[DRAFT] My Milkshake Brings All The @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@...

[Zwangzug]

Title: My Milkshake Brings All The @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ To The Yard

Valid if: nation has national health care service, and body modification (tattoos etc) legal. maybe minimum scientific/technological advancement? Not for class regions?

Text: Thanks to a timely mastectomy performed by the @@DEMONYM@@ health care system, @@randomname(female)@@ has survived cancer and received a clean bill of health. In preparing to return to work, however, she has been caught flat-footed.

Option 1: "How can I face the world without constantly reminding people that my eyes are up here?" asks @@randomsurname1@@, making direct eye contact. "In order for both my mental and physical health to be restored, I must have access to reconstructive surgery so my chest is every bit as resplendent as it was before treatment. The hospitals took me apart -- they can darn well put me back together!"
effect: any secret that gets off someone's chest is promptly replaced

Option 2: "This case seems clear-cut to me," agrees ambitious anesthesiologist @@randomname@@. "But it's not enough to restore what illness has taken. We have the technology to remove wrinkles from the elderly, shave weight off the obese, even adjust the corneas of people who keep forgetting their glasses! Our hospitals must treat every case of cosmetic surgery, so our population can look and feel their best."
effect: barbers who trim a few inches of hair bill the government for their labor

Option 3: "I wish I was a little bit taller, I wish I was a baller," bemoans the uncoordinated @@randomname@@. "But you know what? I don't ask the public to pay for height augmentation. @@DEMONYM@@ health care should only be used for urgent medical conditions, not elective surgeries. If @@randomsurname1@@ doesn't like the way she looks, she could have just kept the tumors."
effect: facial disfigurement is a leading cause of supervillainy

Title: My Milkshake Brings All The @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ To The Yard

Valid if: nation has national health care service, and body modification (tattoos etc) legal. maybe minimum scientific/technological advancement? Not for class regions?

Text: Thanks to a timely mastectomy performed by the @@DEMONYM@@ health care system, @@randomname(female)@@ has survived cancer and received a clean bill of health. In preparing to return to work, however, she has been caught flat-footed.

Option 1: "How can I face the world without constantly reminding people that my eyes are up here?" asks @@randomsurname1@@, making direct eye contact. "In order for my mental as well as physical health to be restored, I must have access to reconstructive surgery so my chest is every bit as resplendent as it was before treatment. The hospitals took me apart -- they can darn well put me back together."
effect: any secret that gets off someone's chest is promptly replaced

Option 2: "I wish I was a little bit taller, I wish I was a baller," bemoans the uncoordinated @@randomname@@. "But you know what? I don't ask the public to pay for height augmentation. @@DEMONYM@@ health care should only be used for recognized medical conditions, not elective surgeries. If she doesn't like the way she looks, she could have just kept the tumors."
effect: facial disfigurement is a leading cause of supervillainy

Option 3: "I sense an opportunity here," says @@randomname(male)@@, your Minister of Silver Linings, resisting the urge to cop a feel. "Just because the government has no business funding these endeavors doesn't mean they have no place in public life. Allow people to seek cosmetic surgery in the private sector, while reserving the public system for serious illnesses. That will be sure to stimulate concupiscent couples...er...the economy."
effect: the rich are even more well-endowed than before
option valid if: private enterprise

[Empirical Switzerland]

Typing this so I don't lose this thread.

[Minskiev]

That’s what the bookmark is for.

I’m sure WF would love to see this.

First off, I love your second and third effect lines. The first is a phrase that just feels out of place. It seems like it was just squeezed in, and I’m not sure if that’s just it’s nature or if you could maybe state it better.

Second, there’s a few lines that don’t sound right. For example, flat-footed..simply doesn’t work. And nobody in their right mind would say “You should have kept the tumor.”

[Trotterdam]

So the main topic here seems to be "should healthcare cover the cost of cosmetic surgery?", with a not-quite-emphasized-enough undercurrent of "should special consideration be given for the case where the cosmetic surgery is specifically to fix damage necessarily incurred in the course of lifesaving surgery?". If you want to emphasize the latter, speakers need to talk about it more (speakers 2 and 3 don't acknowledge the "I just want back what doctors took from me" angle at all and treat it as generic cosmetic surgery due to unhappiness with your body's natural form), while if you don't, you should probably change the opening to remove the distracting element.

[SherpDaWerp]

body modification (tattoos etc) legal

I'm sure you've considered it, but I reckon this issue would be slightly more pressing in "no body modification" countries. Never mind who's paying for it - what if it's straight up prohibited? (that said, mastectomy bras as discussed lower down do kinda reduce the necessity of asking that question, so...)

Option 1: "How can I face the world without constantly reminding people that my eyes are up here?" asks @@randomsurname1@@, making direct eye contact. "In order for my mental as well as physical health to be restored, I must have access to reconstructive surgery so my chest is every bit as resplendent as it was before treatment. The hospitals took me apart -- they can darn well put me back together."

Look, I have 0 personal experience with breast cancer, but a cursory search tells me there are "mastectomy bras" that are designed with the express purpose of hiding the missing breast with non-invasive prosthetics. These would be significantly less expensive than full reconstructive surgery, and I reckon they should at least get a mention, even if it's just @@randomname1@@ explaining why she can't use them or would prefer the full surgery.

If she doesn't like the way she looks, she could have just kept the tumors.

Ouch. Obviously issues are supposed to be a bit extreme but this is frankly a bit ridiculous. I don't think any reasonable IRL person would be crass enough to suggest "keeping the tumors", especially in a country where the surgery she wants is legal. Perhaps @@HE@@ could suggest the mastectomy bras instead?

I also think there should be more distinction between Option 2 and Option 3. Option 2 sounds like @@HE@@ just wants to stop public money from being used for the surgery, but then Option 3 comes around and clarifies that Option 2 actually wants to stop all reconstructive surgery.

[Jutsa]

A shame this should only be restricted to nations without body integrity, seeing as I'd think an issue like this would be highly appropriate for those nations too.

Then again, the opening description would have to be different too. And then a separate issue would both be niche and threaten significant overlap.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. I do quite like this issue.

[Zwangzug]

So the main topic here seems to be "should healthcare cover the cost of cosmetic surgery?", with a not-quite-emphasized-enough undercurrent of "should special consideration be given for the case where the cosmetic surgery is specifically to fix damage necessarily incurred in the course of lifesaving surgery?".

Yeah, I'd say that's right.

If you want to emphasize the latter, speakers need to talk about it more (speakers 2 and 3 don't acknowledge the "I just want back what doctors took from me" angle at all and treat it as generic cosmetic surgery due to unhappiness with your body's natural form), while if you don't, you should probably change the opening to remove the distracting element.

I think the second route is more appropriate for what I have in mind. I'm not sure if I'll be able to make it appropriately balanced/funny, but better that than my bad attempts at euphemisms!

This is also why I'm inclined to leave the validity as is; the "special consideration for damage incurred in lifesaving surgery" is maybe a better argument for "should we have a loophole in this ban we already implemented."

[Australian rePublic]

Option 2- I don't know about your neck of the woods, but over here in Australia, an elective surgery is a surgery which is necessary but non-emergebcy, e.g. foot surgery. It has nothibg to do with cosmetic surgery

[Great Robertia]

My Milkshake Brings All The @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ To The Yard

Congratulations, that song has been stuck in my head for days now xD

Thanks to a timely mastectomy performed

Might be personal stylistics so feel free to ignore it, but perhaps consider changing "Thanks" to "Due".

mental as well as physical health to be restored

I think "as well as" could be swapped with "and", it's simpler and cleaner in this case, I think

they can darn well put me back together.

Small nitpick, but an exclamation mark would be fitting here.

While I think this works in its current form, I do agree with the others that this would be a very fitting dilemma for nations that have banned bodily modifications. While changing the validity to that would limit the amount of nations that would get this issue, it might be worth considering changing the angle towards it.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

This is a great issue, well-written, of course. We'd expect nothing less.

My first thought here though is that players of nations with nationalised healthcare are already a self-selected population.

For that self-selected population, the question "should reconstructive surgery after cancer be something that the NHS covers?" is too easy to answer with "obviously, yes." I mean, we're not talking a nose job here. We're talking about giving a woman her breasts back after cancer takes them away, which may be critical to her sense of womanhood, the process of normalisation and recovery, and in keeping her from severe post-operative depression. You'd have to be a complete misogynist to say that such a thing doesn't fall under healthcare.

That is to say, if you're the sort of person who doesn't feel the answer is "obviously yes", you're probably also not someone who believes in universal healthcare.

That in mind, I'd suggest rebalancing the issue with the pre-selected population in mind. Maybe have two options that recognise that the answer is "obviously yes", and make those two a "yes and" and a "yes but" option respectively. As in "yes, and all cosmetic surgery can be beneficial to mental health and confidence, and people should have a right to access procedures that help with this" and "yes for her, but we have to be sensible and ration NHS resources, and here's how."
Then finish with one fringe option that says "no, because".

Does that make sense?

[Zwangzug]

This is a great issue, well-written, of course. We'd expect nothing less.

My first thought here though is that players of nations with nationalised healthcare are already a self-selected population.

For that self-selected population, the question "should reconstructive surgery after cancer be something that the NHS covers?" is too easy to answer with "obviously, yes." I mean, we're not talking a nose job here. We're talking about giving a woman her breasts back after cancer takes them away, which may be critical to her sense of womanhood, the process of normalisation and recovery, and in keeping her from severe post-operative depression. You'd have to be a complete misogynist to say that such a thing doesn't fall under healthcare.

That is to say, if you're the sort of person who doesn't feel the answer is "obviously yes", you're probably also not someone who believes in universal healthcare.

That in mind, I'd suggest rebalancing the issue with the pre-selected population in mind. Maybe have two options that recognise that the answer is "obviously yes", and make those two a "yes and" and a "yes but" option respectively. As in "yes, and all cosmetic surgery can be beneficial to mental health and confidence, and people should have a right to access procedures that help with this" and "yes for her, but we have to be sensible and ration NHS resources, and here's how."
Then finish with one fringe option that says "no, because".

Does that make sense?

Thanks, that's a good explanation. Old option 2 is now option 3, option 2 is new.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

That works a lot better, I think. Nice one.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

I’m sure WF would love to see this.

Yes.

The problem at hand is not immediately clear in the opening text; I would expand on the woman's dilemma a bit so that the choices have more context. I had to use inference to determine what the crux of the issue was.

The title is, of course, perfection.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Zwangzug does great titles.

She could teach you, but she'd have to charge.

[Golgothastan]

I agree with CWA's critique. It still seems too weighted to favor option 1 given it will be an issue received by people who've already chosen to have universal healthcare.

Is there an issue that bans cosmetic surgery? If so this would be a great reversal issue for that.

[Zwangzug]

I agree with CWA's critique. It still seems too weighted to favor option 1 given it will be an issue received by people who've already chosen to have universal healthcare.

Is there an issue that bans cosmetic surgery? If so this would be a great reversal issue for that.

The policy that was originally coded to be about tattoos has been re-interpreted to apply to any kind of body modifications, so I could just flip the validity and rephrase.

Edit: thanks for the compliments on the titles, I would say I'm very hit-and-miss at them when you consider my overall creative output and not just NS stuff!

[Golgothastan]

Some breast cancer survivors choose to have chest tattoos over their mastectomy scars rather than reconstructive surgery, so you could keep the tattoo focus ... if that's not drifting too far from the original premise.