But Self-Esteem surgery borders on lunacy, requiring more than a Risk Assessment to the Surgeon. With what you propose, you neatly invite another layer of bureacracy and LAWYERS upon this nation.
There's common sense, and then flat-out stupidity.
California's Earthquake Household/Commercial Insurance policies are basically along the lines of what you are proposing.
A woman I know, years back, had her breasts done. Using 401K monies to do so (of course she had to pay it back); nonetheless, she told everyone she did it to improve her business -- SALES. That should she have breast enlargements she would make more sales.
I could only gak out, in response: More sales at what, for who, and will you report this to the IRS as a business expenditure?
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
No. I don't think so. You might as well ask this nation how many are willing to dig into their own pockets because Person A wishes to have a larger penis. It would please his wife, make his pants fit better, etc.
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.
For Pete's sake, Mr/Miss M. Dodge Thomas -- even insurance policies give you a price break if you practice sound health: exercise, diet, etc.
The woman you have in mind for your Exhibit A of what conservatives should allegedly be marketing is the Democrat Platform. -- All healthcare, anytime, anywhere, Universally, and someone else pays for it: Victim payor to be announced pending other legislations...
I do very much understand what you propose. And, as I did write in other post -- There are programs to assist financially. From private enterprise to corporate charity, to medical research experimentation gratis, to government programs.
You wish to find some way to sell an idea that no one ever need suffer or incur dealing with hardship.
Do I have that right? Is that the thrust of your marketing concept for conservatism? How far do you wish to go with this concept?
And what is your litmus test? Would a criminal born in dire poverty and rotten homelife qualify for a lifetime reconstructive welfarian funding? It wasn't his fault he was born to rotten circumstances.
Elect a Democrat -- they keep exonerating hardened criminals using exactly that logic. Now, you are speaking of the hardworking faithful, law-abiding person who finds themselves in dire circumstances beyond their control and somehow think the slippery slope would never apply.
You will find, as already this culture has, that accusations of false rape get far more attention than real rape. Many claiming hardship live better than the working stiffs.
Who would devise the litmus test for your (and mine) generosity? And to what degree might private investigators go snooping in order to fulfill the requirements of your litmus test?
Societies construct such "litmus tests" all the time.
The fact that it's sometimes hard to do so "at the margins" does not prevent them from doing so; in fact "politics" is largely about defining such margins.
Sometimes such judgments reflect altruistic reasoning, sometimes utilitarian motives, and often for some combination of the two.
Few voters would support "lifetime reconstructive welfarian funding" for adult criminals, most voters support at least some attempts to reduce the "dire poverty and rotten homelife qualify" of similar individuals as children - though one could argue that birth into a life surrounded by poverty, disorder and criminality is just one more example of the fact that "life is not fair".
They do so on the basis of "subjective" judgments about the differing nature of childhood and adult responsibility, "objective" judgments about the costs of social externalities associated with such conditions, and also for "altruistic" reasons - all "litmus tests", all difficult at the margins, but all also typical of the sorts of judgments that are universally made by human societies irrespective of how they are organized or governed.