I watched a show this past weekend. Plastic surgery. A woman in Los Angeles, divorced, two small children, was getting the "whole" do-over. Cost $35,000. She works full-time while working to get a degree in Accounting.
This woman also fits inside your script about "what appeals" to voters. Who do you think will be paying the costs for her possible bankrupty?
How important do you think it is that she "feel good" about herself, and what types of government programs do you think she'd demand to see enacted into congress?
Why wait? She can move to CA where many types of cosmetic surgeries ARE being covered. Including sex changes.
CORRECTION: She can move to SAN FRANCISCO, just north in state for the type of "humanitas" she wishes to incorporate into her, and by result, all our lives. Oh, groovy?
This woman also fits inside your script about "what appeals" to voters. Who do you think will be paying the costs for her possible bankruptcy?
IMO, this is exactly the the kind of "argument" that that subverts "conservative" political effort.
Voter support of programs to provide insurance to cover this sort of "elective" plastic surgery for the involuntarily uninsured is virtually nonexistent - as, BTW, is private insurance coverage to do the same.
Now ask the same voters about reconstructive surgery after mastectomy - at this point you will start to encounter real difference of opinion.
Now ask the same voters about their support of programs to supply medically indicated treatment for breast cancer to someone who has worked steadily for decades and now finds themselves uninsured - you will find that a majority of voters are in favor of such programs.
At that point, instead of taking about "people who want to feel good about themselves" IMO conservatives would do better to start thinking about how to structure such politically inevitable programs so as to do minimum damage to personal motivation and general economic productivity.