Just as representatives from the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery spoke out against the elective cosmetic tax, people from the Indoor Tanning Association (surely a colorful bunch) are publicly opposing this new tax. Executive director John Overstreet says their industry, which consists mostly of small businesses, has been “thrown under the bus.”

What do you think? Is this a better proposal or just as flawed as the proposed elective cosmetic tax?

Cosmetic and plastic surgeons have spoken publicly against the addition of this tax and shared many arguments against it.  Here are 5 of those arguments.

• Discriminatory: Women purchase 86 percent of all cosmetic medical procedures in the United States.

• Targets middle class America: In a 2005 ASPS survey of people planning cosmetic surgery, 60 percent of the respondents reported incomes of $30,000 to $90,000 a year.

• Historically ineffective: New Jersey implemented a similar tax in 2004 and it fell drastically short (59 percent) of its projected revenue.

• Line between reconstructive and cosmetic isn’t always clear: the tax imposes the burden of making clear distinctions between procedures that are medically necessary and simply elective.  Who will make these distinctions?

• Could promote medical tourism: Patient safety is a major priority; keeping costs down will discourage Americans from seeking risky cosmetic surgeries abroad.