You wanna see racist? THIS is racist.

[jedimind240]

Like him or hate him, that congressman Beohner needs to lay off the fake tan for sure.

[bigbadberry3]

Although I would agree that probably the majority who hit the beds are white, it doesn't stop people of other darker complexions from jumping in and being taxed extra equally. Like mentioned above there are health benefits to using them which which occur regardless of skin color, such as warding off SAD. Quick search got me this 6 year old article (surprisingly hard to find true statistics on tanning bed) http://www.scienceblog.com/com...shtml

However, from what I did read, women still dominate the tanning beds by about a 70/30 margin so why isn't this being called a tax aimed at women specifically?

[smockers83]

Yeah I wonder why no one wants to live in this city anymore. Tax goes into effect January 2011 along with several other taxes, a newly imposed Trash Pickup Fee (which has been free forever) and a bunch of other crap in his 5 year plan to get this city out of a hole that he and his predecessor Mayor Street but us in.

No, not necessarily. Trash pickup was never "free", you just never paid for it directly. Instead of raising mills due to increased costs or what have you, they just call it a fee.

My city also has "free" trash pickup, but they use funds raised through mills. Cities with all this "free" stuff and lots of public green areas tend to have higher taxes, or I would assume so.

[smockers83]

While users of tanning salons are predominantly white and female, these people are putting future extra costs into the healthcare system. Many major medical studies have proven that tanning beds impose a high cancer hazard. If they want to go tanning in these things, put themselves at risk, and with the direction of healthcare today, I'm in favor. They better start paying now.

Taxes on smoking are similar. They put additional costs into the healthcare system due to side effects. Much of the tobacco taxes are used to fund Medicaid systems due to these people smoking, getting lung cancer, and drawing off state budgets.

[srellim234]

Exactly where do you draw the line in justifying those detrimental lifestyle choices? Face it, you could argue that a loaded Coney Island or Chicago style hot dog is worse for you long term than, say, a salmon-filled hot dog that has fewer calories, no cholesterol and more Omega-3. Should we tax Coney Island and Chicago style hot dogs out of existence for the same reasons we're taxing these tanning salons out business?

Bottom line is the fact that this provision has very little to do with health and a lot more to do with the gov't controlling behavior and finding a way to get its hands on a little more of the people's cash.

Insurance companies will be raising premiums to compensate for increased long-term health care costs associated with tanning bed use as it quantifies the risk. They already do so for smokers and people with high-risk jobs. Give the marketplace time to adjust to new technologies and studies.

[jedimind240]

Its true that they could get out of control with the taxing on bad behavior. But is it not true that this is good in a way, if you tax people for having to eventually use resources because of your bad behavior. Your more likely to get lung cancer if you were a smoker or lived around smokers, your also more likely able to get cancer for working with asbestos.

In that piece they said that a health benefit was vitamin D, you can get vitamin D from many other sources, most of which are cheaper than some tanning packages. And its also true that some people need tanning because they live in low or no light areas and need the UV so there bodies stay healthy. It could be a system that needs to be regulated like a medical marijuana system would be, but that leads into the government regulating are lives which includes them regulating drugs, alcohol, and other dangerous things like firearms, all of which need some form of regulation for safety in most peoples opinion.

[smockers83]

Exactly where do you draw the line in justifying those detrimental lifestyle choices? Face it, you could argue that a loaded Coney Island or Chicago style hot dog is worse for you long term than, say, a salmon-filled hot dog that has fewer calories, no cholesterol and more Omega-3. Should we tax Coney Island and Chicago style hot dogs out of existence for the same reasons we're taxing these tanning salons out business?

First, seafood is loaded with cholesterol, salmon especially. Shellfishes are the worst culprits of cholesterol in the seafood world. Second, we're not taxing these places out of business. This tax gets passed onto the consumers who use it. Will they see a drop in business? Yes, as the tax prices some people out of the market, but I don't think it will be a significant change. I mean, do women ever pay attention to how much they're spending?

Bottom line is the fact that this provision has very little to do with health and a lot more to do with the gov't controlling behavior and finding a way to get its hands on a little more of the people's cash.

No, but precisely. This provision has everything to do with health. Cancer isn't a health issue? Why should you or I pay more because all of the trophy wives in SoCal go to the tanning salon, get cancer when they're sixty and cost tens of thousands of dollars in treatments? If they want to do it, let them pay the tax for it so that it costs me less to pay for their cancer treatments.

That was the no, here's the precisely. The government is trying to modify behavior, yes. But why is it so bad to modify this type of behavior, or smoking, or what have you? If you talk to industry experts, the best way to bring down the true cost of healthcare is more preventative medicine and healthier choices made by the people.

With that said, I don't see an issue here.

Insurance companies will be raising premiums to compensate for increased long-term health care costs associated with tanning bed use as it quantifies the risk. They already do so for smokers and people with high-risk jobs. Give the marketplace time to adjust to new technologies and studies.

So, what's the difference between a tax in a government-controlled system and a premium hike in a market-based system? There isn't one. But with the cancer involved here from tanning, I think typically when this cancer sets in is when people are probably on Medicare, thus on the government's bill.

[srellim234]

Unsmoked wild salmon is very low in cholesterol, contains a lot of Omega-3 oil and can help lower cholesterol levels. Salmon is not even a shellfish! Perhaps you should return to school.

Again, where is the line drawn on behavior modification? Perhaps we should tax everyone 100% of everything and the government allows only behavior and a Japanese-style diet since that is considered one of the healthiest diets in the world. That eliminates poor life-style choices by everyone who will eventually be a drain on the Medicaid/Medicare system. Don't forget to put the coin-operated turnstyles on all entrances to swimming pools and beaches, or just fence them off entirely. Using your logic, such a system would be completely justified.

Healthcare reform legislation was started due to out-of-control upward costs within the healthcare system. Establishment of a not-for-profit healthcare system to compete with the corporate greed that is rampant within the system would have gone a long way to figuring out exactly how much behavor modification would be really needed to control costs long-term. Things like slipping in this tanning-bed tax at this time are merely a scatter-gun approach instead of an intelligent, well-thought out approach to the problem.

Oh, and your comment about women not paying attention to what they spend? About as Neanderthal and male chauvinist comment as you can make. Totally unjustified and uncalled for. You owe a lot of females an apology for such a terrible generalization.

[smockers83]

Dude, chill out. Perhaps you need to return to 3rd grade to learn sentence structure.

So now we want to get into the technicalities of cholesterol levels of salmon after I called you on your statement of salmon having no cholesterol? Okay. 4 oz of unsmoked wild-caught salmon contains approximately 81 mg/100 g of food for cholesterol which amounts to 27% of your daily recommended intake compared to smoked salmon, which can reach 140+ mg. So, yes in relative means, it is low in cholesterol when comparing the two. Raw shrimp (a shellfish) contains 152 mg of cholesterol. I very well damn know my seafood.

As for my women comment, sarcasm/joke anyone? I don't owe an apology.

Using my logic, yes that would be "justifiable", however not possible.

Very little comparison and meaningful debate can occur when you take everything to the extreme, kind of like our current government does. They take everything to the extreme as a means of fear mongering to get their votes. But to take your extreme further, perhaps we should tax people for going outside? And penalties for not having UV ray-blocking glass on all buildings? Just saying.

As for taxes shaping behaviors, many taxes and/or policies in place are meant to shift behaviors. You just have to understand them. Take your state of California for example. SoCal has a population problem. The state makes it very difficult to become a teacher if you come from out-of-state, even though many teachers are needed. Why is this? To get more people from inside the state to become teachers and it also serves as a population control measure by preventing more people from moving into California, which is the original problem to begin with.

I should also add that this tax on tanning beds is silly to debate when we have a much larger issue to debate, which is healthcare in general. As for corporate greed, 3.5% profits in the health insurance industry is pretty greedy.
Modified by smockers83 at 4:20 PM 3/28/2010

[AZhitman]

Correction: The numbers are overwhelmingly ORANGE

[AZhitman]

Exactly where do you draw the line in justifying those detrimental lifestyle choices? Face it, you could argue that a loaded Coney Island or Chicago style hot dog is worse for you long term than, say, a salmon-filled hot dog that has fewer calories, no cholesterol and more Omega-3. Should we tax Coney Island and Chicago style hot dogs out of existence for the same reasons we're taxing these tanning salons out business?

Bottom line is the fact that this provision has very little to do with health and a lot more to do with the gov't controlling behavior and finding a way to get its hands on a little more of the people's cash.

Insurance companies will be raising premiums to compensate for increased long-term health care costs associated with tanning bed use as it quantifies the risk. They already do so for smokers and people with high-risk jobs. Give the marketplace time to adjust to new technologies and studies.

YES. YES. YES.



See, what people FAIL to comprehend, even our supposedly "smart" President, is this:

If you have to F*** with something a thousand times to fix it, and keep F****** with it over and over and over, maybe, just maybe, you WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO MESS WITH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!

Government has NO PLACE dictating what private companies do.

Government has NO PLACE dictating what free citizens purchase.

Government has NO PLACE dictating how much things should cost.

Government has NO PLACE dictating how private companies should be run.

Government has NO PLACE dictating how much money certain people (or companies) can make.

Government has NO PLACE dictating lifestyle choices... (which brings me to my next point - next post... )

[AZhitman]

If they want to go tanning in these things, put themselves at risk, and with the direction of healthcare today, I'm in favor. They better start paying now.

Taxes on smoking are similar. They put additional costs into the healthcare system due to side effects. Much of the tobacco taxes are used to fund Medicaid systems due to these people smoking, getting lung cancer, and drawing off state budgets.

Hmmmm...

Interesting, coming from someone who supposedly defends "PERSONAL FREEDOMS".

Y'know, we could make a correlation between the spread of AIDS and male homosexuality. Yet the LEFT defends those choices as SACRED.

So, where's the Buttsechs Tax, Mr. Obama?

How about the dope-smoking tax? Smoking pot is very similar to smoking cigarettes (wah wah spare me your "all-natural" crap wah wah whatever)... where's the Reefer Tax?

If you want to tax people for their POTENTIAL drain on a system that's supposed to be left to the Free Market, then we'd better tax stupid people...

...because every time I hear some pantywaist libby talk about new ways to spend THIRTY-FIVE PERCENT OF MY INCOME on some damn stupid government program, I have a very strong desire to find out if stitching up a busted lip is covered under their healthcare plan.

[bundy26]

Maybe we need to do the same thing that was done to the Brits back in the 1700's.

[smockers83]

Hmmmm...

Interesting, coming from someone who supposedly defends "PERSONAL FREEDOMS".

With this new direction and level of government involvement, I have to be in favor of this or else I'm going to be paying more for those treatments in taxes, which is something I personally don't want to do. I've moved on from this healthcare bill in terms of this argument. I was pretty sure I stated this, if not or it wasn't clear, I apologize. If you want to pay more in taxes for their treatments, then sure, I guess, but I'm not sure why you would (this is the basis for my argument). I'm not arguing for restricting personal freedoms (virtually, there is no restriction in the freedom of going tanning just because of a tax, although that's an end result which is understood) but arguing for not making me or you pay for s*** we shouldn't have to...unless all you guys are going to tanning salons..........

The one thing I would have to disagree with though, Greg, in your previous post is that government does have some part in what private business does in the form of anti-trust laws and intellectual rights. Monopolies and not protecting intellectual rights can be detrimental to an economy and a nation's well being.

[AZhitman]

With this new direction and level of government involvement, I have to be in favor of this or else I'm going to be paying more for those treatments in taxes, which is something I personally don't want to do.

So, what you're saying, is that my taxes and my premiums should be going down, right?

I'll let you know when they do - Don't hold your breath.

The fact is, you're already paying it. Now, it's just managed by morons.

(Your point on anti-trust laws and intellectual rights is well-put, and I agree.)

[srellim234]

You and I differ, AZ, on the level that gov't should be allowed to dictate how private businesses can operate. Based on my opinion and past experience, a certain amount of government regulation is necessary to ensure a continued fair and competitive marketplace. One of the most obvious is stopping monopolies. Too much control of an industry in the hands of only one or two companies is almost always detrimental and anticompetitive.

The same thing is necessary in the passing of laws to maintain proper behavior, which dictate such to protect citizens from each other and companies.

What I'm not hearing from people defending this tax, though, is an answer to what I have asked multiple times: Where DO they draw the line on that gov't intervention? Smockers says I'm extrapolating it out to an extreme. Yes, I am. A large segment of our population would insist, however, that even the tanning bed tax is an extreme.

[srellim234]

smockers- you beat me to the anti-trust argument. I was typing away while you were posting.

[jbracy7]

does that include spray tans and tanning lotion this is bull how ever its just one of many laws that will never make sense to the peaple of me to

[AZhitman]

Where DO they draw the line on that gov't intervention? Smockers says I'm extrapolating it out to an extreme. Yes, I am. A large segment of our population would insist, however, that even the tanning bed tax is an extreme.

That means you are a critical thinker.

One of the basic goals of problem-solving is to take a potential condition / problem / proposal and extrapolate it out to the ridiculous. This helps you to understand the potential benefit / impact.

Where DO they draw the line?

Brilliant question, and one that our bumbling POTUS is terrified of.

His response, if asked, would be some snide, pompous, arrogant, sneering, patronizing, EVASIVE drivel, like this:

[smiling, with a little eye-rolling] "Listen, this is really a ridiculous question, it's a non-issue... the people most concerned about this haven't really taken a good hard look at all the good we're doing for the American people... blah blah blah regurgitated campaign speech falsehoods and emotional double-talk blah blah blah..."

It IS an issue. It's the top of a slippery slope.

[WDRacing]

People who have an extra beer at the BBQ?

QUIET For f***s SAKES!!!!

They can hear you damnit

How about the dope-smoking tax?

I'd gladly pay taxes on that. You could pay for half the nations healthcare with the taxes from pot

The real point most of us are trying to make I think is a simple one. Get out of our lives. If I'm not breaking the law then I shouldn't even know the Gov exists. Period.

[smockers83]

You guys are missing my point. With the health bill as it is now, taxes will have to go up. If there wasn't a tax on tanning beds, our taxes from this bill would be higher due to the country having to bear the complete burden of paying for those treatments instead of those that use these beds paying their "fair" portion for making the decision to put themselves at risk. I'm not saying our taxes will go down, but they could be higher.

It would be no different than the insurance companies saying you go to a tanning salon, you're putting yourself at risk, you're going to be charged a higher premium. The line is drawn by analyzing the cost and revenue that can be generated from that piece of the economy to cover that cost.

[AZhitman]

You guys are missing my point. With the health bill as it is now, taxes will have to go up. If there wasn't a tax on tanning beds, our taxes from this bill would be higher due to the country having to bear the complete burden of paying for those treatments instead of those that use these beds paying their "fair" portion for making the decision to put themselves at risk. I'm not saying our taxes will go down, but they could be higher.

It would be no different than the insurance companies saying you go to a tanning salon, you're putting yourself at risk, you're going to be charged a higher premium. The line is drawn by analyzing the cost and revenue that can be generated from that piece of the economy to cover that cost.

No one's missing your point, we're just saying it's stupid.

If Blowbama gets his "Whitey Tax", then I wanna see them propose a "Fatty McFatbutt Tax". And a non-pet owner tax (since pets lower your blood pressure). And a tax on people who don't brush their teeth (dental hygiene directly correlates to heart disease).

It's a stupid idea, passed by stupid people. Besides, the impact of a few mlanoma cases (and the comparably cheap treatment) doesn't justify enacting a special tax, since it unfairly targets people who may NEVER develop skin cancer.

Where's the tax on people who sunbathe? People who work outside? People who don't wear sunscreen?

Idiotic.

Smocky, you could have just left it at this:

I have to be in favor of this or else

<sigh> The libby puppetmasters win.

[HashiriyaS14]

I do think that there should be a "fatty tax" in the form of higher health premiums for people above a certain BMI who don't have an "excuse".

I guess this is dumb for the reasons Greg mentioned above, but there should be SOME health care implication for anyone who continues to use these things after they've been proven harmful. It's just like higher premiums and exemptions for smokers.

Beyond the tanning thing though, anyone who is unhealthy is adding expense to the system just as the people who can't pay for their own care. If you're living an unhealthy lifestyle and yet you're not paying any more than the rest of us for care, there is "redistribution" going on from our pockets to yours. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT DIFFERENT from the redistribution going on between those that can pay and those that can't.

Yes, in some cases the unhealthy people are paying more, but probably not ENOUGH. Some of the costs are still spread among the rest of the population, just like a risky driver's premiums aren't ALL out of his/her pocket, some comes from a slight overpayment built into the premiums of "normal" drivers.

Conclusion: Tanning is f**king stupid. If you don't tan naturally, then you don't get to be tan. Sorry. Should've been born Brazilian or something, tough shxt. Stay out of the cancer beds.

[AZhitman]

Conclusion: Tanning is f**king stupid. If you don't tan naturally, then you don't get to be tan. Sorry. Should've been born Brazilian or something, tough shxt. Stay out of the cancer beds.

Actually, some doctors prescribe very limited tanning bed excursions for people who are quite pale, so that they develop some pigmentation to protect them from the sun. Places like Phoenix have days with an Exposure Index below 5 minutes.

But yes, "tanning" as we know it is silly. STILL no justification for this being included in the bill.

[audtatious]

Oh Greg, stop it. Slippery slopes only exist at ski resorts.

[smockers83]

So you guys want to pay for these procedures with your own tax dollars? Guys, I'm all for personal freedom, but if there's anything with this bill that reduces my personal tax burden from what it could potentially be, I'm all for it, because I don't want to pay for those cancer treatments. That's all I'm saying and expanding it out to everyone else. Eventually the insurance companies wouldve started doing the same by screening for that, it just wouldn't be in the form of a tax.

I'm beginning to believe you guys go tanning.

[audtatious]

People are already taxed when they go tanning. Sales tax on the sale, sales tax on the products they use, sales tax for what the shop owner pays for supplies, taxes the shop owner pays for utilities/building/etc, sales tax on buying the tanning beds, sales tax on the bulbs. Then you have the federal taxes the owner pays on income and the amount paid for employees, Federal and local taxes on the fuel used to get to the store, fed and local taxes paid by the gas stations, fed and state taxes paid by those transporting the fuel for supplies and for people to get to the store, fed and local taxes of the employees who work for said company, fed and state taxes for the oil refiners, fed and state taxes for those who drill the oil, etc etc etc.

The Gov gets a lot already. Maybe we should tax Afro sheen more, would that fly?

[AZhitman]

I'm beginning to believe you guys go tanning.

I'm beginning to think you've suffered a recent head injury, because normally you make a lot of sense.

Instead of taxing tanning, let's tax anyone who eats processed foods. That's a HUGE contributor to colon cancer, which is FAR deadlier and FAR more pervasive than melanoma.

Or tax anyone who hasn't had a colonoscopy by 35.

Just because you think you see something reducing your personal tax liability doesn't mean it really does.

By the way, news flash for you: The people who can afford to go tanning are usually insured, so you don't need to worry about it. How about worrying about the uninsured bums who let their kids ride in the beds of pickup trucks? Tax them if you're gonna tax anyone.

Have you not yet figured out that this has NOTHING to do with revenues and EVERYTHING to do with control?

[srellim234]

Don't forget to tax the heck out of anything associated with having three or more children; that's one future burden on the system that is easily quantified. Putting more people into the system population than are there now.

Unless we begin limiting the gov't attempts at dividing our population (which keeps the current incompetents in control), Our entire country will be marginalized as they keep passing these taxes against this specific group or that specific group. This particular tax s just one more tax on a minority of people that the majority say, "It sounds good and doesn't affect me so it's fine with me"

Even tobacco taxes are ridiculous. If the government as our benevolent overseer was truly concerned about future health and costs due to smoking, it would outlaw cigarettes alltogether, not by outlawing cigarettes but by yanking tobacco company licences and closing them. Instead, while it collects taxes and such on tobacco companies and products, it continues to pay farming subsidies to these giant conglomerates that own the tobacco companies. Why?

[smockers83]

I'm beginning to think you've suffered a recent head injury, because normally you make a lot of sense.

Instead of taxing tanning, let's tax anyone who eats processed foods. That's a HUGE contributor to colon cancer, which is FAR deadlier and FAR more pervasive than melanoma.

Or tax anyone who hasn't had a colonoscopy by 35.

Just because you think you see something reducing your personal tax liability doesn't mean it really does.

By the way, news flash for you: The people who can afford to go tanning are usually insured, so you don't need to worry about it. How about worrying about the uninsured bums who let their kids ride in the beds of pickup trucks? Tax them if you're gonna tax anyone.

Have you not yet figured out that this has NOTHING to do with revenues and EVERYTHING to do with control?

Weren't we arguing that we would have to pay for others' health insurance before this bill was passed and that we would be upset about it? So why isn't that standing true now? To me, you guys aren't making sense because now you're essentially arguing that you want to pay for this s***. The people who get cancer from tanning aren't going to get it when they're 20 or 30, they're going to get it when they're eligible for Medicare.

I know a lot of people who go tanning who won't be covered under their own insurance when they get older...they'll be on Medicare and a supplement plan.

Why are tobacco taxes ridiculous? How else are states going to raise the necessary funds for their Medicare systems when those with problems due to smoking draw off the state budgets? Tax everyone else that doesn't smoke more? How is that fair or democratic? If everyone had to pay higher taxes because of those decisions, to me that's much more liberal than taxing those responsible for drawing off the budget. It's like sharing the cost instead of redistributing the wealth.