Tanning Salons, Not Botox Supports Healthcare Bill

A 10% tax on indoor tanning? This is buried in the  pages of the Senate  health care bill.

What gives? Well originally the Senate bill propsoed a 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery. Think botox, hair plugs and face lifts. And somehow lobbyists got involved. Specifically the America Medical Association.  The elective cosmetic surgery tax was replaced by a 10% tax on indoor tanning. According to reports, the tanning tax is expected to net $2.7 billion over the next decade — less than half of the  5.8 billion “Botax” was expected to net.

Among the arguments put forth by critics of the Botax proposal? Since 85-90% of elective cosmetic surgery patients are women, a Botax would be discriminatory, an argument backed by the American Medical Association and the National Organization for Women, which opposes the Botax proposal.

Yet most tanning salon owners are women and most clients of tanning salons are women.

According to a recent blog post at Wallet-Pop,  John Overstreet, executive director of the ITA (Indoor Tanning Association) said, “It is not surprising that one primarily cosmetic business is trying to throw another under the bus by transferring a tax from rich doctors and their wealthy customers to struggling small businesses. The irony is that ultraviolet light at least has proven health benefits, where botox treatments have none.”

According to the NYTimes:

Dr. David M. Pariser, the president of the American Academy of Dermatology, said his association proposed that an indoor-tanning tax be considered in place of the cosmetic tax, and that it contacted the offices of senators. “We made the case this will reduce health care costs by hopefully reducing skin cancer in the future — that’s the point — and also raise a little revenue now,” Dr. Pariser said.

So people who like to go to tanning salons may now be bearing some of the costs of the new legislation. And the lobbyists have saved botox nation from any additional taxes.

  • Retired Yes

    Oh yes, the dots are connecting and jumping all over in this and other congressional decisions. Of course the people who tan, will cost us more in cancer treatment. That’s difficult for me to connect those dots in a straight line.
    But that is the rationale I have heard to cause small business owners to pay a hefty extra tax.
    This type of logic (can we call it logic?) can spread to so many things and cause havoc in taxing anyone for anything.
    Let’s see: Popcicles make cause teeth to chip so we have to tax grocery stores on that one.
    You can add your own. Don’t think up too many, we’ll see them in the next bills.

  • http://www.free-pampering.com Melanie Whitaker

    Absolutely makes no sense to me. Either both of the industries( cosmetic and tanning)should be affected or neither.The reasons for electing to go with the tax on tanning salons are ridiculous.