Should Boob Jobs Help Fund Health-Care Reform?

Netty
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 04:20 pm: [report]

Yes, it does seem like there are just as many middle class people as there are loaded getting Botox, breast implants, etc. My relatives count in that bracket. They live pay check to pay check yet still spurge on Botox or collagen.

Perhaps if they only instate a bio-tax on people who make “x” amount a year would it be more just. Assuming “X” amount is a pretty fat ass number. Middle class are already suffering enough with the recession. If they really want botox to make themselves feel pretty, why make them pay more money? When it is already hurting their pocket to get the botox.

Maybe like someone who makes 100,000 a year should get bio-taxed for cosmetic procedure.

This opens up another field of questions. Would they apply cosmetic surgery bio tax to transgenders seeking sex
operations?

gevlife
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 04:24 pm: [report]

Even if they’re middle class and not loaded, apparently they’ve got enough money to spend on elective surgery. I don’t think the idea is to hit the wealthy with this, but hit whoever is blowing money on this stuff. I know some people have real issues with their appearance and really want the surgery, but it’s really unnecessary. The only thing I can think of that I would want excepted would be implants for mastectomy patients and sex change operations. But if you start in with the “excepts” it gets even harder to define…..what do you think?

writergirl
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 04:30 pm: [report]

@gevlife—I think reconstruvtive surgery for mastectomy patients is covered by insurance, and isn’t something that would fall into the “elective” category—but I am not 100% sure.

The rest of it—including sex change operations—that’s elective.  Tax ‘em.

Netty
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 04:39 pm: [report]

Yeah, I see your point. I wonder how much the tax would be. If it is large enough it might deter middle class from getting cosmetic surgery done.

I think that reconstructive surgery for post-mastectomy patients and sex change operations should be exempt. With every bill there exists the “exceptions”. There needed, it all isn’t just black and white.

Also reconstructive surgery for like burn victims or people disfigured in accidents should be exempt too.

I guess to me it depends on how much the tax will be and if it’s not like a ridiculous amount than sure, tax the middle class.

*sam*
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 04:51 pm: [report]

I think it’s a fine idea, so long as the tax percentage isn’t ridiculous. I also agree that sex change operations, while technically elective (there’s a debate in the psychology field right now a/b whether they should include being transgender as a mental disorder so that the operations become ‘medically necessary’) should be exempt. but as for post-mastectomy breast augmentations and skin graphs for burn victims, I’m pretty sure they’re already covered under the ‘medically necessary’ umbrella.

becknee
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 05:12 pm: [report]

@*sam* Don’t you have to be diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder to get a sex change? (I mean, a real sex change, not those sketchy back-alley silicone injections?) I did a big project in college on first-person accounts of being transgender, and all the people I studied were diagnosed and had a prescribed period of living as the other gender before the doctor would consider them as candidates for the surgery.

This also makes me wonder what would happen to someone like the girl someone wrote about earlier this week, who got an eyelash transplant because of her trichotillomania. Her surgery was elective too, but it was to correct a result of a psychological disorder, and I would imagine it greatly improved her self-esteem and thus her quality of life. I’d hate to see someone like her deprived by this tax, although in general I think the tax is a good idea.

*sam*
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 05:22 pm: [report]

@becknee: you’re right. ack, now I’m embarrassed—I’m a psych major AND a big LGBT advocate… not to mention I have a good tranny friend who’s currently living as a male and has been for a few years now and is just waiting for the $$ to start hormones. lol I feel like such a dope!!! I got it mixed up—they were debating if it should be taken OUT of the new version of the DSM not put in. thanks for correcting me!! *shakes head in utter shame**

becknee
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 05:26 pm: [report]

@*sam* Oh no, I didn’t mean to make you feel like a dope! I was honestly confused, because I immediately went “Oh my gosh, did I totally neglect that entire debate in my project? It was only last semester! How did I miss that?” I had to make sure I hadn’t missed something that big!

That’s interesting that they’re debating taking GID out of the DSM, though. I hadn’t heard that - although I did hear that some trans activists object to being classified as mentally ill. Do you know if that’s why they’re considering taking it out? (I guess you can tell this is a big interest for me too )

*sam*
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 05:37 pm: [report]

@becknee: haha, no it’s fine. I just can’t believe I spaced out and mixed it up like that!! lol. but yes, that’s why they were trying to get it taken out, and it’s become a heated debate in (some) circles. it’s honestly a very complex discussion b/c on the one hand, being classified as having a mental illness (as you know) carries such a stigma, that it’s understandable why trans groups are trying to get it reclassified. but on the other hand, the amount to which being in the wrong physical body effects some tranny’s, I can also see why there’s a push to keep it in there—if for nothing else the insurance benefits. but then again, if you claim a sex change operation should be covered by insurance by claiming ‘medical necessity regarding one’s mental health’ without giving a GID diagnosis, then you run the domino effect of someone claiming that their small breasts cause such a profound negative effect on their mentality that it could also be considered ‘medically necessary for one’s mental health.’

bah, the complications of psychology and ethics!!! lol

becknee
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 05:42 pm: [report]

@*sam* Yeah, I was wondering about those issues too (“small breasts make me depressed”) when I was trying to phrase my concerns with this tax. In my mind, the solution would lie in working to decrease the stigma associated with mental illness in general to alleviate the stigma associated with GID, but I realize that’s much easier said than done! Also, it may be a bit of a moot point considering that people continue to attach such incredible stigma to being trans, regardless of its status as a mental disorder or not.

It’s so frustrating and yet so fascinating.

*sam*
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 05:44 pm: [report]

@becknee: completely agree

Coral
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 05:44 pm: [report]

I wonder if they are taking into consideration that some boob jobs, teeth whitenings, botox injections, and face lifts could be for medical reasons. I have my teeth whitened because they are stained due to medical reasons, and although a tax wouldn’t deter me, as it is not the most expensive procedure, I wonder if it would deter any others.

duckie
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 06:28 pm: [report]

I think the idea it to generate some revenue for scarce medical resources.  No matter where the money comes from, we can always spend more on health care.  There will always be new equiptment, medicines to have, and more personnel needed.  This seems to be a pretty innocuous plan. It’s not perfect and will step on some people’s toes, but we aren’t denying people basic coverage, or when they need it the most.

Though, there should be some definite language in there about what plastic surgeries would be taxed, burn victims, breast cancer survivors, etc should all be exempt.

Also- I haven’t heard anything in the news about all the money they could potentially save that the government is now funneling into hospitals and clinics for charity programs for people who are currently uninsured. Has anyone else?

fayeds
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 07:45 pm: [report]

I’d have to agree, I think a lot of people getting cosmetic surgery are not exactly “rich.” Also, the majority of these procedures already aren’t covered by insurance. What exactly will the extra money from taxes go towards?

resullins
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 12:06 pm: [report]

@writerfirl: Actually, there are a lot of insurances that treat breast reconstruction after mastectomy as purely cosmetic, and do not cover it.

Here’s the other question: If the government controls healthcare, how many of the plastic surgery procedures that are now considered medically necessary will stay that way? If they’re funding the program with money from ‘elective procedures,’ I’d be willing to bet that a lot more procedures are going to get moved the elective column.

bumbler
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 12:50 pm: [report]

I have no problem with this except in cases where plastic surgery is necessary to look “normal” or reconstruction caused by medical issues.  If someone has a cleft palette, mastectomy reconstruction, breast reduction for health issues I don’t think it should be taxed.  If you just want fuller lips, bigger breasts or shapelier thighs I don’t care if you have to pay a small tax.  I do realize that most plastic surgery is for middle class people (I’ve even known many lower economic class people who take out payment plans for plastic surgery) but this shouldn’t be about only taxing a certain economic bracket.  I pay tax on everything I want that isn’t necessary and as a smoker for years I willingly and happily paid the large taxes on cigarettes.  Bigger breasts aren’t a right, if they start taxing kidney transplants call me and I’ll work up some righteous indignation.