Regulating indoor tanning?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

@General Zod: I can in fact think of one specific instance where allowing a minor to use a tanning bed for reasons that aren't directly medical is justifiable. An ex-girlfriend of mine went on holiday to Tunisia with her family, and since her complexion might best be described as 'unhealthily pale' (she looked, to be brutally honest, rather a lot like Magrat Garlick) she spent about an hour a week in a tanning salon for a month before they left in order to build up a degree of resistance to elevated UV levels under controlled conditions.

Or, you know, you could just wear lots of flowing robes like the locals and an appropriate headdress.

[General Zod]

@General Zod: I can in fact think of one specific instance where allowing a minor to use a tanning bed for reasons that aren't directly medical is justifiable. An ex-girlfriend of mine went on holiday to Tunisia with her family, and since her complexion might best be described as 'unhealthily pale' (she looked, to be brutally honest, rather a lot like Magrat Garlick) she spent about an hour a week in a tanning salon for a month before they left in order to build up a degree of resistance to elevated UV levels under controlled conditions.

Or, you know, you could just wear lots of flowing robes like the locals and an appropriate headdress.

And plenty of sunscreen.

[Zaune]

I don't think she was foolish enough to just flop down in the sun in a bikini without putting on suncream, but I can still see a case for a gradual increase in UV-exposure in order to acclimatise somewhat first. I should also emphasise that her parents kept track of exactly how much time she was spending on the sunbed, and I think they talked it over with the family GP before signing her up for them.
In light of that, I do think that minors should be allowed to use tanning salons, but only with written parental consent and a strict limit on the number of hours per week. An outright ban would just mean that teenage girls bound and determined to have a California tan while living in Michigan would procure fake IDs and do it without any restrictions at all whilst inconveniencing the ones who can be trusted to use indoor tanning in moderation.

[General Zod]

I don't think she was foolish enough to just flop down in the sun in a bikini without putting on suncream, but I can still see a case for a gradual increase in UV-exposure in order to acclimatise somewhat first. I should also emphasise that her parents kept track of exactly how much time she was spending on the sunbed, and I think they talked it over with the family GP before signing her up for them.
In light of that, I do think that minors should be allowed to use tanning salons, but only with written parental consent and a strict limit on the number of hours per week. An outright ban would just mean that teenage girls bound and determined to have a California tan while living in Michigan would procure fake IDs and do it without any restrictions at all whilst inconveniencing the ones who can be trusted to use indoor tanning in moderation.

I somehow doubt the amount of people who would be willing to go out of their way to get a fake id just to get a tan is as large as you think it is.

[Zaune]

I suppose that rather depends on how hard it is to get fake ID, something I've never needed to concern myself about on account of looking about five to ten years older than I actually am since I was a teenager. (I'm now 24 and found a grey hair the day before yesterday. Getting served in bars at sixteen was not worth it.) I would however submit that the overlap between girls who want artificial tans and girls who want fake ID so they can buy booze is likely to be fairly high.

[Broomstick]

@General Zod: I can in fact think of one specific instance where allowing a minor to use a tanning bed for reasons that aren't directly medical is justifiable. An ex-girlfriend of mine went on holiday to Tunisia with her family, and since her complexion might best be described as 'unhealthily pale' (she looked, to be brutally honest, rather a lot like Magrat Garlick) she spent about an hour a week in a tanning salon for a month before they left in order to build up a degree of resistance to elevated UV levels under controlled conditions.

She would be better served by applying sunscreen. ALL tanning is damage to the skin. ALL tanning raises the risk of cancer later in life, particularly when it occurs in those younger than adult.

WTF is it, that people who are naturally pale are deemed to have an "unhealthy" color? That is their natural color - why is it OK to denigrate pale skin in that manner where it would be deemed bigoted to say there was something wrong with a different color of skin?

And if she's that pale a month of controlled tanning isn't going to do shit when she goes to Tunisia - what she needs is to cover up and wear sunscreen. Hell, that's what the dark skinned natives do!

[Zaune]

She was pale enough to get sunburned within two hours on a fairly ordinary British summer's day if she didn't wear suncream. That's far enough to the extreme end of the spectrum to merit the term, I think.

Though I must admit I would have tried harder to find a politer term if it had been someone other than this particular ex-girlfriend.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

She was pale enough to get sunburned within two hours on a fairly ordinary British summer's day if she didn't wear suncream. That's far enough to the extreme end of the spectrum to merit the term, I think.

Though I must admit I would have tried harder to find a politer term if it had been someone other than this particular ex-girlfriend.

And the solution to that problem is . . . to wear long sleeves and apply copious sunscreen. Not to bombard one's whole body with ionizing radiation in the hope of building up a tolerance. A tan is the body's reaction to skin damage. And the only sort of pale that "unhealthily pale" applies to is being dead. Which is one has a strong chance of being if they get an aggressive malignant melanoma.

[Broomstick]

She was pale enough to get sunburned within two hours on a fairly ordinary British summer's day if she didn't wear suncream. That's far enough to the extreme end of the spectrum to merit the term, I think.

Though I must admit I would have tried harder to find a politer term if it had been someone other than this particular ex-girlfriend.

I'm pale enough to start burning in 15 minutes.

Don't you get it? That's the NATURAL skin color of some people! It is just as normal and healthy for them as, say, very dark skin is for an Ethiopian. Your categorization of pale skin as unhealthy is, in fact, offensive to me. Not HUGELY offensive, mind you, but yes, I object to your attitude that I should risk cancer to make my skin a color that is more appealing to your eye. Or do you make a habit of telling people they're the "wrong" color?

[Serafina]

Strangely, i have pretty fair skin but don't get sunburns - i can stay at the beach for 2-3 hours without sunblocker and nothing happens. But i also don't tan very well.

Regarding the "build up a tolerance"-nonsense: It's hardly necessary, given that their are plenty of other options. Sunblocker works pretty much in every situation - and in cases where it doesn't, you can't build up much tolerance anyway. Others described that pretty well already.
But other than that - you are doing the damage either way. A tanning bed is NOT more healthy.

[Zaune]

Broomstick, I am deeply and sincerely sorry. I was not in any way trying to imply that being extremely pale made you in any way inferior, just illustrate the fact that some people's skin tone is far enough to one end of the spectrum that it can cause them problems if not managed carefully.
I was also under the impression that a gradual increase in exposure to UV levels was less likely to result in cancer than an abrupt transition. If that's incorrect, I concede the point.

[Broomstick]

It is incorrect. Tanning and sun damage is cumulative over a lifetime. Obviously, living a normal life one will be exposed to some sun, and the body has some capacity to deal with it, but those with pale skins should really avail themselves of covering up, sunscreen, and other such technologies to minimize the damage to their skin.

A gradual increase in UV levels makes you less likely to burn - having seen some 2nd degree sunburn it is definitely something you want to avoid (3rd degree is possible, though rare). However, for the very pale they will always be at risk of blistering burns and thus should not rely on a poor ability to tan but rather avoid the sun damage in the first place.

[HMS Conqueror]

The insurance is a private agreement. For instance, the insurance company could say it will refuse claims for skin cancer from people who used tanning beds, or charge higher premiums just for the people who use tanning beds. If it doesn't, then all the participants agree for the insurance to also apply to tanning-related costs. It's like how you might insure yourself against injury if you decide to climb mount everest. The insurance company may charge you a higher premium for the added risk, but there's nothing non-private about it. The whole point of insurance is to voluntarily share risk. Insurance isn't like single-payer healthcare where everyone is charged the same regardless of their risk and where everyone is forced into the programme even if they don't like the terms.

Banning tanning beds crosses the line from making people pay for externalities to directly controlling their behaviour.

Okay, it seems you advocate raising insurance premiums for specifically risky behavior.

Not necessarily. If people want to form insurance companies that are indifferent to moral hazard, that's their business. In fact, no insurance policy completely eliminates moral hazard, because the administration costs eventually become greater than the efficiency saving. The only underlying principle is that people are, in the first instance, financially responsible for their own treatment. How people arrange with one another to share risk (or whatever else) is one to me.

btw, I'm amazed that people are even taking this sort of extremist stance on sunbeds of all things. They're hardly high risk activity compared with, say, riding a motorcycle, which you presumably don't want to outlaw. If you want my actuarial opinion (for what that is worth, which isn't a lot) I doubt insurance schemes would/do increase premiums for sunbeds.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

btw, I'm amazed that people are even taking this sort of extremist stance on sunbeds of all things. They're hardly high risk activity compared with, say, riding a motorcycle, which you presumably don't want to outlaw. If you want my actuarial opinion (for what that is worth, which isn't a lot) I doubt insurance schemes would/do increase premiums for sunbeds.

A motorcycle has significantly more utility than a tanning bed (which has no utility whatsoever.) A motorcycle is a highly efficient mode of transportation that's suitable for crowded urban areas. A tanning bed is a highly efficient way of exposing idiots to large doses of ionizing radiation and setting them on the road to melanomas.

[Wyrm]

Not necessarily. If people want to form insurance companies that are indifferent to moral hazard, that's their business. In fact, no insurance policy completely eliminates moral hazard, because the administration costs eventually become greater than the efficiency saving. The only underlying principle is that people are, in the first instance, financially responsible for their own treatment. How people arrange with one another to share risk (or whatever else) is one to me.

And that financial responsibility, if beared the way you think it should be beared, would bankrupt even a quite well-to-do person, resulting in discontinued treatment and death. Broomstick even pointed out that, even if you have insurance in this country, you're still fucked. Thus, if you use a tanning bed this way, by your own argument, you are prima facie irresponsible because you are taking risk you cannot possibly bear the consequences of.

Invariably, when people behave stupidly as an observed rule, the government must step in to regulate.

[HMS Conqueror]

btw, I'm amazed that people are even taking this sort of extremist stance on sunbeds of all things. They're hardly high risk activity compared with, say, riding a motorcycle, which you presumably don't want to outlaw. If you want my actuarial opinion (for what that is worth, which isn't a lot) I doubt insurance schemes would/do increase premiums for sunbeds.

A motorcycle has significantly more utility than a tanning bed (which has no utility whatsoever.) A motorcycle is a highly efficient mode of transportation that's suitable for crowded urban areas. A tanning bed is a highly efficient way of exposing idiots to large doses of ionizing radiation and setting them on the road to melanomas.

Utility is subjective. To someone who likes having tanned skin, but doesn't like motorcycles, it's the other way around.

And that financial responsibility, if beared the way you think it should be beared, would bankrupt even a quite well-to-do person, resulting in discontinued treatment and death.

Hey, the way I think it would be borne would be by the normal insurance or UHC without prejudice. All I'm saying is that if someone was insistent that this was unfair for some reason (I think unreasonably), the very maximum it can justify is the removal of that coverage, not the choice of whether to take the risk.

Broomstick even pointed out that, even if you have insurance in this country, you're still fucked. Thus, if you use a tanning bed this way, by your own argument, you are prima facie irresponsible because you are taking risk you cannot possibly bear the consequences of.

???

Even in that most extreme example, you can choose to go without healthcare if you want. That's not somehow an illegitimate choice.

Invariably, when people behave stupidly as an observed rule, the government must step in to regulate.

Stupidly is a matter of opinion. Maybe you would disagree with their choice, but if they're in full possession of the facts and of sound mind you have no basis on which to consider it flawed. Moreover, the only way this "problem" would even come about would be due to govt regulation of insurance schemes, or else a government UHC scheme deciding to withhold coverage. It's not a market problem by any means.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick even pointed out that, even if you have insurance in this country, you're still fucked. Thus, if you use a tanning bed this way, by your own argument, you are prima facie irresponsible because you are taking risk you cannot possibly bear the consequences of.

???

Even in that most extreme example, you can choose to go without healthcare if you want. That's not somehow an illegitimate choice.

Incorrect - or it will be shortly.

By 2014 Americans will be required to purchase health insurance (or face a penalty). That is, in fact, one of the objections to the current "reform". So by 2014 all Americans will be required to purchase insurance, even though if catastrophic health problems arise that insurance still won't protect them from bankruptcy or denial of care due to financial lack.

[HMS Conqueror]

Broomstick even pointed out that, even if you have insurance in this country, you're still fucked. Thus, if you use a tanning bed this way, by your own argument, you are prima facie irresponsible because you are taking risk you cannot possibly bear the consequences of.

???

Even in that most extreme example, you can choose to go without healthcare if you want. That's not somehow an illegitimate choice.

Incorrect - or it will be shortly.

By 2014 Americans will be required to purchase health insurance (or face a penalty). That is, in fact, one of the objections to the current "reform". So by 2014 all Americans will be required to purchase insurance, even though if catastrophic health problems arise that insurance still won't protect them from bankruptcy or denial of care due to financial lack.

And under US law tanning beds are not illegal. What we are discussing is how the law might be changed, yes?

[Wyrm]

And that financial responsibility, if beared the way you think it should be beared, would bankrupt even a quite well-to-do person, resulting in discontinued treatment and death.

Hey, the way I think it would be borne would be by the normal insurance or UHC without prejudice.

And you're right back to increased premiums distributed throughout the covered pool, which I have already replied to above.

All I'm saying is that if someone was insistent that this was unfair for some reason (I think unreasonably), the very maximum it can justify is the removal of that coverage, not the choice of whether to take the risk.

I'm not even sure what you're advocating here.

Broomstick even pointed out that, even if you have insurance in this country, you're still fucked. Thus, if you use a tanning bed this way, by your own argument, you are prima facie irresponsible because you are taking risk you cannot possibly bear the consequences of.

???

Even in that most extreme example, you can choose to go without healthcare if you want. That's not somehow an illegitimate choice.

Are you getting anything from what I'm saying? I'm saying even with healthcare, you're screwed. How does this get better without healthcare?

Invariably, when people behave stupidly as an observed rule, the government must step in to regulate.

Stupidly is a matter of opinion. Maybe you would disagree with their choice, but if they're in full possession of the facts and of sound mind you have no basis on which to consider it flawed.

No. You are laboring under the delusion that humans are rational beings and will go through the necessary steps to make an informed, rational decision. But this notion is wrong, wrong, wrong. Time and again we show ourselves to be poor reasoners even when full facts are presented. Take this experiment from "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely. The Economist magazine offers three choices for subscriptions (paraphrasing a bit):

1. Economist.com subscription (US $59.00) - One year subscription to Economist.com. Includes online access to all Economist articles since 1997.
2. Print subscription (US $129.00) - One year subscription to the print edition of The Economist.
3. Print & web subscription (US $129.00) - One year subscription to the print edition of The Economist and online access to all articles since 1997.

No brainer, right? Why should anyone choose a print-only subscription when they can have print and web access to The Economist? Indeed, the data bear this assessment out. Out of 100 subscribers:

1. Web only: 16
2. Print only: 0
3. Print & web: 84

But why would The Economist offer the print only subscription that no one buys? Let's consider an alternate list of choices:

1. Economist.com subscription (US $59.00) - One year subscription to Economist.com. Includes online access to all Economist articles since 1997.
2. Print & web subscription (US $129.00) - One year subscription to the print edition of The Economist and online access to all articles since 1997.

If humans were rational reasoners, then eliminating the second option shouldn't change the results. No one wants the print subscription anyway, so the results should be the same. But...

1. Web only: 68
2. Print & web: 32

Drastically different! The second (print only) option is a decoy. It fakes you out to give the impression that web access is drastically reduced from $59 to free with a print subscription. This is only one example of how humans aren't really rational reasoners. Our choice depends on the presence of irrelevant options.

Moreover, the only way this "problem" would even come about would be due to govt regulation of insurance schemes, or else a government UHC scheme deciding to withhold coverage. It's not a market problem by any means.

Are you even reading what is written? This is a problem with privately owned health insurance companies like Cigna and such. It's happening NOW! With our market-driven health insurance.

[HMS Conqueror]

And that financial responsibility, if beared the way you think it should be beared, would bankrupt even a quite well-to-do person, resulting in discontinued treatment and death.

Hey, the way I think it would be borne would be by the normal insurance or UHC without prejudice.

And you're right back to increased premiums distributed throughout the covered pool, which I have already replied to above.

Sure. What's the problem with that? The pool consented to the terms of the agreement; nothing is being forced on them.

For the same reason insurance schemes do not impose mandatory exercise regimens, or control your diet. Not because it would be impossible, or it wouldn't reduce your change of claiming, but rather because people would rather pay more and have the freedom to live their lives. Tanning beds are simply too petty of an issue, and for many people, an ordinary part of life.

No. You are laboring under the delusion that humans are rational beings

The rationality isn't the issue here, it's the assumptions. If you want to look tanned because you think it makes you more attractive and gets you more sex, and you care more about this than slightly increased risk of cancer, using tanning beds is a perfectly rational thing to do. If you don't care about sex, or don't think tanning is attractive, but want to maximise your chances of collecting a pension for 30 years, it's not a rational thing to do. But you're surely not suggesting that the latter group are the client base of tanning salons?! Your objection is to the trade-offs people are willing to make and, more fundamentally, their idea of what makes life worth living. This isn't a matter of objective fact that can be rationally determined, it's a matter of preference. Neither the state nor any individual has any business imposing their view on this subject on anyone else.

[Broomstick]

And you're right back to increased premiums distributed throughout the covered pool, which I have already replied to above.

Sure. What's the problem with that? The pool consented to the terms of the agreement; nothing is being forced on them.

Bullshit.

The vast, overwhelming majority of people in the US with health insurance never consented to anything - their EMPLOYERS choose the policy and that's what the employees get. Yet more and more the employees bear a greater and greater share of the costs of that insurance.

In countries with UHC the citizens don't get much, if any, vote either.

Get your facts straight, at least. It would make you look less stupid.

[HMS Conqueror]

And you're right back to increased premiums distributed throughout the covered pool, which I have already replied to above.

Sure. What's the problem with that? The pool consented to the terms of the agreement; nothing is being forced on them.

Bullshit.

The vast, overwhelming majority of people in the US with health insurance never consented to anything - their EMPLOYERS choose the policy and that's what the employees get. Yet more and more the employees bear a greater and greater share of the costs of that insurance.

Move back one space to employment contract. Rinse, repeat.

In countries with UHC the citizens don't get much, if any, vote either.

Get your facts straight, at least. It would make you look less stupid.

UHC obviously isn't consensual, but it's not meant to be. The whole point is that rich, healthy people pay for poor, unhealthy people.

[Broomstick]

Sure. What's the problem with that? The pool consented to the terms of the agreement; nothing is being forced on them.

Bullshit.

The vast, overwhelming majority of people in the US with health insurance never consented to anything - their EMPLOYERS choose the policy and that's what the employees get. Yet more and more the employees bear a greater and greater share of the costs of that insurance.

Move back one space to employment contract. Rinse, repeat.

What is this "employment contract" of which you speak? Until you get to upper executive (VP or higher) this does not exist in the US. That is a very small percentage of the population.

For the vast majority of people in the US the employer dictates the terms of employment and you take it or leave it. Most states are "at will" employment states, meaning your employer can terminate your job at any time for any lawful reason - pretty much anything other than religion, gender, certain age limits, and race/ethnicity.

[HMS Conqueror]

What is this "employment contract" of which you speak? Until you get to upper executive (VP or higher) this does not exist in the US. That is a very small percentage of the population.

Admittedly I'm not familiar with the US legal system, but if there is no contract then your employer can't oblige you to work, and isn't obliged to pay your wages. So I really doubt that.

For the vast majority of people in the US the employer dictates the terms of employment and you take it or leave it. Most states are "at will" employment states, meaning your employer can terminate your job at any time for any lawful reason - pretty much anything other than religion, gender, certain age limits, and race/ethnicity.

No, it's a just a supply/demand function like any other. If the employer could "dictate" terms of employment they wouldn't pay you anything at all, and you would be a slave.

[Simon_Jester]

No, it doesn't work like that. See, "dictate the terms" does not necessarily mean "dictate the decision to take or leave the job." An employee may well accept a job because they need money to live. As long as they are paid enough that the risks inherent in leaving are unacceptable (they are better off working here for three more months than leaving and risking unemployment), they will accept a wide variety of unpleasant conditions on their employment by their boss.

Said boss reserves the power to fire them at any time, for any reason or none. He cannot make the worker into a slave, because he has to pay the worker something. Workers will leave rather than face starvation. To that most extreme extent, the employer cannot dictate terms to the worker.

But on any lesser level, he can. He has to pay enough to keep his workers alive or they will leave. But he does NOT have to offer good working conditions if they can't expect to find better ones elsewhere. This leads to scenarios where your employer chooses your health insurance, compels you to work "overtime" hours for free or without additional pay, and so on, all against your will, because he is banking on the fact that he can find a new man to fill your job faster than you can find a new job to fill your checkbook.

Which is very much the reality in modern America.

It is not guaranteed that employers will include favorable working conditions in the "price" they offer employees for their labor. Not when they can get away with not paying, as they can in an economy where most other employers do the same things for the same reasons.