Proposed: Federal tax on plastic surgery

[SarahG]

To pay for the national health care system being proposed, the senate's democrats now want a 5% tax on all elective procedures in the United States.

This is after the house democrats stripped the health plans from offering abortions (which being defined as elective would also be taxed by 5% under this proposal if the criteria is based on elective status- it would be hard to define cosmetic legally) and after they've forced everyone to buy an exchange policy (with a 2.5% of your gross income as a penalty for anyone who refuses to comply).

I guess this is an indication not to hold your breath on Obama re-instituting FFS or SRS as tax deductions (as they were before the Bush Admin). Nope, instead of getting back what you would have in the Clinton years, the reverse would be true (you'd have to pay as much in addition to your existing medical bills).

I wonder if they'd start charging people who go overseas for elective procedures with tax evasion for not paying the tax.

But what do I know? No one took it seriously when I predicted abortions being dropped like a pile of bricks.


US Senators target plastic surgery in health overhaul
AFP
Thu Nov 19, 10:25 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Americans opting to have surgery to suck out fat, grow or shrink breasts, shape their nose or banish wrinkles may pay for a health care overhaul that was unveiled by US Senate Democrats.

The White House-backed plan would impose a five-percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery that is estimated to raise an estimated 5.8 billion dollars over 10 years towards the 849-billion-dollar plan.

The measure exempts plastic surgery done to remedy a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.

Individuals who seek purely elective procedures, which are typically paid for directly out of patients' pockets, would have to pay the new tax starting in January 2010.

The global economic recession has not dented US demand for cosmetic surgery procedures, which were up three percent in 2008 to 12.1 million procedures, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

But breast augmentations were down 12 percent from 2007, to 307,230, while wrinkle-banishing Botox injections were up eight percent to just over five million procedures.

The legislation does not exempt US lawmakers.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091119/pl_afp/healthuspoliticssenateplasticsurgery

[BLKGSXR]

Heh I guess they are hurting that badly.

[SarahG]

Depending how much work a girl needs and whether or not it would apply to surgeries done overseas- this would add a good 3 grand or so to the cumulative costs of transitioning (or, enough for a trach shave to quantify it with a cost most girls would come across).

[Bunzee]

that is a dumb idea
but when the FUCK are they gonna get out of IRAQ and afghanistan and stop wasting money on that mess!!

[Silcc69]

Wait so the repubs didnt tax these surgeries or what?

[CaptainGeech]

I got to be honest. I thought they were taxed already. But its a slippery slope with the wording they use. In particular the word "elective". Who is to say what is elective. Are breast implants "elective"? If so, what about all the breast cancer survivors who feel they "need" that procedure to regain there self worth and feeling of womanliness? Or the morbidly obese who could live an extra 20 years if they get gastric bypass surgery?

All of our money problems would go away if they taxed the correct people and things. The churches, drugs (make them legal first), pharmaceutical companies, and all of the foreign power suppliers (oil, electricity, etc...). Sadly that will never happen. Why? Because those are the people who control everything and pay the politicians kickbacks to stay quiet and further their cause.

[SarahG]

But its a slippery slope with the wording they use. In particular the word "elective".

Exactly, what does elective mean in this context- anything that insurance doesn't cover?

They're talking about botox, that isn't a surgery- so are they going to open this up to include everything done for cosmetic purposes? Will that include hair transplants (baldness effects some GG's btw)? What about laser/electro for hair removal? Laser treatments for spider veins? Fat injections? Hell what about cosmetic dentistry (would getting fangs now have a 5% tax? What about caps?)?

I don't like the way this is heading (not that I ever DID like the way this reform plan was heading).

[Silcc69]

CaptainGeech the pharmaceutical companies and foreign power suppliers would simply pass the extra taxes on to the consumers.

[CaptainGeech]

CaptainGeech the pharmaceutical companies and foreign power suppliers would simply pass the extra taxes on to the consumers.

Yes. I know. But the government can regulate things or at the very least not deregulate them. In California several years ago they tried to convince us that by deregulating the standard prices electricity companies would start a bidding war. Consumers would pay less. What happened? Shockingly they all jacked up the prices and made record profits. People lost there home because it cost $1,100 a month to have air conditioning. I am guessing the politicians didn't receive any of that cash to deregulate the energy laws. :roll:

I know regulating companies and enforcing taxes are different but the end result can be the same. Companies paying there fair share.

[SarahG]

CaptainGeech the pharmaceutical companies and foreign power suppliers would simply pass the extra taxes on to the consumers.

Yes. I know. But the government can regulate things or at the very least not deregulate them. In California several years ago they tried to convince us that by deregulating the standard prices electricity companies would start a bidding war. Consumers would pay less. What happened? Shockingly they all jacked up the prices and made record profits. People lost there home because it cost $1,100 a month to have air conditioning. I am guessing the politicians didn't receive any of that cash to deregulate the energy laws. :roll:

I know regulating companies and enforcing taxes are different but the end result can be the same. Companies paying there fair share.

They're deregulating the power companies in PA starting next year IIRC. Prices are already projected to go up to 20% higher from what I've read.

I don't know where this "everything in America has to be private-run and capitalistic" comes from because it is a blatant historical fabrication. What next, handing the police departments over to black water?

[JerseyMike]

Things would be better if there wasn't a government then there wouldn't be any taxes, and no use for useless 24 hours news channels.

[peggygee]

The measure exempts plastic surgery done to remedy a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.

Hopefully at some point there may be a precedent making case that may
allow GRS, and other transitioning costs in, under a "congenital
abnormality" or 'disfiguring disease' rationale.




The legislation does not exempt US lawmakers.

And I am glad to see that the pols didn't exempt themselves fro this
legislation, though if they did I believe their would have been tremendous
backlash in this economic climate.

[SarahG]

The measure exempts plastic surgery done to remedy a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.

Hopefully at some point there may be a precedent making case that may
allow GRS, and other transitioning costs in, under a "congenital
abnormality" or 'disfiguring disease' rationale.

Probably will never happen;

-Personal injury/accident trauma obviously won't apply (presumably they mean stuff like burn victims here)

-Disfiguring disease- again won't apply (presumably they mean stuff like breast cancer here)

-Congenital abnormality; to apply science would have to definitively establish that it is a birth defect, the hard part, the part that would make this pretty much an impossible criteria for transsexualism to meet, is that all environmental/sociological influences would have to be completely ruled out. Even if they found a "transsexualism gene" that wouldn't be enough- they would have to prove that everyone with the gene develops transsexualism, and everyone with transsexualism has the gene (we're not just talking correlation here). This would be impossible.*

Even if science somehow managed to do this, there are the political realities to take into consideration. We can't get half the country to admit evolution is plausible, and there's a great deal more evidence in support of that. With the never ending stream of press articles or tv segments on midlife crisis transitioners, it simply won't be possible to get most the people in the country to view it as anything but a choice.

Which brings us to another point- the whole "whether or not it's a choice" part. When dealing with problems like discrimination, health care, violence- if the argument boils down to "these things are bad because it's not a choice" then the whole debate has been stillborn from the start. If the best argument someone can think of, say, against being murdered, is "it wasn't a choice" then something has gone very, very wrong- insofar as it would be ignoring that "murder is wrong" [i.e. whether the victim's group affiliations or demographics were preordained or not]. That's why women rights groups don't argue for abortion rights or contraceptives access by playing the "it's not a choice because of certain realities [i.e. being raped]" argument.

But this is all one big footnote, the reality is that plastic/elective surgeries should not be taxed. They should not be taxed because there have always been, and always will be people with so-called "legitimate" medical reasons for getting them... but have no health care program that will cover it. Health care programs of all kinds are notoriously bad for covering plastic surgery even in cases where it is easily justified on subjective medical grounds. People with deformities rarely get health care programs (public or private) to cover stuff like breast implants when one breast is naturally 2 cup sizes (or more) than the other, or breast reductions on patients whose breasts are causing medically-proven back problems, or seniors with sagging facial skin obstructing their eyesight. These types of patients cannot rely on health care to meet their needs because their needs are unusual- and when applying for coverage health care programs have a reason to be biased against the patient in order to save funding. ALL health care fundamentally rations coverage (the difference is how and when) and these types of patients and up having to pay out of pocket.




* Because all they'd have to do is find people who transitioned who are not TS to show that there are "transsexual people without the gene" or people who have the gene but never transitioned

[peggygee]

The measure exempts plastic surgery done to remedy a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.

Hopefully at some point there may be a precedent making case that may
allow GRS, and other transitioning costs in, under a "congenital
abnormality" or 'disfiguring disease' rationale.

Probably will never happen;

-Personal injury/accident trauma obviously won't apply (presumably they mean stuff like burn victims here)

-Disfiguring disease- again won't apply (presumably they mean stuff like breast cancer here)

-Congenital abnormality; to apply science would have to definitively establish that it is a birth defect, the hard part, the part that would make this pretty much an impossible criteria for transsexualism to meet, is that all environmental/sociological influences would have to be completely ruled out. Even if they found a "transsexualism gene" that wouldn't be enough- they would have to prove that everyone with the gene develops transsexualism, and everyone with transsexualism has the gene (we're not just talking correlation here). This would be impossible.*

Even if science somehow managed to do this, there are the political realities to take into consideration. We can't get half the country to admit evolution is plausible, and there's a great deal more evidence in support of that. With the never ending stream of press articles or tv segments on midlife crisis transitioners, it simply won't be possible to get most the people in the country to view it as anything but a choice.

Which brings us to another point- the whole "whether or not it's a choice" part. When dealing with problems like discrimination, health care, violence- if the argument boils down to "these things are bad because it's not a choice" then the whole debate has been stillborn from the start. If the best argument someone can think of, say, against being murdered, is "it wasn't a choice" then something has gone very, very wrong- insofar as it would be ignoring that "murder is wrong" [i.e. whether the victim's group affiliations or demographics were preordained or not]. That's why women rights groups don't argue for abortion rights or contraceptives access by playing the "it's not a choice because of certain realities [i.e. being raped]" argument.

But this is all one big footnote, the reality is that plastic/elective surgeries should not be taxed. They should not be taxed because there have always been, and always will be people with so-called "legitimate" medical reasons for getting them... but have no health care program that will cover it. Health care programs of all kinds are notoriously bad for covering plastic surgery even in cases where it is easily justified on subjective medical grounds. People with deformities rarely get health care programs (public or private) to cover stuff like breast implants when one breast is naturally 2 cup sizes (or more) than the other, or breast reductions on patients whose breasts are causing medically-proven back problems, or seniors with sagging facial skin obstructing their eyesight. These types of patients cannot rely on health care to meet their needs because their needs are unusual- and when applying for coverage health care programs have a reason to be biased against the patient in order to save funding. ALL health care fundamentally rations coverage (the difference is how and when) and these types of patients and up having to pay out of pocket.




* Because all they'd have to do is find people who transitioned who are not TS to show that there are "transsexual people without the gene" or people who have the gene but never transitioned


One case that I'm not sure of the results yet are:


BOSTON - After a tormented existence as a father, a husband, a
Coast Guardsman and a construction worker, a 57-year-old suburban
Boston man underwent a sex-change operation. Then she wrote off the
$25,000 in medical expenses on her taxes.

But the IRS disallowed the deduction — ruling the procedure was
cosmetic, not a medical necessity — in a potentially precedent-setting
dispute now before the U.S. Tax Court.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain is suing the IRS in a case advocates for the
transgendered are hoping will force the tax agency to treat sex-change
operations the same as appendectomies, heart bypasses and other
deductible medical procedures. The case is set to go to trial July 24.....

http://theipowa.org/?q=content/irs-sued-over-sex-change-deduction-0



On a causal relationship for transsexualism a team of Australian
researchers published in the journal of Biological Psychiatry that they
had identified a significant link between a gene involved in testosterone
action and male-to-female transsexualism.

DNA analysis from 112 male-to-female transsexual volunteers showed
they were more likely to have a longer version of the androgen receptor
gene......

http://theipowa.org/?q=content/genetic-link-transsexualism-found


* Because all they'd have to do is find people who transitioned who are not TS to show that there are "transsexual people without the gene" or people who have the gene but never transitioned

This however could be very problematic to the afore-mentioned contention.

[peggygee]

Double post.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/nelson-haha.gif

[JamesHunt]

there should be a 50% super tax on SRS, even if you go abroad to get it