The Tan Tax

Not sure if you've heard about the "Bo-Tax", but a short while back the plastic surgery and dermatology industry was about to be given a jab by the government with a 5 percent tax on any elective cosmetic procedure, including Botox and the like. Turns out they are off the hook, as doctors and industry groups lobbied hard to nix it citing that it discriminated against women, who are the majority who recieve cosmetic surgery or injectables. They felt that it implied that a tax on cosmetic surgery was akin to a tax on alcohol or tobacco. A "s(k)in tax," if you will.
Turns out, the Senate moved their target to indoor tanning, thinking that placing a 10 percent tax would discourage people from the use of tanning beds, which some studies have shown causes skin cancer. The idea is to use the tax to offset the expense of providing health care insurance for millions of Americans who currently don't have any. It is expected, in 10 years, to raise 2.7 billion dollars.
While I am not a tanner and I do not recommend tanning, either in a bed or outdoors, I am still on the fence as to how I feel about this, as I did when the target of taxation was the cosmetic surgery industry. Don't we pay sales tax already on cosmetic products here in Michigan? What would make a cosmetic SERVICE different from a product off the shelf? Cosmetic services are expensive. Many people who recieve them have disposable income. Why shouldn't they be taxed?
On the flip side, there are people who receive elective cosmetic surgery for disfiguring conditions and scrounge for years to pay for surgeries and cosmetic treatments to correct them and, in turn, raise their self-esteem. Also, given the current economy, many people may choose to divert their disposable income somewhere else other than a cosmetic procedure, especially if it is being taxed. This could be devastating for plastic surgeons (for whom I have a soft spot as I have been employed by an outstanding board certified plastic surgeon since I began my aesthetics career).
OK, that is heavy. So I am glad that the focus was diverted to the tanning industry. But at the same time I am not. It still seems to be flawed. I would guess that the majority of people who tan are also women. So isn't it still discriminating? Anyway, I don't think it is going to stop people who are die-hard tanners from tanning.
What do you think?