In its health-care reform discussions in December, the Senate was considering an indoor tanning tax along with the much-debated "Bo-Tax" of 5 percent for those who undergo elective cosmetic surgery. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid nixed the Bo-Tax and instead, targeted indoor tanning with a 10 percent tax. Critics are up in arms at this last-minute provision, the timing of left the tanning industry little opportunity to organize and respond prior to the vote on the final bill that was quickly passed by the Senate.

The American Medical Association is largely to thank for getting the Bo-Tax consideration removed, on the grounds of potential discrimination against the predominant users of plastic surgery &endash; middle-aged women. Ironically, a tanning tax holds even more grounds for discrimination, as females of Anglo descent are most likely to obtain tanning services.

Lawmakers are anticipating the tax to net approximately $2.7 billion in the next decade. That's less than half the revenue that was expected from the elective cosmetic surgery tax. "It is not surprising that one primarily cosmetic business is trying to throw another under the bus by transferring a tax from rich doctors and their wealthy customers to struggling small businesses," says John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Assocation. "The irony is that ultraviolet light at least has proven health benefits, where botox treatments have none." It's been suggested that the tanning tax took center stage due to health concerns related to the use of tanning equipment. The bill excludes "phototherapy by a licensed medical professional," which doesn't help the average salon owner.

But the health debate's not over yet. The Senate bill still has to be married with the House bill. The tanning provision might even provide Minority Leader John Boehner, known for his year-round glow and his opposition to new taxes, with some new talking points.

Should the Senate Democrats' health bill prevail, all indoor tanning services will be subject to a ten percent tax .

In reference to the Senate Health Bill overall, natural health advocate Mike Adams (NaturalNews.com 1/10) shared these comments:

The very basis of the health care reform bill is, at its core, unconstitutional. If this mandate is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent for the U.S. government to require us to purchase other products and services from whatever industries it chooses to support. What's next? Will the government pass a law forcing us to buy pharmaceuticals at thousands of dollars a year? Will it force us to purchase U.S.-made automobiles in order to boost the automobile industry? Is our economic free choice now centrally planned by our own government operating like Communist China?

I find it highly offensive that my own government would threaten me with a financial penalty if I refuse to pay money to such a racket. It's much like being forced to pay a "protection fee" to the mob. With this health care reform decision, our government has now become the enforcement branch of the Big Pharma crime ring, using the powers of the IRS to intimidate people into handing over their money to a gang of dishonest corporations that have found a whole new way to take Americans for a ride.

With this bill, all Americans are essentially being held up at gunpoint. We're being mugged on the streets by our own government, and they're demanding not only our money (to the tune of over $15,000 a year for a typical family) but also our lives -- because conventional health care may very well cost you your life!

Comment From Ray (Tan Plus): Overall, this is not a "health reform bill". It is more of the same that will only encourage a "sick nation" to become even sicker. There will be more drug and antibiotic prescriptions written, more unnecessary testing resulting in more unnecessary surgeries. I call this the Anti-Health Bill. There are no provisions or incentives to help people get healthy and stay healthy- no inclusion for nutritional counseling, health supplement support or alternative health care treatment.

Further, by placing a tax on indoor tanning services, this bill is essentially blaming the indoor tanning industry for every health problem that exists in this country. If this is the case, the health bill should include a tax on beach-goers, surfers, resorts, anyone that has a sun deck, golfers (since they can potentially get skin cancer in the back of their necks), everyone that owns a boat, sunscreen users (since the chemicals in the products have been found to cause cancer), Do you see where I'm heading with this? Indoor tanners have merely become scapegoats for a failed and corrupt health care system.

Since the 1980's numerous credible research has indicated that the sun and tanning is more of a health benefit than a health risk. My wife and I have tanned indoors, year round and in moderation, for almost thirty years without concern or fear of skin cancer or any other form of cancer for that matter. I have never applied a sunscreen or rarely wore a hat outdoors. The controlled indoor tanning environment, managed by responsible operators, results in a gradual skin color change, without burning and with minimal health risks.

---

Disclaimer

Tanning & Natural Health News is a publication of Tan Plus /Essentials Of Life, Barclay Square, 350 Route 108, Somersworth, NH. This publication is designed for educational purposes only and is not intended to be presented as medical advice. Product statements made have not been evaluated by the Food & Drug Administration.