You wanna see racist? THIS is racist.

[smockers83]

I could keep smacking it around, too, as we have kept on doing and repeating ourselves, which honestly, I'm getting sick of.

I agree that it's stupid when looked at by it's lonesome self (I feel like I've said this before). If I had my way, the whole bill would be repealed. But, as I have maintained throughout this particular debate, I'm not about to pay for other peoples s*** ideas that can relatively be controlled compared to the alternative with the direction we are headed. It would be no different than health insurance companies charging those same people a higher premium since I've pointed out that the majority of those who develop skin cancer are eligible to be under government insurance, making the government the health insurance company.

There is much less variation in the level of UV exposure in tanning beds compared to being outside. I'm sure as an auditor you can admit to that. Length of exposure is captured through the price paid. I'm sure as an auditor you can understand that as well: pay more (at one place), stay in longer = more exposure. Attire I'm pretty sure won't make a significant difference...a onesy, two piece, just the thong, or nothing. A tee shirt, yes, but who wears a tee shirt?

Fairness? You're trying to go down that route still? Really? I've already explained this. With the direction of healthcare in this country, is it really fair for someone like me or you who don't use the silly things to pay for the chronic salon visitor who gets skin cancer? So, to quote you, why punish the many for the sins of the few?

I mean, I'm 1/4 Middle Eastern and very dark. My melanoma risk is incredibly low. IF I chose to go to a tanning salon, should I pay the same tax as the flourescent-skinned freckly redhead in the next booth?

Why?

I mean, I'm a Yooper and Yoopers along with those from Wisconsin can drink just about anybody under the table (if you go to Vegas, the waitstaff pick us out pretty easily by the level at which we drink). Since I have a high metabolism my body processes alcohol more quickly than others, why should I pay the same amount of tax as other people who get drunk off one glass of wine since their body doesn't process it as quickly?

[audtatious]

The problem with the tax is they are taking it from only a small portion of those who get skin cancer while ignoring the larger population who get it from outside activities or simply genetics. That's where the "fairness" perspective comes in.

[smockers83]

^ And I agree with that, but again, it's not feasible. If an insurance company, or in this case, the government as the stand in insurance company, you're going to look to cover yourselves with what's feasible, accountable, and out of the ordinary. Everyone goes outside to some degree. I'm sure that's some factor to premium rates for multiple things other than skin cancer or is not a factor and is just deemed as something normal and ordinary. But you have this subset of the population that purposefully and willingly goes out of their way to subject themselves to UV exposure in a tangible transaction of money. Now, I know people lay out in the sun, but again, that by the government and insurance companies has to be viewed as normal and uncontrollable because it's not measurable in a cost-effective way.

[AZhitman]

I mean, I'm a Yooper and Yoopers along with those from Wisconsin can drink just about anybody under the table (if you go to Vegas, the waitstaff pick us out pretty easily by the level at which we drink).

This comment alone disqualifies you from any further intelligent discourse.

Where you live and where you were born has no bearing on how much you can drink, or on how fast you THINK you metabolize alcohol.

Ridiculous to the point of hilarity.

Side note: Even Wisconsin Native Americans aren't exempt.

http://wch.uhs.wisc.edu/13-Eva...I.pdf

Since I have a high metabolism my body processes alcohol more quickly than others, why should I pay the same amount of tax as other people who get drunk off one glass of wine since their body doesn't process it as quickly?

Horse s***. Seriously, smocky - you're trying to pass nonsense here. You don't metabolize ETOH any faster than anyone else.

Per http://www.intox.com/physiology.asp :

Healthy people metabolize alcohol at a fairly consistent rate.

Your "metabolism" claim is flawed. Badly.

As a rule of thumb, a person will eliminate one average drink or .5 oz (15 ml) of alcohol per hour. Several factors influence this rate. The rate of elimination tends to be higher when the blood alcohol concentration in the body is very high or very low. Also chronic alcoholics may (depending on liver health) metabolize alcohol at a significantly higher rate than average.

So, PERHAPS what you're saying is that you're a chronic alcoholic. In that case, I propose you be triple-taxed, or prohibited by law from consuming alcohol, since sooner than later, you'll likely be requiring treatment for alcohol-related diseases or involved in a preventable accident.

Obesity is measurable, trackable, and MUCH more definitively correlated to increased healthcare costs. Why aren't you gung-ho for the Fatty Tax?

[audtatious]

^ And I agree with that, but again, it's not feasible. If an insurance company, or in this case, the government as the stand in insurance company, you're going to look to cover yourselves with what's feasible, accountable, and out of the ordinary. Everyone goes outside to some degree. I'm sure that's some factor to premium rates for multiple things other than skin cancer or is not a factor and is just deemed as something normal and ordinary. But you have this subset of the population that purposefully and willingly goes out of their way to subject themselves to UV exposure in a tangible transaction of money. Now, I know people lay out in the sun, but again, that by the government and insurance companies has to be viewed as normal and uncontrollable because it's not measurable in a cost-effective way.

Where is it stated that the Fed Gov has any right to implement legislation of this style to "control" behavior? Laws are one thing, taxing someone like this is something else. It IS feasible to tax others similarly. Fishing equipment, golf equipment, baseball and football equipment, anything to do with motorcycles, boating, surfing, etc. could all be taxed more as there is a greater than 95%+ chance that anyone purchasing such will be doing it outside. Taxing tanning lotions below SPF 1-million, lawn supplies, farming stuff, etc.

The cost of sports-related injuries is high as well and there will be costs associated with age with some people. People who play football can easily have expensive knee and back issues later in life. Joggers can have knee/cartilage issues later in life. You have broken fingers and bones and torn muscles, etc. All can have some impact as you age with arthritis and other issues. Should we go ahead and tax anyone who plays sports by adding a "health tax" to all supplies and events? That's feasible.

At what point do you tell the Fed Gov to stop?