- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Posts
- 4,671
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 1,505
Last week, a 41-year-old woman who had recently had her first child walked into the office of Dr. Steven Teitelbaum in Santa Monica, Calif., for an operation that tens of thousands of women like her have undergone this year: a breast lift.
âI didnât like the way they looked,â said the woman, Jennifer, who asked that her full name not be used because she wanted to keep her medical procedures private. âAnd itâs the best money I ever spent.â
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/he...0cosmetic.html
Now, I am all for this tax as I think a large portion of these procedures are ridiculous and should not be covered whatsoever by insurance in the first place.
This is the part that really gets me though:
Another argument made by some groups is that the tax would be discriminatory toward women, who make up a vast majority of cosmetic surgery patients.
Terry OâNeill, the president of the National Organization for Women, said middle-age women, who make up a bulk of her groupâs financiers, would be particularly susceptible to the tax, especially now. Many who have lost jobs might be considering surgery, she said, because they are looking to impress potential employers.
This argument really made me stop and do a double take. The reason that women need no tax on Botox is so they can get a job? Please, and if that's the case isn't there a huge underlying societal issue here?
It seems to me that line of reasoning is self defeating, what do you think?