In the rush to finalize the health-care reform bill, the Senate voted Sunday to forgo a 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgeries and introduce a 10% levy on indoor tanning sessions instead — leaving some observers baffled. While the proposed "Bo-tax" on plastic surgery was projected to yield $5.8 billion over ten years, the new scheme will raise less than half that amount. (Watch a report about the Bo-tax.) Why did the Senate switch tactics and decide to penalize fake-sun worshippers?

Lobbyists proved the 'Bo-tax' was discriminatory: Plastic surgery advocates and feminist groups united to argue that the fee would penalize middle-class, middle-aged women struggling to remain viable in the job market' says Janice Turner at the Times Online. And they have a point: "If women want to be heard, to continue to participate in society… they must remain youthful."
"Should we fight for our right to a facelift?"

Tanning should be taxed — it's lethal: The switch is wise, says Esther Crain at Tanning beds, classified as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, are "directly linked to disease," and Americans who've successfully kicked the tanning habit often cite cost factors as their number one reason. "If a tan tax comes to pass," then perhaps more people would give up this deadly habit.
"Indoor tanning feels the heat"

The tanning industry can't fight back: Tanning bed owners can't begin to match Botox-manufacture Allergan when it comes to giving the Senate grief, says Adam Searing at the Progressive Pulse. "I mean, come on – who has the bigger cash war chest to lobby Congress?" If the Senate really cares about our health, they should stop "picking on small business" and start imposing taxes on the big-business conglomerates that are really threatening our nation’s health.
"Why Pick on Tanning Salons?"