Skip Navigation
Derek Thompson

Derek Thompson - Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees business coverage for the website.
More

He is a visiting research fellow at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget at the New America Foundation. Derek has also written for Slate, BusinessWeek, and the Daily Beast. He has appeared as a guest on radio and television networks, including NPR, the BBC, CNBC, and MSNBC.

And Then the Government Came for Your Nose Job

By Derek Thompson
Jul 30 2009, 10:00 AM ET Comment

Call it the Botax. Congress is considering a tax on cosmetic surgeries, a $12 billion industry, to help pay for health reform. That's a significant mountain of money to grab deficit-fighting bucks, and as Catherine Rampell notes, the Botax could also be seen by parents as a so-called "sin tax"  to reduce needless cosmetic surgeries for their daughters. But really: Taxing breast augmentation? Instapundit counters: Why not tax abortion?



Cosmetic surgery and abortion: They're mostly both elective procedures by doctors for women (according to Cosmetic Plastic Surgery Research, women accounted for 91 percent of all plastic surgeries in 2007). So what's the difference? Well, the law for one thing. As Jonathan Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, writes at the Volokh Conspiracy blog:

My own view is that, under current law, a tax targeted at abortions would be difficult to sustain. Under Casey, states may not impose regulations that place an "undue burden" on a woman's constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy. A law creates an "undue burden" where it has "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Any abortion tax large enough to raise a meaningful amount of revenue would likely increase the cost of abortions sufficiently to constitute an "undue burden" under this test.

The most important similarity I see between taxing nose jobs and taxing abortions is that neither is likely to happen. A Democrat-sponsored abortion tax is out of the question, and proposing a tax on cosmetic surgeries will -- as we have seen -- stir the ire of plastic surgeons and their patients just as Obama is trying to calm the hysterics among wealthy Democratic districts and doctors' lobbies.

If we're going to see Botaxes, they will likely be state Botaxes. New Jersey has passed a 6 percent tax on certain procedures such as Botox and nose jobs in 2004, while excluding less elective procedures like reconstructive surgeries. How has it worked out on the revenue side? Disappointingly. Malcolm Roth, vice president for health policy and advocacy at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said a botax in New Jersey raked in only a quarter of the expected revenue, according to the LA Times.

Presented by

More at The Atlantic

How the Global Middle Class Can Save the American Middle Class How the Global Middle Class Can Save America's Middle Class
Does the Supreme Court Believe in Double Jeopardy Protections? Does the Supreme Court Believe in Double Jeopardy Protections?
Watch and Buy: Kickstarter Is the Hipster Home Shopping Network Kickstarter Is the Hipster Home Shopping Network
Fact-Checking Claims on the Wonders of Pomegranate Juice Fact-Checking Claims on the Wonders of Pomegranate Juice
The '7 Dirty Words' Turn 40, but They're Still Dirty The '7 Dirty Words' Turn 40

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Where in the World? Part 3: A Google Earth Puzzle

May 25, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)