The Senate version of Obamacare will tax elective cosmetic surgery. From the story:
The bill levies a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery. The provision raises $5 billion and was needed to make the numbers work, according to a Democratic Senate aide. The Finance Committee considered the tax but dismissed it, in part because it was a public relations battle that senators were not willing to wage.
Actually, if I believed that taxing services and products with low/negative social utility was proper, I would enthusiastically support this tax. Cosmetic surgery sucks tremendous amounts of medical resources out of our strained medical sector for (usually) frivolous purposes–and just as harmfully, promotes a very destructive and unrealistic standard of beauty, leading to much pain and destructive behavior. But I don’t, so I oppose the tax.
November 19th, 2009 | 12:05 pm
“Actually, if I believed that taxing services and products with low/negative social utility was proper, I would enthusiastically support this tax. … But I don’t, so I oppose the tax.”
Just curious, do you oppose tobacco taxes on this basis?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Yes. I think there should be cigarette taxes, but now they have become punitive. I don’t smoke and I think tobacco companies deserved all they got twenty years ago for covering up health facts–as I wrote in my book with Nader called NO CONTEST. But now, it is a punishment that sets the precedent for taxing things like fast food and sugar-laced products.
November 19th, 2009 | 1:04 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Thanicha S., Buy Porn Movies. Buy Porn Movies said: Obamacare: Taxing Cosmetic Surgery: The bill levies a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery. The provision.. http://bit.ly/4Z1Lc [...]
November 19th, 2009 | 2:16 pm
I’m most curious how they propose to define “elective.” Seems to me it would be fairly trivial for a doctor to “diagnose” someone with some sort of psychological disorder (most of which are nosensical nowadays) that required plastic surgery to treat.
Also, the way to deal with products with “negative social value” isn’t to tax them, but just to ban them outright.
November 19th, 2009 | 3:41 pm
Dear heavens, that is a scary photograph. Reminds me of a Twilight Zone (or is it Outer Limits?) with the beautiful woman who has plastic surgery to fix her “disfigurement.” She came out looking horribly messed up…like all the people around her.
November 19th, 2009 | 3:46 pm
My very first economics teacher stressed that money is just one way to measure value. Money reflects economic (direct material) cost, but that does not necessarily reflect social cost. Classic example being pollution; a company that doesn’t have to use expensive pollution controls can make their goods more cheaply, but people outside that company pay the cost of cleaning up foul air and water. So that low cost is misleading.
So, he continued, one function of our taxation system is to raise the economic cost to reflect the true cost, that is, economic and social. It discourages overuse based on distorted cheapness, plus it gives you a source of revenue for combating the side effects. Easier to enforce than an outright ban, too.
As such I support alcohol and tobacco taxes, and to a lesser extent gasoline taxes. They’re really usage taxes. You don’t want to pay them, all you have to do is end or reduce your consumption.
Fast food etc. is much more ambiguous. Not all fast food is unhealthy (I favor Q-Doba burritos, no fat, lean meat) and there are just too many other factors involved, like lifestyle and exercise.
My HMO, btw, has a reverse tax; if you go to your gym enough times in six months they send you a check for $50.
November 19th, 2009 | 9:56 pm
“Cosmetic surgery sucks tremendous amounts of medical resources out of our strained medical sector…” I must disagree, esteemed Wesley. Cosmetic surgery of the type we’re discussing is paid for entirely by the patient. It’s HIS (or HER) money, not “resources out of our strained medical sector.” It maximizes freedom to let him decide how to spend it. Keep in mind that Americans spend four times more money on pet food than they do on cosmetic surgery.
You also write “[cosmetic surgery is] for (usually) frivolous purposes–and just as harmfully, promotes a very destructive and unrealistic standard of beauty, leading to much pain and destructive behavior.” Again, I disagree. The standards of beauty, unrealistic or not, pre-exist the surgery, and will continue to exist even if the surgery ceased to be. The vast majority of patients are satisfied with the results, and credibly report that plastic surgery improves their quality of life. At heart, cosmetic surgery is not essentially different from cosmetics, hair dying, primitive ornamental scarring and tattooing, even couture. Since it has been around since pre-history, it must answer some deep-seated human need. We humans ARE exceptional creatures, as one of my favorite bloggers has noted.
November 19th, 2009 | 11:54 pm
Thanks Cole. But I think the cosmetic surgery industry reinforces and adds energy to a facile and surface view of human beauty and worth. I sure do appreciate the compliment, however. Feel free to disagree with me anytime.
November 20th, 2009 | 9:46 am
Most elective cosmetic surgery is for unnecessary dreck such as boob jobs or facelifts. The problem is when, for example, breast implants fail or leak, and that’s just what our “strained medical sector” doesn’t need—someone’s vanity procedure creating real medical issues. Wesley, you therefore make a valid point there. In fact, it’s so valid that I disagree with you on taxing such procedures. Tax ‘em, I say. :)
November 20th, 2009 | 4:21 pm
Tell that “boob job” line to some woman who’s had a mastectomy and then learned her insurance company decided reconstructive surgery was elective “unnecessary dreck.”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 20th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
History Writer, I am not sure if you are responding to me or a comment. But if to me, the post was not at all about reconstructive surgery.
November 20th, 2009 | 4:24 pm
I’m willing to bet that if K-man had to be gelded as part of a medical procedure he’d now be clamoring loudly for something to stuff his pants with — you know, some of that “unnecessary dreck” stuff.
November 20th, 2009 | 6:11 pm
Set aside concerns about the merits of elective cosmetic surgery for a moment and think about why it is so successful as a business. Here we have a complex surgical procedure that isn’t covered in any comprehensive medical insurance plan or government program, and yet it is affordable to middle class Americans. It wouldn’t be if it were so covered, it would be priced to support bloated insurance and government bureaucracies. You can make a similar observation about Lasik. We could learn a lesson from this about how ensuring that the medical marketplace were a truly free might make medicine affordable.
December 2nd, 2009 | 8:39 pm
[...] Read it all. [...]
December 5th, 2009 | 1:24 pm
[...] Some Obamacare supporters want to tax cosmetic surgical procedure as a way of helping pay for its costs. I am no fan of cosmetic surgery, but oppose taxing it on principle, as I wrote here. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact