Proposed health reform bill includes tanning tax

In the midst of pre-WPA tanning season, Senators in Washington are voting on a Health Care reform bill that includes a proposed 10 percent tax on the use of tanning beds. The tax will take effect in July if the bill passes.

The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the tax would raise 2.7 billion dollars over the next 10 years to use toward providing health insurance for more Americans. The tax would also serve as a “sin tax,” raising awareness of the harmful effects of tanning. In the past, taxes on substances like tobacco and alcohol have decreased usage, according to Dr. June Robinson, a clinical professor of dermatology at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine.

While many dermatologists are major proponents of the proposed tax, it has local tanning salon owners outraged. The tanning industry is mostly made up of small businesses, and owners such as Vickie Flowers of Sunseeker’s Tannery in Leawood don’t think the tax would be fair to her business and others.

According to Flowers, tanning is not a black-and-white issue, and legislators should not tax tanning just because of the opinion that tanning is harmful.

“The tanning industry has come a long way since when our parents [were tanning],” Flowers said. “The products we offer and kinds of beds we use are different.”

Though tanning has evolved over the years, sunbeds emit predominantly UVA and some UVB rays, both of which, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), can damage the DNA in cells of the skin.

Sophomore Maddie Collins, a regular at Sunseeker’s, is aware of the effects of tanning since both her parents have been diagnosed with some form of skin cancer. However, she thinks that people will always overlook the warnings if they want to tan. In her opinion, the proposed tax would be no different.

“I think that everyone knows what tanning does, but they just look past it because you just kind of believe what you want to hear,” Collins said. “That’s not what a lot of girls want to hear, so they just let it slide.”

Senior Ellie Kessinger also tans frequently and is an employee at Sunseeker’s. Kessinger believes that the slight difference in price that would be a result of the tax wouldn’t phase customers.

“People make it a priority to tan and it’s a part of a lot of people’s routines,” Kessinger said. “I don’t think that [the tax] would change that.”

Junior Madison Haverty has seen the effects of basal cell skin cancer from her mom. She also lost a close family friend to melanoma. Last Spring, another family friend asked her to model for a local organization called Pasty By Choice, which promotes skin protection and discourages tanning. She supports the tax because she is in favor of anything that could discourage tanning. Also, she hopes other people will make the healthy decisions she has chosen to.

“I’ve seen the effects it’s had on people that are really close to me,” Haverty said. “I have blonde hair and blue eyes and fair skin, and every single older person who is like that, who i know, has gotten skin cancer, so i think that its important to protect my skin. The fact that they are putting that tax on it is labelling it as something negative.”

As a cancer nurse at the Kansas City Cancer Center for twenty years, Carol Are has seen the implications of melanoma–the most dangerous type of skin cancer–and its treatment. Though some, like Collins, don’t think of skin cancer as a big deal because most instances of basal or squamos cell cancer can be treated by excising the spot, Are asserts that skin cancer should not be a matter taken lightly.

“Melanoma is an ugly disease that is not curable if it spreads past the little spot that it first becomes,” Are said. “Once it spreads into deeper tissues and gets into other parts of your body, it is not curable.”

According to Are, even the more minor types of skin cancer can leave ugly scars or lesions.

The tax was proposed with the idea in mind that it would reduce health care costs by hopefully reducing skin cancer in the future.

According to the WHO, tanning actually costs the government money due to the substantial costs of screening, treating and monitoring skin cancer patients.

“I think the tax is biased against our industry,” Flowers said. “At this point, why don’t we tax drugs or alcohol?”