I wonder if Coburn's license AND malpractice insurance are current ~ he is nothing more than a newer version of Bill Frist ~ Sooz

Actually, from reading that, I agree with Coburn. I don't think that definition adequately excludes breast reconstruction after a radical mastectomy from the tax. It's not a congenital abnormality, it's not an accident or trauma, and it's not a disfiguring disease. It's the surgical removal of breast tissue that is disfiguring. These are important issues to bring up when proposing legislation, to make sure it really is worded in a way that only has the effect desired and doesn't unintentionally harm other groups of people. Though, I would also argue that a tax on specific medical procedures is by itself wrong, and I doubt it would have the intended effect of preventing these surgeries or procedures. Whose place is it to determine what is necessary? What about the person who loses a large amount of weight after deciding to finally do something about their morbid obesity, and ends up with big pouches of loose skin that will never return to a normal size or shape? Removal of that, according to the defintion above, would be an elective cosmetic procedure and subject to a tax.

I find it highly amusing, and sadly ironic that think progress would challenge the opinion of an actual MD on language pertaining to medical procedures, and mock his credentials in spite of the critics themselves not actually possessing any medical credentials to fully be aware of the range of conditions and patients seen by cosmetic surgeons and the type of issues they face. To me, it seems like a very judgemental law and another excuse to deny health benefits and coverage to people who need them. If physicians are performing "unnecessary" medical procedures, then their state medical board should be investigating them; it's not Congress' place to make that call.

I tend to agree with Calluna. It's really not clear that breast reconstruction would be covered. The disfugurement is not the result of the disease but rather the result of the surgery. Further, healthwise, the woman can get along without the breast which could lead to the interpretation of it being voluntary cosmetic surgery. However, it is an easy fix in the legislation.

A better choice would be to eliminate taxation of cosmetic surgery from the bill. There's no need to clarify a bad proposal if you simply eliminate it.

Maybe the government should simply reduce its need to find new sources of tax revenue by limiting its scope and living within its means.

And if we;re going to head in the direction of government-provided health insurance, perhaps smokers should be paying more in taxes since treatments of the various ills they contract as a result of their smoking is extremely costly. Treatments for emphysema, lung cancer and the other diseases they bring upon themselves are costly, so they should be paying a far greater portion of the healthcare tax bill in the country.

Chaos, you might be surprised, but I agree with you on the issue of the tax hikes on cigarettes. Government bodies see smokers as a cash cow. The problem is that Washington is now looking for other cash cows, like cosmetic surgeons and their patients. It never stops when people decide those other cash cows should be hit just as hard as others have been hit. That's just another example of government making two wrongs a right. The peoper path to take is correct the injustices rather than just creating more injustice to spread it out.

But the bills still have to be paid while we correct those injustices. We're already in a hole. It's going to take a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to get back to breaking even.

Meanwhile, spread the pain.