Prior to the passage of the House health care bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the following on the House floor:
“For all Americans, this legislation makes a big difference: no discrimination for pre-existing medical conditions, no dropped coverage if you are sick, no co-pays for preventive care. There is a cap on what you pay in but there is no cap on the benefits that you receive. It works for seniors closing the donut hole, offering better primary care, and strengthening Medicare for years to come. It works for women preventing insurance companies from charging women more than men for the same coverage. No longer will being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition.”
As I pointed out back in September, it is not the same coverage. Men and women share different medical risks. Insurance premiums are based on those risks. Just as men generally pay higher premiums for both auto and life insurance, women generally pay higher health insurance premiums. That is price discrimination based on financial risks.
But the point of this post is not to rehash that issue.
CMPI Vice-President Bob Goldberg posed the following question in his recent piece in the American Spectator:
Is health care reform designed to discriminate against women?
It’s a question worth asking. Bob cited the cosmetic surgery tax in the Senate health care bill as proof of the legislative assault on women.
Planned Parenthood protested Senator Ben Nelson’s abortion amendment holding signs that read, "Listen up senators: Women's health is not negotiable."
However, Planned Parenthood and other women’s groups are nowhere to be found on the issue of a cosmetic surgery tax. Something tells me if a tax was proposed on abortion procedures, they’d be out in full force speaking on behalf of women’s health.
A cosmetic surgery tax tinkers with one of the more productive sectors of the overall US health care system – more productive in the sense that there is a 93 percent satisfaction rate among patients who undergo cosmetic medical procedures. Moreover, inasmuch as patients typically pay out of pocket for many cosmetic procedures the sector has seen downward pressure on prices on account of the highly competitive market.
The primary problem with this tax is the government fails to make any distinction between a truly “cosmetic” procedure and a procedure for legitimate medical reasons. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently warned about this shortcoming saying, “They're going to tax having your breast rebuilt after your breast is taken off because it is elective plastic surgery. We're in trouble as a nation because we've taken our eye off the ball.”
The failure to distinguish between cosmetic procedures for medically elective and medically necessary reasons aside, the tax is still a terrible idea. Perhaps even more troubling, a tax on cosmetic procedures would be heavily borne by women. Indeed, 86 percent of cosmetic surgery patients are female. Contrary to popular opinion, this tax would not fall on the wealthy. About 70 percent of these patients earn less than $60,000 a year. Cosmetic surgeon Stephen Greenberg notes, “The misconception about people having cosmetic-surgery procedures is that they're wealthy. But it's . . . the average person who wants to feel better about themselves.”
Another significant shortcoming of this proposal is the belief that a tax will produce the revenues anticipated. It is important to recognize that New Jersey is the only state that taxes cosmetic surgeries and that tax has produced nearly 60 percent less revenues than originally projected. If New Jersey’s experience is any indication, the government will wind up investing more money for each dollar collected.
So does this tax discriminate against women? You make the call.
“For all Americans, this legislation makes a big difference: no discrimination for pre-existing medical conditions, no dropped coverage if you are sick, no co-pays for preventive care. There is a cap on what you pay in but there is no cap on the benefits that you receive. It works for seniors closing the donut hole, offering better primary care, and strengthening Medicare for years to come. It works for women preventing insurance companies from charging women more than men for the same coverage. No longer will being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition.”
As I pointed out back in September, it is not the same coverage. Men and women share different medical risks. Insurance premiums are based on those risks. Just as men generally pay higher premiums for both auto and life insurance, women generally pay higher health insurance premiums. That is price discrimination based on financial risks.
But the point of this post is not to rehash that issue.
CMPI Vice-President Bob Goldberg posed the following question in his recent piece in the American Spectator:
Is health care reform designed to discriminate against women?
It’s a question worth asking. Bob cited the cosmetic surgery tax in the Senate health care bill as proof of the legislative assault on women.
Planned Parenthood protested Senator Ben Nelson’s abortion amendment holding signs that read, "Listen up senators: Women's health is not negotiable."
However, Planned Parenthood and other women’s groups are nowhere to be found on the issue of a cosmetic surgery tax. Something tells me if a tax was proposed on abortion procedures, they’d be out in full force speaking on behalf of women’s health.
A cosmetic surgery tax tinkers with one of the more productive sectors of the overall US health care system – more productive in the sense that there is a 93 percent satisfaction rate among patients who undergo cosmetic medical procedures. Moreover, inasmuch as patients typically pay out of pocket for many cosmetic procedures the sector has seen downward pressure on prices on account of the highly competitive market.
The primary problem with this tax is the government fails to make any distinction between a truly “cosmetic” procedure and a procedure for legitimate medical reasons. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently warned about this shortcoming saying, “They're going to tax having your breast rebuilt after your breast is taken off because it is elective plastic surgery. We're in trouble as a nation because we've taken our eye off the ball.”
The failure to distinguish between cosmetic procedures for medically elective and medically necessary reasons aside, the tax is still a terrible idea. Perhaps even more troubling, a tax on cosmetic procedures would be heavily borne by women. Indeed, 86 percent of cosmetic surgery patients are female. Contrary to popular opinion, this tax would not fall on the wealthy. About 70 percent of these patients earn less than $60,000 a year. Cosmetic surgeon Stephen Greenberg notes, “The misconception about people having cosmetic-surgery procedures is that they're wealthy. But it's . . . the average person who wants to feel better about themselves.”
Another significant shortcoming of this proposal is the belief that a tax will produce the revenues anticipated. It is important to recognize that New Jersey is the only state that taxes cosmetic surgeries and that tax has produced nearly 60 percent less revenues than originally projected. If New Jersey’s experience is any indication, the government will wind up investing more money for each dollar collected.
So does this tax discriminate against women? You make the call.
