Oklahoma bill to ban eyeball tattoos

[audtatious]

http://www.ksbitv.com/home/ticker/39997522.html

What will people think up next?







Should this be allowed or do you agree with the law?

[1unar3clipse]

I've been seeing more and more of it in CA.

I've got a few tattoo's but man.... a tattoo on your eye? you'd think the ability of Vision has lost its appeal.

[Jacko3]

May God help us all. The effects of these actions will not be known until many years when the owners of the eyes have a critical need for those precious eyes.

[EmKayThree]

This is some crazy stuff. I wouldn't do something like this.

But if a person wants to do that, go right ahead, shouldn't be outlawed.

It's like wearing a seat belt. Seat belts save lives, why wouldn't you wear it? If you want to risk your life, go ahead.

Not our eyes, let them risk the possibility of damage.

[audtatious]

What happens in the future when they can't pay for "repairs" and the hospital who performs the surgery has to swallow the bill (which means it's passed on to you and me)?

[S133P3R]

is that what smurf pink eye looks like? that is the stoopidest thing ive seen in a while and i just looked in the mirror 5 minutes ago.

[1unar3clipse]

What happens in the future when they can't pay for "repairs" and the hospital who performs the surgery has to swallow the bill (which means it's passed on to you and me)?

It shouldn't be passed onto you and me, it should be like voiding a warranty on your person.

The medical bill shouldn't be footed by the taxpayer when the person knowingly had the modification done with or without researching the possible/known effects. The same way someone interested in a tattoo takes(or doesn't) it upon themselves to find a legit shop that uses new and never opened sterilized needles. plus most places make you sign a waiver(listing rights and liability) before you even sit down to get the ink set.

Hell tattoo ink isn't even approved for human use last time I checked (IIRC it is approved for tracking migratory patterns of game and wildlife) but people still get tattoo ink done... and apparently in their ocular system

[audtatious]

The direction of health care is to provide everyone and anyone with assistance. If these people have problems and go to the Emergency room then they will be treated regardless. Lack of paying for treatment is passed onto the hospital who passes it onto the insurance companies as greater cost, which is passed on to those who pay for insurance and what is not covered.

[bobotech]

I say ban that stupid crap nationwide and be done with it.

I don't like footing the bill for some stupid moron who had a 7 dollar an hour job at Burger King and decided to get blue eyes and became blind because of it.

He then would lose his job and become a worthless drag that the taxpayers foot the bill for.

That is why I think some things need to be banned for the sake of society as a whole.

Plus it looks stupid as hell.

[1unar3clipse]

Then where is personal responsibility for ones self come into play?

Eye and sight complications are expensive and most visual repair procedures are still experimental as of late i.e. vitreous procedures such as vitrectomy, and in-vitreous injection.

My dad is of failing sight due to diabetic retinopathy, and not only was it hard to find a doctor willing to work with my dad, but it took about a year worth of searching to find a doctor that specialized in that particular disease enough to be confident about operating on him.

Now if someone comes in with vision loss due to blood/debris building up on the retina, or the scar tissue from the procedure of tattooing itself is affecting the vision what can the hospital do? fly in a team of specialists? the eye is a specialized field and not something just any surgeon can just cut open and start fiddling around. they will tell the person the same thing they told my dad "learn braille" because they can't even promise you improvement.

Scar tissue is just a fact of tattooing (and a serious issue for the ocular system) that can possibly be lessened by a practiced professional, but tattooing on the eye would almost require a surgically trained tattoo artist.

It makes me question how they plan to regulate ocular tattoos/artists and how they are expected to perform in relation to the specialized eye medical field versus the place where you get "Mom" inked on your shoulder no questions asked.

[audtatious]

Then where is personal responsibility for ones self come into play?

Talk to the Gov't. People preach personal responsibility until something happens to them due to one of their decisions. Our society is becoming less and less responsible with each generation.

[1unar3clipse]

I'll agree with people becoming less responsible but as a tattooed person I'd never even CONSIDER ruining my eyes for so called style.

I'm not a fan of preemptive legislation especially when it comes in the form of parenting but in this sense maybe I'd have to agree with the ban.

[480sx]

Let them do what they want, its a free country.

THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE. At least it should let most women know who not to procreate with.

[1unar3clipse]

THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE. At least it should let most women know who not to procreate with.

Word.

Reminds me of "smiley" tattoos

seriously who the hell wants to see 3rd grade equivalent writing on the inside of your lip. I have NEVER seen one that didn't look like the work of a 3rd grader.

[audtatious]

Let them do what they want, its a free country.

THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE. At least it should let most women know who not to procreate with.

I would agree if the end result did not impact me indirectly. How about putting something in law saying if you do something like this to your eyes then any and all hospitalization as a result will be out of pocket only (in advance).

[Jacko3]

I would agree if the end result did not impact me indirectly. How about putting something in law saying if you do something like this to your eyes then any and all hospitalization as a result will be out of pocket only (in advance).

You said, "I would agree if the end result did not impact me indirectly". How does the result impact you directly???????????

You also said, "How about putting something in law saying if you do something like this to your eyes then any and all hospitalization as a result will be out of pocket only" So, what attempt have you made to influence those laws if you beleive in what you are suggesting????? How would you categorize procedures for the eye that won't be covered by hospitalizations???? Would throwing in contact lens into your eyeballs every morning not rise to the level of potential harm since one's finger is likely to touch the eyeball at some point???

[audtatious]

DIRECT impact is higher health insurance due to their actions. My higher insurance rates are an indirect aspect. Follow? Or are you one of the believers that hospitals should simply swallow the costs of those who don't pay? It's not like they are not businesses.

I really don't know where you are going with your retort so maybe you should regurgitate it in more clear English for stupid people like me. Read: You are being a jerk if you are insinuating that wearing contact lenses is similar to having your eye tattooed.

[1unar3clipse]

Read: You are being a jerk if you are insinuating that wearing contact lenses is similar to having your eye tattooed.

Word. apples and oranges much?

[AZhitman]

^ Exactly.

I've been wearing contacts for 27 years. No ill effects.

Simple solution for this, treat it just like a warranty on a car: If the user suffers some ailment that can be directly linked to this stupid procedure, the insurance company doesn't pay. Include a waiver of eligibility for any and all taxpayer-funded financial assistance with the tattoo paperwork, and let the stupids line up for the freakshow.

[audtatious]

Yep....

Contacts, Lasiks, etc are to correct eye issues and have nothing to do with electives like "eye art".

[Jacko3]

Eye art and contact lens are technically no different in terms of what one inserts into their eye. That one washes their hands before inserting their contact lens is no guarantee that ones eyes will be free of infections, and thus damage to ones eyes. So, are we supposed to blame the contact user for the infection of their own eyes, and thus, make them pay for fixing the eyes rather than burdeniing society with the bills? I am just wondering and curious.

[480sx]

Can you imagine the insurance premium jump when an agent meets one of these fools? Call it, idiots premium. I seriously doubt its going to effect anyone negatively other than that person. This is such a small scale, dumbass thing, its primarily only going to effect the individual.

[audtatious]

Eye art and contact lens are technically no different in terms of what one inserts into their eye. That one washes their hands before inserting their contact lens is no guarantee that ones eyes will be free of infections, and thus damage to ones eyes. So, are we supposed to blame the contact user for the infection of their own eyes, and thus, make them pay for fixing the eyes rather than burdeniing society with the bills? I am just wondering and curious.

If you do not understand the difference between an eye tat and using contact lenses then it's pointless to try and have a discussion with you on it. I have better things to do with my time.

[480sx]

Wow, i have to back aud on this one. Imagine that.

[Jacko3]

If you do not understand the difference between an eye tat and using contact lenses then it's pointless to try and have a discussion with you on it. I have better things to do with my time.

I fully understand the difference. The point I am trying to make here is that the differences are much smaller than their similarities. I was hoping you could provide a substantive argument outlining why eye art is any different than inserting a contact lens into one's eyes, in terms of their application, effect on the eye, and potential outcomes (whether negative or positive). I fear that such an argument has not been provided at all.

I use contact lens myself and so I know what I am saying here. Tons of people get eye infections from using contact lens, and that is no different than the effect of conscious mutilation of one's eye. I guess the real difference between both is that applying contact lens can unconsciously and inadvertently cause eye infections or eye damage, while eye art is an act that can consciously and deliberately cause eye damage. In addition, a stronger argument you could have proposed is the value of the action taken on the eye, besides sentimental value. Contact lens use is mostly a pragmatic activity and eye art is mostly a sentimental activity. In this regard, I shall then revise your earlier comment.

You said, ""How about putting something in law saying if you do something like this to your eyes then any and all hospitalization as a result will be out of pocket only"

Revision: "How about putting something in law saying if you do something of sentimental value to your eyes, with the potential for deliberate, obvious, and conscious damage to any or all parts of the occular system (this includes the eye), then any and all hospitalization as a result will be out of pocket only"

Do you see, how much more meaningful your argument would have stood out with the right terms inserted in the right place? The idea was for us to discuss this issue to a point where the original argument would be more solid, while singling out those who wish to particiapte in eye mutilations. I wasn't in disagreement with your argument, but, I was in disagreement with its lack of specificity. What do you think?


Modified by Jacko3 at 7:04 AM 2/24/2009

[audtatious]

You know, I help run this place, have TONS of new projects going on for NICO, have a full time job AND have a family to maintain. I'm not going to deep dive into some inane talk points with you as it's not worth my time anymore. You want to provide detail into your viewpoints for someone else to pick apart that is fine but it won't be me as I simply don't have the time.

[Jacko3]

I understand. How are you doing today? I have a couple of projects myself and i have no idea where to begin.

[audtatious]

Too many projects and lots of changes coming to NICO.....

Politics seems slow, guess I need to find more threads to post up for "discussion". My job is never done.

[HashiriyaS14]

Simple solution for this, treat it just like a warranty on a car: If the user suffers some ailment that can be directly linked to this stupid procedure, the insurance company doesn't pay. Include a waiver of eligibility for any and all taxpayer-funded financial assistance with the tattoo paperwork, and let the stupids line up for the freakshow.

^^See this response folks? Measured and intelligent.

He's the boss for a reason.

[Jacko3]

^^See this response folks? Measured and intelligent.

He's the boss for a reason.

Umhhhh, what can i say here to get under the skin of Azhitman?? What is Azhitman gonna do to me if I get deep enough under his skin??

Emmm..........................I thought Bruce Springstein was known as the boss? Correct me, if I am wrong.

NOTE: Its all in good fun.Hehehehehe!