South Korea's well-coiffed president is on a mission to help the country's balding residents.


In his crosshairs: the national health insurance scheme, which he suggests should foot the bill for hair loss treatments.


President Lee Jae Myung made the suggestion to officials at a briefing this week, arguing that medical treatments for hair loss used to be seen as cosmetic, but now they are viewed as a matter of survival.


South Korea's national health insurance currently covers treatments for hair loss caused by medical conditions. But it excludes people with hereditary hair loss because that does not threaten someone's life, health minister Jeong Eun-kyeong explained at the meeting on Tuesday.


Is it just a matter of whether to define hereditary disease as a disease? Lee asked in response.


Lee's proposal has earned him praise among social media users, one of whom called him the best president in history.


However, not everyone is as enthused - even those who stand to benefit from subsidised hair loss treatment.


The move feels a bit like a vote-grabbing policy, says Song Ji-hoon, a 32-year-old Seoul resident who takes hair loss medication. Saving money sounds nice, but honestly, it costs less than 300,000 won ($200) a year, so… is it even necessary?


In South Korea, a country notorious for its strict beauty standards, baldness comes with a stigma that can prove especially troubling for young people. Out of 240,000 people in the country who visited hospitals for hair loss last year, 40% were in their 20s or 30s, according to authorities.


Many worry that amidst financial constraints, prioritising hair loss treatment over addressing more acute health needs could misplace government resources. Critics argue that efforts should focus on aiding more vulnerable segments of society, manifesting in broader health and social concerns.


This proposal, once part of Lee's previous campaign narrative, has resurfaced as he attempts to consolidate support from the youth, further igniting conversations about societal values and governmental responsibilities.


Nonetheless, experts suggest skepticism about the seriousness of such proposals as mere political strategy rather than an actionable policy shift.