<p>Any opinions on it?</p>
<p>"U.S. Senate Democrats boosted payroll taxes on wealthy Americans and proposed a new 10% tax on indoor tanning to help pay for late changes to a broad health-care reform bill. But Senate leaders dropped from the bill a 5% tax on all elective cosmetic surgeries that had been in an earlier version. Allergan Inc. (AGN), along with Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. (MRX), and other firms lobbied against that tax, arguing that it was unfair to working women.</p>
<p>The tanning bed tax was inserted in lieu of the cosmetic surgery levy, also known as the Bo-tax, according to a Democratic aide." - CNN</p>
<p>It’s a product of lobbying. Either BOTH cosmetic surgeries and tanning parlors should be taxed, or NEITHER. </p>
<p>It’s one of these things that’s hard to draw the line. Are you opposed to cigarette tax? How different is this? Should the right to tax “unhealthy” products be determined by how much research there is supporting it’s unhealthiness? How else do you decide what’s taxable and what’s not. </p>
<p>Ideal scenario: none of these products are taxed because it’s not up to the government to decide what consumers buy. But these sources of funding, IMO, are better than increases in our primary sources. And hopefully it’ll have some effect on the costs of healthcare. If less people tan, maybe less get skin cancer</p>
<p>if I’m gonna be taxed for my cigarettes, people should be taxed for tanning. You don’t NEED to smoke, they say. Well you also don’t NEED to tan. Smoking can give you cancer, so can tanning.</p>
<p>I agree with justtotalk’s point though.</p>
<p>“arguing that it was unfair to working women.”</p>
<p>hahahahahah christ how the hell did these people make it through law school?</p>
<p>I also think they should have kept that cosmetic surgery tax. Although only if the surgery truly was cosmetic. Things like LASIK shouldn’t be considered cosmetic.</p>
<p>Also, cosmetic surgery as the result of an accident should not be taxed. I think that’s why the cosmetic surgery issue is touchy. I’d say tax the elective cosmetic procedures, but after an accident the surgery is still “elective.”</p>
<p>This is a quote I heard this morning on the Today Show from someone who is against the tanning tax: “One day, we’re gonna have police on the beaches checking if you are wearing sunscreen or not and checking what SPF you have…”
While that is extreme, he does have a point. How far should the government interfere with your health without going overboard?</p>
<p>^^^Not far at all. The government should be trying to back out of excise taxes on health-related products. To do this, we need to attack the source. </p>
<p>The real source is ridiculous punitive and pain/suffering damages awarded in medical malpractice/negligence lawsuits. We currently award punitive damages to plaintiffs (even though, by definition, they don’t deserve them) instead of using them as federal revenue to offset taxes. This, in turn, increases malpractice liability premiums for doctors. They pass these costs on to healthcare insurers and the insurers simply up the premiums. (Not to mention that it gives plaintiffs incentives to pursue frivolous negligence suits because they will be awarded the punitive damages if they win).</p>
<p>The legal tort system needs reform now. It is a primary cause of ballooning healthcare costs and increased federal subsidization of these costs. The other problem is we allow companies that provide medical technology (think GE) to push unnecessary technology on hospitals that want to keep up. The exorbitant R&D expenses on GE’s income statement is being paid by healthcare providers and consumers. GE is not being held accountable for its financial decisions because all health care technology is viewed as “good technology” regardless of price–this should be a cost-benefit analysis just like any business decision.</p>
<p>Until these issues are fixed, the federal government will feel obligated to subsidize health care premiums. And so long as they subsidize health care premiums, they have a direct interest in controlling the average consumer’s health decisions (via excise taxes on harmful products). This is a fairly dangerous situation. </p>
<p>There would be far less concern from the right wing over government involvement if we controlled the root of the FINANCIAL problem (make doctor visits cheaper) rather than the root of the HEALTH problem (preventing citizens from putting themselves at risk to need a doctor)</p>
<p>justtotalk for Senate '10</p>
<p>I’m a hermit. Call me when senate meetings are conducted via email or IM.</p>
<p>I like it very much.</p>
<p>For starters, fake baking is an abortion and anyone who does it is dumb. </p>
<p>Plus, we should be taxing any type of behavior that is unhealthy. Cigs, soda, booze, etc. I’d much rather have life style taxes than income taxes.</p>
<p>^haha speaking of which, I heard that some companies will pay you for lifestyle changes. Like if you are traveling and you travel in coach on an airplane instead of business, the company will pay you half of the difference. Another example is if you don’t smoke or quit smoking, you can get paid (I think GE does this).</p>
<p>At Whole Foods we get a bigger discount if your BMI, blood pressure and cholesterol levels are healthy and you don’t smoke.</p>
<p>"I’d much rather have life style taxes than income taxes. "</p>
<p>then say goodbye to social services in super healthy cities. I know in NY the cigarette tax money generally just goes to their general fund, not anything specific. That’s probably how it is in most states as well. The federal tax money goes to SCHIP.</p>
<p>haha I’m moving to Mississippi then. I’m sure 90% of people there are overweight. I’m like a twig already in south carolina.</p>
<p>pierre:</p>
<p>“But within states, there were much sharper differences, with the states that already had the biggest problems often showing the biggest jumps. For example, in 2003, 37 percent of 10- to 17-year-olds in Mississippi were overweight and 18 percent were obese; by 2007, those numbers had jumped to 45 percent and 22 percent, respectively.”</p>
<p>So 67% of kids. I’m guessing that it’s higher for adults. Geeze</p>
<p>Source:
[Mississippi</a> has most obese kids; Oregon the least - People’s Daily Online](<a href=“http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90782/90880/6972498.html]Mississippi”>http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90782/90880/6972498.html)</p>
<p>So under that idea of just taxing unhealthy things and having no income tax, Mississippi would prosper while Oregon would become like California :P</p>
<p>I worked at a tanning salon cleaning tanning beds last year. My boss said tanning doesn’t give you cancer.</p>
<p>^^^It’s always good to hear the impartial, reliable sources with no incentive to misinform–straight from the man whose income relies on people going to tanning salons.</p>
<p>JamesGold wins statement of the year haha</p>
<p>I’m still going to go tanning in the winter even with the tax. It’s only a few dollars more.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I didn’t say to eliminate income taxes. But life style taxes obviously create funding that income taxes would normally fill.</p></li>
<li><p>Fake baking is terrible for you. Of course it causes cancer. And it also turns your skin into crap. Have you ever seen 40 year olds who tanned when they were younger? Looks like frog skin. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Plus, even young girls who tan are noticeable. It doesn’t look natural.</p>
<p>I think spray-on tans are worse than tanning bed tans. Spray-ons really do make you look orange. Why women think that makes them look attractive is beyond me.</p>