The Government’s War on GTL

March 25, 2010 11:00 am     Posted in Reality  Sammie - Fordham University g+ page

Mike and Pauly: Bankrolling the health care bill?

The health care bill passed this week (Liberals: Yay! Conservatives: Booooooo!), and after all the proverbial dust had settled (and all that really mature name-calling came to a screeching halt) we were left wondering:


By Sammie

How are we going to pay for this?
It’s gonna cost some serious money to provide insurance for all those uninsured people in this country, so where is it all going to come from?

Apparently, the Jersey Shore.

Yeah, most people don’t realize this, but to cover the cost of the new health care plan the government will now be charging is a 10% tax on indoor tanning.

Now most of you who grew up with moms who slathered sunscreen on you until you looked like the albino monk in The Da Vinci Code and read every magazine article about the dangers of tanning with the gross pictures of moles you should check out know that this seems to be a logical way to hurt the “evil” tanning industry.  To me, this makes sense – tanning is as bad for you as cigarettes, so why not tax it like cigarettes?

But many people (like my super pale friends who argue they need a “base tan” before Spring Break….and class, or the entire state of New Jersey) disagree. And they’re all getting pretty pissed off about this tax.

Is this the right way to go? Should the strippers/Guidos/indoor-tanners of this country be responsible to pay for everyone else’s health insurance? Could this cause even more harm in our already fragile economy? Or is this saving those tan-aholics from themselves?

Should everyone make like Pauly D and purchase their own tanning beds?

So many questions.
What do you think about the new tax?

12 Comments on "The Government’s War on GTL"

  1. Allison says:
    Thu, 25th Mar 20106:21 am 

    The tanning tax isn't the only thing getting taxed as well. All fast food restaurants(or any restaurant chain that has more than 20 location) has to provide the caloric intake per item on the meal as regulated on the government. On top of that, the fast food industry may have to tax their food even more due to the high amounts of fat calories per item.

    These taxes aren't the only thing that may be used either to cover the health care bill. We could have a national sales tax regulated, so no longer will Minnesota or New Hampshire(along with a couple other states I know) not have sales tax. Even with that, it won't cover the cost of this bill.

    I think the bill has some great ideas, the price of the whole thing is what worries me.

  2. Jess says:
    Thu, 25th Mar 20106:41 am 

    I totally agree with the tanning tax. No one needs a "base tan" for skin cancer, and the government/whoever pays for this shouldn't have to pay for people who make superficial choices like that. Just get a spray tan and wear SPF 9000.

  3. H says:
    Thu, 25th Mar 20109:02 am 

    The only people who will think this tax isn't fair is people who tan. Tanning isn't necessary, is very harmful and is (very often) done by women & men in middle/upper middle class families. Seems like this tax, which may discourage people from tanning, is a plus, regardless of its connection to the health care bill. Large taxes on tobacco products has made a huge dent in the smoking population; sure they complained about it at first, but many people have cut down or quit smoking because of it. The govt is just making it a little harder to KILL YOURSELF. (Now, of course taxes on alcohol are going to possible be raised too, which sucks, but really, it's for the better.)

  4. Lisa says:
    Thu, 25th Mar 20109:15 am 

    I think it's totally fair. The people who are tanning/eating excessive fast food/smoking, etc, are likely going to be putting a greater strain on the health care industry so an extra couple bucks while tanning? Come on. Seriously. People need to stop whining about little things. I just don't get it. Also, while this article isn't directly related to the health care bill, I need to say I just don't get how it can possibly be twisted into a negative thing. It completely boggles my mind. I've tried to see both sides of the issue but all I can see is people who are sick having more access to the ability to get better. I just don't get how that's bad.

  5. Marla says:
    Thu, 25th Mar 201010:45 am 

    I think it's fair to tax tanning. It's been proven to be carcinogenic to humans. As a former tanning-bed-fiend (with nothing but more paleness and freckles to show for it… my skin is apparently doomed to be translucent), it's really not too much to ask for a 10% tax on your $3.00 tan session. If you wanna take the short-cut for a tan and do it in a machine instead of outside, then you shouldn't be upset about paying a little extra.

  6. E. says:
    Thu, 25th Mar 201011:17 am 

    Those who are against the plan believe that, for various reasons, the healthcare bill will have a negative effect on the quality of healthcare people get and on the ability of those who have non-government healthcare now to get adequate care. It's really not a crazy position to hold.

  7. RIKO says:
    Thu, 25th Mar 20101:38 pm 

    It is when there are so many people who in fact don't have any kind of healthcare and are now being given oppurtunities to get some. And those who believe that there are healthcare is going to go down, what are they basing their fears on?

  8. Bella.b says:
    Thu, 25th Mar 20102:21 pm 

    The concerns a lot of people have are very reasonable, if you don't understandd them it just means you really have no idea what's going on and what this bill is all about. No one is saying that not everyone deserves health care, that's a ridiculous accusation, they're saying this isn't a good plan and there are many things wrong with it.

    And RIKO, do you research anything that you try to debate? I've seen your superficial posts plastered all over this site.

  9. criolle says:
    Fri, 26th Mar 20108:05 am 

    RICO: "those who believe that there are healthcare is going to go down"

    What in the HELL does that collection of words MEAN? I understand each individual word, but for the life of me, when I sound them out in sequence they do not form a coherent thought.

    C'mon son, you is in kolledg!

  10. Beth says:
    Sat, 27th Mar 20104:29 pm 

    I think its great that the american government is taxing tanning salons. Here in Australia we have so many issues with skin cancer, yet people are still silly enough to go to these places and increase their chances. I hope our government is clever enough to follow America's lead. Also isn't America like the last g8 country to introduce free health care? As far as I know Australia isn't even in the top 10 richest countries, yet we have free health care.

  11. molly says:
    Sat, 27th Mar 20109:52 pm 

    they arent taxing tanners to pay for others insurance–they are sort of pre-emmptively charging them for the cancer treatment they'll need in 20 years.

Tell us what you're thinking...