GOP Wants to Put Tanning Bed Tax Where the Sun Don’t Shine

The 5% “Botax” on medical cosmetic procedures like lip-plumping injectibles was deflated on the Senate floor, replaced with a 10% fake bake shakedown that had GOP Senator turning all shades of red, and saying really stupid things about taxing sunblock and trips to the beach. In reality, a 10% surcharge on tanning bed usage could save a lot of lives: The fastest growing group of patients with skin cancer is women, 15 to 24 years of age.

Think Progress noted:

Over the summer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer “raised their warning of tanning beds from ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ to ‘carcinogenic to humans,’” concluding that “the ultraviolet light used in tanning beds (as with the sun’s rays) has been shown to raise the risk of skin cancer.

The September 2009 issue of The Lancet Oncology also reported that studies show ultraviolet radiation emitted from tanning beds is proven to cause skin cancer (melanoma) and eye cancer (melanoma, particularly choroid and ciliary body) in humans.

But will the 10% tan tax — the Boehner burn — help offset the health care costs of treating melanoma?

[h/t Think Progress]

21 Responses to "GOP Wants to Put Tanning Bed Tax Where the Sun Don’t Shine"
egregious | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:16 pm 1

Thanks Lisa!


PJEvans | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:18 pm 2

Well, since melanoma is easy to detect and treat, it might help.


macaquerman | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:23 pm 3

Eureka Springs | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:24 pm 4

Boehner must use tan in a can.

With martinis is causes tears.


ThingsComeUndone | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:28 pm 5

Who is that GOP leader with the perpetual tan is it a real tan or chemical? Hard to tell most GOPers look undead anyway.


sunshine | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:31 pm 6

Well, now that we’re in a recession will they really make as much money as they think?

I see a Dem in the House is turning red coat. What about all those voters that voted in a Dem and now have a Repub? There should be a law that if you want to change political parties you have to do it before you run for office or after you leave office, not in the middle of a term. This should be illegal and he should be sued by his party in his state. There is just to much of this crap. What Palin did was set up a Repub for the next Gov election. How many elected representatives weren’t even elected? Too many!


ThingsComeUndone | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:31 pm 7

I fear that this heralds that any tax on the rich or luxury goods will be defeated by the GOP/Blue Dogs. In other words we will get stuck paying for all the National Debt.


ThingsComeUndone | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:40 pm 8

I think Herbert Hoover not FDR is who the elite in washington the Politicians and the Press seem to look to for economic advice lazzie faire economics and trickle down economics despite 8 years of Bush failure are still the Conventional Wisdom’s answer to everything.
I don’t think we can survive another 4 years of this.


ThingsComeUndone | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:47 pm 9

Just who is the party of Hollywood again that does not share our middle class values?


CTuttle | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:49 pm 10

…a 10% fake bake shakedown…

I’m sure Boehner is a tad unhappy…! ;-)


ThingsComeUndone | Thursday December 24, 2009 07:51 pm 11

How many members of the Family voted against this? I’m thinking maintaining Mistresses must be tough in this economy.


CTuttle | Thursday December 24, 2009 08:04 pm 12
In response to Eureka Springs @ 4

Dang it…! Well, win a few, lose a few…! Whatcha drinking ES…? ;-)


larryv | Thursday December 24, 2009 08:06 pm 13

I always love to watch Republican Senators babble and talk out there respective asses….my fav of course is my own idiot Senator Burr. Burr is known here in NC as not the sharpest rock in the box and he always does not disappoint..especially when he is trying to be sarcastic(he simply does not know exactly what it is so he doesn’t do so well) and embarrasses himself….again. I suppose know one told him sun beds have proven to cause skin cancer and that is what it might have to do with health care…you know Richard…skin cancer..doctor….treatment…hospital …death. Now do you see? Probably not. He does know bout ATMs however….as does his luvlee wife.


Lisa Derrick | Thursday December 24, 2009 08:35 pm 14

Well, we may see an upsurge in home tanning beds, a la American Psycho and the one Sarah Palin installed in the governor’s mansion

KInda of ametaphor for health care: The wealthy will ge their own, while the lower and middle and income folks will be stuck paying a high price for the privilege…


Kelly Canfield | Thursday December 24, 2009 08:44 pm 15
In response to Lisa Derrick @ 14

Them’s that got shall get; them’s that not shall lose
So the Bible says, and it still is news…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQgzEQhtTm4


Riggsveda | Friday December 25, 2009 04:03 am 16

My daughter has very bad psoriasis, no insurance, and can’t afford ultraviolet treatments. What she CAN do, with our help, is buy time at the local tanning salon, which gives her immediately relief and does an amazing job on the skin plaques that form. I know this has been a source of humor to many people who don’t know, but these salons DO help a minority of folks with skin conditions like our daughter’s, and I hate the idea that she will have to pay more because of this. Th botox tax made large exceptions for people with health and injury-related needs for cosmetic surgery. Does this tax do likewise? I don’t think it does. But it’s good for a cheap vote and a cheap laugh, so what the hell, eh?


badlib | Friday December 25, 2009 07:22 am 17

Well here in Florida we have an orange guberner Charlie Crist. How fitting huh? lol


Mullic@ | Friday December 25, 2009 07:49 am 18
In response to PJEvans @ 2

Melanoma is the most feared skin cancer, and is responsible for the vast majority of skin cancer deaths. Once it is finally diagnosed, mutilating surgery may be required to adequately remove the primary skin cancer, and resection of regional lymph nodes is frequently done to try to remove any early spread and determine how aggressively to treat a patient with immune-directed therapies or cytotoxic (cell-killing) therapies. These treatments are often ineffective at checking the spread of the melanoma, and at that point, you become a dead man walking…only a matter of time before the melanoma metastasizes to enough vital organs that it kills you.

In addition to melanoma, UV exposure can cause basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers. These also often require surgery to eradicate, and the results of the surgical operations performed may be cosmetically suboptimal.

Why anyone would deliberately increase their chance of requiring an operation to carve away mutated bits of themselves is beyond me. Slop on sunscreen, slip on a shirt, and slap on a hat. Protect yourself.


temptingfate | Friday December 25, 2009 08:33 am 19

This naturally reminds me of the proposed taxes on obesity, plastic surgery and other substitute taxes on apparently sinful behavior. The most basic problem being that the tax must necessarily hurt the people that can least afford it. It regressively attacks the perceived bad actions, under the guise of being for the common good. Like the botox treatments, there are medical reasons for a small number of people to chose to use tanning booths. But even if there were no obvious health benefits it would not change the fact that any flat tax will always hurt the people with the shallowest pockets. Since government authorities want to increase revenues and actually taxing the rich or the corporations is off the table they seek relatively politically defenseless groups to carry the burden. The burden that they refuse to hand to those that actually can afford it.

In my opinion allowing the millionaires in congress to frame the need to tax sin is just another way of making sure that the burden is carried by the middle-class. The idea of supporting such taxes is born of the idea that those who choose to be weak deserve their fate. If the people that claim they do not want to be the party of the rich lead the attack on the middle-class and the poor because of their supposed indiscretions then they should throw off the mantle of liberalism and admit they believe that they are simply supporters of a different sort of elite.

Relatedly, Ray Charles has been attributed to saying the heroin was much easier to beat than nicotine. Taxing people who cannot beat their addictions just makes them poorer.

I don’t smoke, have a weight problem, go to tanning booths or get botox treatments. Nor do I support running the government budgets on the backs of the poor and middle-class. Progressive taxes that have been eliminated by the millionaires in both parties need to be reinstated.


marcos | Friday December 25, 2009 10:48 am 20

Better a Boehner tax than a boner tax.


elpretentio | Sunday December 27, 2009 03:02 pm 21

this is going to make Charlie Crist unhappy.


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Get the Most out of FDL

Become a Founding Member today

Build our community

Get great discounts

Keep us independent

Close