Democrats Call For 10% Tax On Aesthetic Plastic Surgeries

[Coastie]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hcp_20090727_8213.php

Great.

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[radslooking]

aka the "tittie tax"

 

[JaggerPlate]

I'm glad these congressmen are having 'fun' throwing around ideas which screw hard working doctors over. How about taxing their salaries??? This administration disgusts me. How is it even legal to tax something as private practice, non-regulated, etc etc as cosmetic surgery??? It doesn't even make sense. It seems so big brother. Sounds like it's failed miserably everywhere else it has been tried, hopefully it won't pass at all.

 

[adeline]

.... D:

So not cool.

 

[YeOldeMan]

Why are y'all looking at this so negatively?

Now a boob-job will be a symbol of patriotism. Your country's health-welfare is resting on those 36DDs. Kind of makes you feel like Atlas, no?

 

[JaggerPlate]

Any news on this??

 

[rongeur]

Any news on this??

It was shot down. The Democrats love of raising taxes crashed headlong into the Democrats love of racial/gender identity politics. Since almost all cosmetic surgery patients are women, a tax on it is basically taxing only women... uh oh. Political correctness as an ally.

 

[JaggerPlate]

It was shot down. The Democrats love of raising taxes crashed headlong into the Democrats love of racial/gender identity politics. Since almost all cosmetic surgery patients are women, a tax on it is basically taxing only women... uh oh. Political correctness as an ally.

Thank God.

 

[Doctor]

It was shot down. The Democrats love of raising taxes crashed headlong into the Democrats love of racial/gender identity politics. Since almost all cosmetic surgery patients are women, a tax on it is basically taxing only women... uh oh. Political correctness as an ally.

That's a stupid reason. Men generally pay to have their women's boobies made bigger, obviously. And PS, the comment about the poor "hard-working surgeons" being taxed made me laugh. Economically, the tax would be passed on to the consumer... in this case, obnoxiously rich people with far too much money on their hands to utilize the funds in any meaningful manner.

It was a great idea, hope it comes up again.

 

[...to_the_OR!]

Actually, if you knew the stats, you'd see that most cosmetic surgery is performed on economically-average, middle-class folks. The tax is a stupid idea. Why not tax lipstick and eyeliner at 10%?

 

[JaggerPlate]

Lets all just work at the DMV or Post Office.

 

[Slack3r]

It's back! 5% tax on cosmetics in the Senate Bill.

 

[ENThopeful]

Why don't we tax McDonalds and increase the tax on cigarettes before taxing cosmetic surgery? Because it wouldn't be popular with voters?

 

[skiz knot]

How is it even legal to tax something as private practice, non-regulated, etc etc as cosmetic surgery??? It doesn't even make sense. It seems so big brother. Sounds like it's failed miserably everywhere else it has been tried, hopefully it won't pass at all.

Purely cosmetic plastic surgery is a (non-essential) service, and like with other services in this country (maid, car-washer, butcher, etc...) the income derived from them is taxed.

 

[skiz knot]

Actually, if you knew the stats, you'd see that most cosmetic surgery is performed on economically-average, middle-class folks. The tax is a stupid idea. Why not tax lipstick and eyeliner at 10%?

Lipstick and eyeliner IS taxed at 10% (in areas where sales tax is that high).

 

[skiz knot]

Actually, if you knew the stats, you'd see that most cosmetic surgery is performed on economically-average, middle-class folks. The tax is a stupid idea. Why not tax lipstick and eyeliner at 10%?

The "economically average" consumer that "needs" their $6,000 boob job would then have to pay $6,600. The extra 10% is not likely to dissuade them, only delay them.

 

[maxheadroom]

The "economically average" consumer that "needs" their $6,000 boob job would then have to pay $6,600. The extra 10% is not likely to dissuade them, only delay them.

Actually, that $600 will come out of the surgeon's fee. The market will not support a global 10% increase, so surgeons will take less and lose some of their margin.

 

[BlackLung]

Actually ...most cosmetic surgery is performed on economically-average, middle-class folks. The tax is a stupid idea. Why not tax lipstick and eyeliner at 10%?

Purely cosmetic plastic surgery is a (non-essential) service, and like with other services in this country (maid, car-washer, butcher, etc...) the income derived from them is taxed.

The "economically average" consumer that "needs" their $6,000 boob job would then have to pay $6,600. The extra 10% is not likely to dissuade them, only delay them.

I am generally not in favor of continued taxes.... However, let us not get all overboard as if we are limiting folks from access to some basic requirements for survival.... Food and shelter are generally thought of essentials to survival... The right to own property is in the constitution ....and we often do tax these. I think the answer to these legislation matters is going to be one of rational discussion. Unfortunately, it looks like the legislation is suceeding in a divide and conquer approach.... pitting primary care against specialists and general surgeons against subspecialists... Tax law really requires an application not based on who paid less to lobby.

My concern is this scenario... the young 35 year old, working, well to do $45-65,000/yr woman (could be a man with variations in scenario) that is athletic and "healthy". In fact, she is to healthy to feel she should buy health insurance and maybe so healthy that her fat content is low and her breasts undersized for her liking. She has spent the past 4 years stashing her money for her gift to herself breast augmentation (and spending on an enjoyable lifestyle...). It's the big day. She now goes to the PRS for consultation. During a thorough exam, she is found to have a breast lump and palpable nodes. She spends some of her stash on the mamogram.... it's a tumor. She then proceeds down the cancer work-up & diagnosis pathway... and is uninsured. She stops doing her consulting/independent contractor/real-estate/etc... job for her therapies and declares bankruptcy. Somehow, her choice to "save" money and avoid planning/preparing for the unknown with health insurance is now societies fault? You can be sure, if she a had a good car, she would have good insurance to protect that baby.... but her own body.... not worth the insurance?

BL

 

[JackADeli]

...it looks like the legislation is suceeding in a divide and conquer approach.... pitting primary care against specialists and general surgeons against subspecialists...

You have missed a very important one... that is pitting the patients/society at large against the physicians!!!

JAD

 

[JaggerPlate]

Actually, that $600 will come out of the surgeon's fee. The market will not support a global 10% increase, so surgeons will take less and lose some of their margin.

Wouldn't they just pass this fee onto the consumer??

 

[JaggerPlate]

Purely cosmetic plastic surgery is a (non-essential) service, and like with other services in this country (maid, car-washer, butcher, etc...) the income derived from them is taxed.

Still lame in my opinion. Does anyone know what the tax goes towards? I hope it's a fund to get Joe Biden a decent hair transplant.

 

[JackADeli]

...Does anyone know what the tax goes towards?...

The USA system of taxation and public funding/entitlements are by all accounting.... the largest and most blatant example of a "Ponzi scheme". There are NO federal "trust funds". That is why China and others are holding so much in bonds.... it is the USA borrowing just to pay-out those in waiting.

Social security... never meant to be a "retirement fund", was suppose to have a "trust-fund".... but, the revenues that came in went out even faster for other expenses. Thus no "fund" and thus no true amounts to bequeath to your heirs... At initiation, SS had a significant number of payers in as opposed to those taking out.... like a Ponzi scheme at the beginning. Now, the ratio of payers to those collecting has markedly diminished.... similar to "legacy" costs of unions too.

Medicare/Medicaid are also the same. All the programs are UNFUNDED liabilities. The taxation doesn't even cover the interest.... It's all like applying for and getting a new credit card to transfer the balance of your old card before the payment is due.... all the while you are still buying with the first/old credit card and using the new one for transfer to actually avoid any payments....

 

[Taurus]

Botox, facelifts may cost more as Senate eyes cosmetic surgery tax

By Sandra Block, USA TODAY
If you're considering an eyelift or tummy tuck, you might want to have it done before next year.

Last week, the Senate began debate on an $848 billion health care reform bill that includes a 5% excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery, beginning Jan. 1, 2010. The provision would raise an estimated $5.8 billion in the next decade.

The cosmetic surgery industry has mounted a vigorous effort to convince lawmakers and the public that the tax wouldn't be limited to wealthy people who are unhappy with the shape of their chins. Among their arguments:

•The tax would unfairly target middle-class women. Eighty-six percent of cosmetic surgery patients are women, and 60% have an annual income of $30,000 to $90,000, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Women face much more pressure than men to maintain a youthful appearance, says Jill Filipovic, 26, a lawyer and blogger in New York. "It's an easy choice for senators who are overwhelmingly male to tax something they probably aren't going to use," she says.

•The tax would be difficult to enforce. While the bill excludes surgery used to correct deformities stemming from an injury or disease, the distinction between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery isn't always clear, says Dr. Phil Haeck of Seattle, ASPC president-elect. For example, a nose operation to clear an individual's airways wouldn't be taxed, he says.

But if the surgeon also straightens the patient's nose, a common procedure when a patient's nose has been broken, that's considered cosmetic, he says. Such cases, Haeck says, "are going to be very difficult for the government to decipher."

•The tax would drive cosmetic surgery abroad. After New Jersey adopted a 6% tax on cosmetic surgery in 2004, many patients went to New York or Pennsylvania for procedures, says Dr. Renato Saltz, president of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. A federal excise tax would have the same effect, but patients would go to Thailand, Mexico or Costa Rica, he says. "We already see a lot of complications from surgeries performed overseas," he says.

Despite the lobbying efforts, there's a good chance the tax will be in the final Senate bill, says Tom Ochsenschlager, vice president of taxation for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Few lawmakers have expressed opposition to the provision, he says, focusing on polarizing issues such as a government-funded insurance option.

 

[skiz knot]

•The tax would drive cosmetic surgery abroad.

That is a false argument. Surgery, when performed "abroad" is, by and large, undertaken because it is less expensive (more than 5% cheaper). Unless you are suggesting that hoards of people will have their surgery performed in another country just to spite their government and their "tax(es on the) middle class", this will not happen as a result of a new tax.

 

[Tattersall]

Wouldn't they just pass this fee onto the consumer??

Producers almost always bear some of the burden of indirect taxes, though this varies according to the price elasticity of demand (if you're not in to economics, the responsiveness of demand to price changes i.e if the price of petrol increases, chances are demand will not drop as petrol is for many people a necessity with no alternatives so demand is considered price inelastic).

 

[JackADeli]

...Surgery, when performed "abroad" is, by and large, undertaken because it is less expensive (more than 5% cheaper)...

Just to add a few thoughts.....
1. as stated on a talk show the other night, you want your hip in Mumbai or Mayo? what will you pay for the difference?
2. You want a US trained surgeon or not?

On another note, during GSurge residency, I spoke with some industry reps for heart valves... They told me a valve replacement in some of these foreign nations is purchased via a menu. You get what you pay for to include.... All those aorta, venous canulas, pump resevoirs, tubing, and bovies we consider one time use .... as evaluated by companies and FDA??? Well, in some of these cheaper nations these items are rinsed/washed off and "gas sterilized" for the next patient!

Another point to consider.... While in GSurgery residency we had plenty of breast augmentation/implant patients that came in for emergency surgical treatment for wound and implant infections. They got their procedures abroad at a discount rate (not covered cosmetic on their health insurance). The antibiotics and extensive surgery for the complications (not being cared for in Mumbai/Costa Rica/etc...), well, all of that was covered under their plan here in the USA.

JAD

 

[JaggerPlate]

Heard the 5% cosmetic tax was bounced from the senate bill ??

 

[Eta Carinae]

Heard the 5% cosmetic tax was bounced from the senate bill ??

Yes, replaced instead with 10% tax on indoor tanning services.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/19/senate-bill-removes-botax-adds-tanning-tax/

Interestingly, that excludes phototherapy.

Do they even have an MD on that committee? Since when does phototherapy for indirect hyperbilirubinemia in neonates fall under the category of tanning?