What kinds of deductibles should Transabled self-mutilators have under Obamacare?

Meet the new civil rights group: healthy people who want to injure themselves:

When he cut off his right arm with a “very sharp power tool,” a man who now calls himself One Hand Jason let everyone believe it was an accident.

But he had for months tried different means of cutting and crushing the limb that never quite felt like his own, training himself on first aid so he wouldn’t bleed to death, even practicing on animal parts sourced from a butcher.

“My goal was to get the job done with no hope of reconstruction or re-attachment, and I wanted some method that I could actually bring myself to do....

People like Jason have been classified as ‘‘transabled’’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order.

“We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa.

 “The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.”

[Clive Baldwin, a Canada Research Chair in Narrative Studies who teaches social work at St. Thomas University] suggests this is just another form of body diversity — like transgenderism — and amputation may help someone achieve similar goals as someone who, say, undergoes cosmetic surgery to look more like who they believe their ideal selves to be.

They sound just like the so-called "transgendered", and I'm sure it will not be long before they are demanding all sorts of benefits. Just as sex change operations are starting to be covered by medical plans, do you think amputations and crippling will become required coverage under Obamacare?

If so, what do you think the deductible will be? Do you think it should be set by the severity of the procedure, or the severity or the injury to the patient? It's easy to give someone painful genital herpes, but much more complicated to surgically remove your lips. And yet having painful genital herpes is more serious than surgically losing your lips. In that case should the deductible be higher for the more disabling procedure, giving someone painful genital herpes, or for the more expensive one, surgically losing your lips?

Also, should insurance plans cover experimental drugs and procedures? Let's say that scientists develop a new pill that can destroy the human nervous system, but the drug is incredibly expensive, $10,000 a pill. Should insurance pay for that when more conventional procedures, like hitting someone in the back with a big rock, are also available?

If the person has a government subsidized medical plan, do you think the government will use "dismemberment panels" to set limits on coverage, and cut off people who want amputations after a certain number of limbs have been removed?

And what about coverage for non-citizens? Should taxpayers foot the bill for this kind of treatment for undocumented immigrants? If an illegal alien wants to be castrated, or have his vocal cords removed, should this be covered as an emergency service?

And finally, think of the implications for liability. Do you think if a doctor tries to cripple a patient, and fails, leaving the patient perfectly healthy, that the patient will have grounds to sue for malpractice?

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.