It's getting to boring here... is this racist?

[buckman]

Health-Care Changes to Start Taking Effect This Year

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Indoor tanning salons will charge customers a 10 percent tax beginning in July in one of the changes Americans will see as a result of the U.S. health-care overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama.



http://www.bloomberg...id=aa32kl.M09T4


Just asking...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Why would this be racist.....are you saying that people of your race can't post a proper link?


Link don't work dude

[buckman]

It's think it's more people of my age Kevin. I can't get it to work.
It was about the tax on 10% tax on tanning which struck me as kind of funny(like in haha) to target a tax at one race.

[JohnnyD]

Racist against whom? The idiot white women and brainless meat heads that significantly increase their odds of skin cancer along with having leathery skin by the age of 35 in order to give themselves that unnatural orange glow?
A tax on these people?


In addition to a tax on tanning, there should also be a provision that if you receive any government assistance to have HC, you don't get coverage should you have a history of tanning and get skin cancer. Also add to that, if you have a history of smoking and get lung cancer, if you have a history of heroin use and get AIDS/hepatitis, or if you're morbidly obese and have diabetes/high cholesterol/heart disease.

So how's it racist again?

[RIJIMMY]

Im sure buckman is kidding, but his angle is that this is basically a tax on being white

[FishermanTim]

More of a "pasty white".

[eastendlu]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Im sure buckman is kidding, but his angle is that this is basically a tax on being white

Buckman is white? By his post he sounds dark and short too me.j/k

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Im sure buckman is kidding, but his angle is that this is basically a tax on being white

Exactly. It's a measure to selectively tax a group deemed to be putting their health at risk. In that case, they should tax anyone who bungee jumps, eats fast food, rides a dirtbike, etc...

Why not a tax on people who ride the bus? Those fumes can cause health problems.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Exactly. It's a measure to selectively tax a group deemed to be putting their health at risk. In that case, they should tax anyone who bungee jumps, eats fast food, rides a dirtbike, etc...

Why not a tax on people who ride the bus? Those fumes can cause health problems.

They tax cigarettes, tanning booths and soon fast food and sugary drinks. All items that increase the risk of disease.

As I've said many times before, if you receive any assistance to have health care, then a history of high-risk behavior exempts the insurance provider from liability for the diseases caused by those behaviors.

Quite honestly, I don't care if people want to eat themselves dead, shoot up heroin, smoke like a chimney or drink their liver to oblivion. On the other hand, I also don't want to pay for those people's bad decisions.

You get in a car accident and have a BAC of .14? You pay the bill for being an idiot.

People make decisions without regard for the consequences because often times they are minimally liable to pay for them anyway.

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

In addition to a tax on tanning, there should also be a provision that if you receive any government assistance to have HC, you don't get coverage should you have a history of tanning and get skin cancer. Also add to that, if you have a history of smoking and get lung cancer, if you have a history of heroin use and get AIDS/hepatitis, or if you're morbidly obese and have diabetes/high cholesterol/heart disease.

Actually what you are describing is exactly why the consitiutionalists are screaming scocialism. Give away more "free" stuff then take away somone's RIGHT to tan.... It is all a way to concentrate even more power at the top..

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

They tax cigarettes, tanning booths and soon fast food and sugary drinks. All items that increase the risk of disease.

As I've said many times before, if you receive any assistance to have health care, then a history of high-risk behavior exempts the insurance provider from liability for the diseases caused by those behaviors.

Quite honestly, I don't care if people want to eat themselves dead, shoot up heroin, smoke like a chimney or drink their liver to oblivion. On the other hand, I also don't want to pay for those people's bad decisions.

You get in a car accident and have a BAC of .14? You pay the bill for being an idiot.

People make decisions without regard for the consequences because often times they are minimally liable to pay for them anyway.

I agree with most of what you say here, but what about the person who tans at the beach or in their backyard? It's still risky behavior, but they don't get taxed. How about a woman who who goes to a tanning booth a couple of times before her wedding to look nice for her big day. Is it fair that she has to pay because George Hamilton overdoes it? Some things that are unhealthy in excess are fine if done in moderation. This is selective taxation aimed at a group who isn't considered to be a serious threat. The government is going to continue picking and choosing who will pay more in taxes based on what they think won't hurt their re-election hopes.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Im sure buckman is kidding, but his angle is that this is basically a tax on being white

thanks Jimmy, I didn't get it until you esplained it, this is definitely a racist tax... btw...one of my six year old twins saw your avatar pic and she said..."ohhhh...he's cute"...thought you 'd like to know that....then I scrolled down a little and she saw JD's...she screamed and ran away

[Sweetwater]

There should be a tax credit for buying sunscreens.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

btw...one of my six year old twins saw your avatar pic and she said..."ohhhh...he's cute"...thought you 'd like to know that....then I scrolled down a little and she saw JD's...she screamed and ran away

No one under 16 should be allowed in here - it might burn their eyes (and who knows if corrective surgery would be covered).

Originally Posted by Sweetwater

There should be a tax credit for buying sunscreens.

If you get taxed for risky behavior, you need a credit for safe behavior

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

thanks Jimmy, I didn't get it until you esplained it, this is definitely a racist tax... btw...one of my six year old twins saw your avatar pic and she said..."ohhhh...he's cute"...thought you 'd like to know that....then I scrolled down a little and she saw JD's...she screamed and ran away

Now that's funny.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Sweetwater

There should be a tax credit for buying sunscreens.

With the 10% tax on tanning booths and not living down in Truro this summer, I think your eldest might have to ask for a raise at work.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I agree with most of what you say here, but what about the person who tans at the beach or in their backyard? It's still risky behavior, but they don't get taxed. How about a woman who who goes to a tanning booth a couple of times before her wedding to look nice for her big day. Is it fair that she has to pay because George Hamilton overdoes it? Some things that are unhealthy in excess are fine if done in moderation. This is selective taxation aimed at a group who isn't considered to be a serious threat. The government is going to continue picking and choosing who will pay more in taxes based on what they think won't hurt their re-election hopes.

I don't disagree with you, in that they will selectively pick and choose who gets taxed. I wouldn't doubt that a conversation occurred that discussed how wealthier people can afford to get tans, so they can afford to pay more for them.

If the tax on cigarettes has shown anything, it's that even if you tax something to the point in which the price doubles, people will still pay it. Also on cigarettes (and this is just an opinion), the number of smokers is down but I think it is more because it has become a social stigma as opposed to a price issue.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

the number of smokers is down but I think it is more because it has become a social stigma as opposed to a price issue.

not for Obama...although, if he were a Republican, I'm guessing it would be an issue

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

not for Obama...although, if he were a Republican, I'm guessing it would be an issue

Come on, you can do better than that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Come on, you can do better than that.

not for Obama...although, if he were white and a Republican, I'm guessing it would be an issue

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

not for Obama...although, if he were white and a Republican, I'm guessing it would be an issue

Obama has better insurance then you and I are now allowed. He can smoke with his policy.

I was in the emergency room for 8 hrs today (not for me, sorry) and I heard alot of anger over the HC reform.

[Swimmer]

Ya, if the Tanning Salons dont pay one of the 17,000 new IRS agents will be knocking at thier door.