Proposed: Federal tax on plastic surgery

[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-s...ge-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/genet...exualism-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.

[JamesHunt]

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