[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Shouldn’t the tanning tax be considered racist?[/quote]
Fuck yes. Never gonna be played that way though.
Most people, this guy included, clearly have no idea what liberty meant to the founders of our nation.
[quote]Lordcliff wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Shouldn’t the tanning tax be considered racist?[/quote]
Fuck yes. Never gonna be played that way though.[/quote]
I hate it when people play the race card.
Race card?
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Lordcliff wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Shouldn’t the tanning tax be considered racist?[/quote]
Fuck yes. Never gonna be played that way though.[/quote]
I hate it when people play the race card.[/quote]
[quote]biglifter wrote:
Race card?
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Lordcliff wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Shouldn’t the tanning tax be considered racist?[/quote]
Fuck yes. Never gonna be played that way though.[/quote]
I hate it when people play the race card.[/quote]
[/quote]
Yeah that one. Really burns me up.
[quote]eic wrote:
[quote]CITI913 wrote:
Here are a few videos on skin cancer.
Although I do not have cancer, I have many sunspots on my skin now from my 20’s.
Abuse your body and eventually it will catch up with you.
[/quote]
Thanks for the videos, CITI. I literally just got back from the tanning place an hour ago. I don’t think I’ll be going back. I didn’t realize how much more intense it was compared to the sun. I think I’m going to need to make an appointment to see a dermatologist and make sure I haven’t done anything really damaging.
Incidentally, any idea why all those videos featured Australia? [/quote]
Australia’s got the highest skin cancer rate in the world; we’re 4 times as likely to get it as any other cancer. The current trends point to more than 50% of the population getting some form of skin cancer before they are 70. Couple that with the fact that skin cancer affects a greater proportion of younger people than other common cancers and its a bit of a problem.
Despite the awareness campaigns that have been running and indeed been a part of public education since the early 80’s it’s still a major problem. People still do high-risk stuff but at least they know it’s a problem since the message has been rammed down their throat since they were a toddler. The message has been less forceful this past decade; but people still know enough for it to sell papers on a slow news day.
Long story short, we throw more of our medical budget at it and people care more about it.
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Its totally unfair they banned asbestos, a much better and cheaper insulation that the shit we use now. All this over-regulation is driving up the price of new houses![/quote]
Builders using asbestos hurts other people. If the contractor in charge of building my house goes and gets a tan on a Saturday afternoon, I probably won’t end up with skin cancer because of it.
Tanning artificially just to look good is a big thing here too, since we hardly ever see the sun. But honestly, who the fuck cares how white I am because I choose not to tan?[/quote]
I got called Caspar the Ghost all through school in the UK by my hilarious school mates…still, I never went on sun beds, because I have the type of skin that goes a delightful puce burnt colour then promptly turns milky white with a few freckles. Pointless. Gotta love that Anglo Saxon/Celtic mix.
THEN I moved to the USA. In the original girly check up I had for health insurance (let’s not even get started on that) the Dr. insisted I must be aneamic (sp) since I was so pale. Tested me; negative of course. He suggested I might want to look into tanning beds so I don’t look so ‘sickly’. In my experience in the USA it’s a much bigger deal to be white. The whole time I was 5’5" and 190lbs…the fact that I was blatantly unhealthy and eating a crappy diet wasn’t even mentioned. In the following years I bowed to peer pressure and finally started using sunbeds against my better judgement and was very suprised by the amount of people that admit to using them even though they know it’s unhealthy. I gave up after a few sessions and don’t have any intention of going back, but I do think this tax is ludicrous.
PAINTRAIND’s point was that if you are paying people to build YOUR house, you should be able to build it with whatever materials you please. If you know about the dangers of asbestos, and still chose to build your house with it, its not hurting anyone else but you.
Obviously tongue-in-cheek slippery slope type argument, but still.
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
So beacuse of the HealthCare (HC) scam that is now in place, a 10% tanning tax is now a reality. [/quote]
OP: Can you cite this please? I am having a helluva time wading through all the b.s. on the google search about this, and wanted to do some fact checking for myself.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
PAINTRAIND’s point was that if you are paying people to build YOUR house, you should be able to build it with whatever materials you please. If you know about the dangers of asbestos, and still chose to build your house with it, its not hurting anyone else but you.
[/quote]
Unless you don’t have family or friends in this hypothetical, anyone who comes into your house is in danger of developing MESOTHELIOMA!!!111!!!
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
So beacuse of the HealthCare (HC) scam that is now in place, a 10% tanning tax is now a reality. [/quote]
OP: Can you cite this please? I am having a helluva time wading through all the b.s. on the google search about this, and wanted to do some fact checking for myself.
[/quote]
that is what voting is for. corporations dont take your votes
It’s really easy to say who the fuck cares until they start taxing something that affects YOU.
Tanning is obviously unhealthy to the general public so it should be taxed, right?
Yeah, well the way most of us on this website live is OBVIOUSLY UNHEALTHY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TOO.
Just wait for the red meat taxes, protein powder taxes and getting taxed for weighing too goddamn much even if you have low bodyfat. Then maybe some of you will give a shit about losing your freedom.
Edit: Oh and my new tits are going to cost 5% more because of this bullshit. Somebody please explain to me how my having bigger tits hurts the goddamn public.
[quote]kellerdp wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
PAINTRAIND’s point was that if you are paying people to build YOUR house, you should be able to build it with whatever materials you please. If you know about the dangers of asbestos, and still chose to build your house with it, its not hurting anyone else but you.
[/quote]
Unless you don’t have family or friends in this hypothetical, anyone who comes into your house is in danger of developing MESOTHELIOMA!!!111!!!
[/quote]
And you are affecting your FAMILY if you choose to forego health insurance as well, are you not? And your friends are making personal decisions whether or not to enter your house, are
[quote]kellerdp wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
So beacuse of the HealthCare (HC) scam that is now in place, a 10% tanning tax is now a reality. [/quote]
OP: Can you cite this please? I am having a helluva time wading through all the b.s. on the google search about this, and wanted to do some fact checking for myself.
[/quote]
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/24/news/economy/tanning_tax/index.htm[/quote]
Thanks for your efforts, but that article isn’t exactly a citation (and was actually the b.s. that I was referring to). Though CNN is pretty reliable and probably didn’t get the facts wrong, I was looking for the source (i.e. the exact statement and passage in the enacting legislation).
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
So beacuse of the HealthCare (HC) scam that is now in place, a 10% tanning tax is now a reality. [/quote]
OP: Can you cite this please? I am having a helluva time wading through all the b.s. on the google search about this, and wanted to do some fact checking for myself.
[/quote]
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aa32kl.M09T4
"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. "
there ya go.
I’m just trying to figure out where in the HR 3590 (or is it H.R. 4872?) this provision was buried, since I hadn’t heard about it before this post. It seems like people are interpreting it correctly as I would like to think it would be hard for that many news outlets to be so far off base, but I just wanted to check the facts myself.
Have you read the legislation and interpreted it yourself, carbiduis? Or just read ABOUT it and how they think it will be interpreted?
[quote]eremesu wrote:
that is what voting is for. corporations dont take your votes[/quote]
Really?
You think sales figures do not provide instant feedback how they serve their customers?
With corporations you vote often on a very specific issue with oyur money, in a democracy you vote every four years and on a whole bundle of issues and not even with your own money.
Which system do you think actually cares about your opinion more?
Which system is more direct, more specific and less manipulated by special interest?