http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/24/news..._tax/index.htm

OK, I understand it's supposedly dangerous to use these tanning beds. I say
supposedly because I've never had an interest in using them so I've not
researched it at all - as such, I can't say that "I know" they are dangerous (or
not). IAC, assuming that it can cause skin cancer, why was this even remotely
considered in the making of the health care bill mess? And on the other side -
it's apparently an extra buck or two on a 15-20.00 session or visit or whatever
it's called...apparently, it's already over a grand a year for what's free right
outside the place you're paying. I mean, what in the holy-friggin'-hell is a
"financially-strapped tanner," and if they do actually exist...well, why are
they allowed to exist...?

So, OK, Tom, I take it back - perhaps _SOME_ of the excess ought to be "removed"
- anyone that would pay for tanning instead of health insurance (or anything
else more important than tanning...like, oh, say, a bag of rocks...), and then
bitch because "the government" wasn't providing the health care for them, well,
maybe society is best served by "removing" them.

Sheesh-quadruple-squared,
R