://www.goldennumber.net/beauty/

Cultures everywhere in the world have beauty standards that conform to the Marquardt Beauty Mask and the Golden Ratio for facial beauty. This "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" meme needs to die. There may be MINOR differences in "tastes" from person to person, but these are more based on sexual fetishes (some men like asiatic monolid eyes, some don't; some like lighter skinned women, some like darker; etc) than they are on aesthetic sensibility. Ugly is ugly, beauty is beauty, regardless of the "beholder".

[myloginacct]

No, it isn't. This is another dumb platitude spouted by the crowd that really needs to vanish.

"Beauty" is based on geometric and biological axioms

https://www.goldennumber.net/beauty/

Cultures everywhere in the world have beauty standards that conform to the Marquardt Beauty Mask and the Golden Ratio for facial beauty. This "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" meme needs to die. There may be MINOR differences in "tastes" from person to person, but these are more based on sxxual fetishes (some men like asiatic monolid eyes, some don't; some like lighter skinned women, some like darker; etc) than they are on aesthetic sensibility. Ugly is ugly, beauty is beauty, regardless of the "beholder".

Okay, I wanted to get back into this discussion. I don't think beauty is fully objective (even your post alludes to it), but let's leave that aside for now. Your evidence points facial beauty is mostly objective.

We were talking about insurance / healthcare here. No matter if all scientists in the world unanimously agree that beauty is completely objective at some point in the future, no insurance or healthcare system is going to cover cosmetic surgery for people who don't score near a Golden Ratio facially. The reasons are obvious. It'd sound offensive to the vast majority of society, it'd be bad PR, and not politically correct. Adding to that, even if facial beauty is completely objective, it is actually malleable, unlike height. Every man can look facially better by working out to the point they get a lean face. Change to hairstyles that make their facial proportions look better (and become more attractive in the process). There's a lot of reasons why it would never be covered by insurance or public healthcare even if unanimously agreed on by the scientific world. I know this is not the point you're arguing, but I wanted to get into it.

Onto height: there's nothing that can be non-superficially done about height (at least in the mind of current society). It is also, sadly, a major physical feature for sexual attraction. This means it is incredibly hard for women at heights like 190cm and up, and even worse for men at 160cm and under. Unlike beauty, we can easily say someone is "tall" or "short" without much fuss. Once a safe technology and decades of psychological research are there, it'll be much less of a problem for insurance and healthcare systems to cover people on extreme enough height percentiles. It's a quick and objective measurement. Adding to that, heightism even helps there. There's very few, if any, organizations promoting that extremely short men are just as beautiful as average height males, and that they should embrace it. It's just not a movement.

We already have history with insurances and some healthcare systems covering sex-reassignment therapy and surgery, HGH treatment for HGH-deficient children, etc. It's not a stretch to think that men in extreme height percentiles will be able to get height surgery in the distant enough future through health insurance or public healthcare. I think it'd be harder for women, but I'd hope extreme height percentiles in both biological sexes are treated equally, should people want to get treatment. This is all unimaginable for the treatment of "ugliness". No matter how "objectively ugly" someone is, it'd be disastrous PR for any insurance or healthcare system to cover cosmetic surgery for it. The best comparison that could be made, and still an unfortunate one, is to burn and acid attack victims. Their facial and other plastic surgeries would/should be covered by insurance and public healthcare systems.