Sunbeds

November 18th, 2012 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Michelle Robinson at Stuff reports:

Teenagers and fair-skinned adults may be banned from sunbeds under a proposed member’s bill.

The Health Skin Cancer and Trauma Prevention Amendment Bill calls for enforced regulations on sunbeds and cosmetic lasers.

A voluntary standard is all that prevents people with very fair photo type one skin from using sunbeds.

They would be barred, along with teenagers, from using the cosmetic tanning devices under National MP Dr Paul Hutchison’s bill.

Never used a sunbed, and doubt I ever will.

I don’t have a problem with not allowing teenagers (if that is shorthand for under 18s) from using a sunbed.

But if an adult wishes to use a sunbed, no matter fair skinned or dark skinned, and wishes to ignore the health risks – well no law should stop them.

However I would favour them losing coverage for any conditions likely to be caused by said sunbed exposure!

No tag for this post.

28 Responses to “Sunbeds”

  1. dime (9,461 comments) says:

    WHAT THE F*CK

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    What does ‘losing coverage’ mean? For private health insurance or for treatment from the public health system?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I have submitted a private members bill that will ban all ginga’s from beaches, rivers and Queen Street.

    Ginga’s will thereafter recieve a government subsidy in cash for vitamin D, by making this ginga’s only I am aware this will disqualify a significant proportion of our population from claiming this cash but the next gravy train will be along at 11.05

    and

    National MP Dr Paul Hutchison if this is all you have to offer Parliament, fuck off and stop wasting the typists time writing this rubbish up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    DPF says: However I would favour them losing coverage for any conditions likely to be caused by said sun exposure.

    If thats your attitude then as someone who is follicaly endowed I’m in favour of a lose of coverage for those that are follically lacking. If baldys want to walk around in the sun with no hat, no insurance for them matey, why should I pay?

    [DPF: Walking outside is normal. Jumping into a sunbed is not]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    However I would favour them losing coverage for any conditions likely to be caused by said sunbed exposure!

    Like your views on state-regulation of marriage – that you think the Government should be out of the game, but we don’t start with a blank slate, so favour state recognition of gay marriage – we don’t start with a blank slate on healthcare either.

    Are you seriously suggesting differentiated state coverage of health care on the basis of skin colour as a way forward?

    [DPF: No I prefer the status quo. If the concenr is health costs of people using sunbeds who get cancer then my preference is they lose coverage rather than banning people from using them. I would not discriminate on who loses coverage - anyone who uses a sunbed would - but of course they would be told upfront this so they can make an informed decision]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    Dr Paul Hutchieson was tipped to become a Minister in 2008; but was beaten out by the intellectually superior Anne Tolley.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    Mind you, Hutchieson is performing a valuable public service in reminding us that government MPs should not be allowed to submit private members’ bills.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    ……but was beaten out by the intellectually superior Anne Tolley.

    well that just shows what a mental collussus he is and perhaps should take my suggestion about him leaving forthwith seriously

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Viking2 (11,146 comments) says:

    the intellectually superior Anne Tolley.
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    It ain’t about intellectual horsepower and ability its about power didn’t ya know.
    Who pats whose back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Michael (896 comments) says:

    Agree with David – plus drunks, smokers, and illicit drug users should get a bill for related health conditions instead of having taxes added to their products.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Elaycee (4,304 comments) says:

    DPF:

    However I would favour them losing coverage for any conditions likely to be caused by…..

    Great! That’ll logically be extended to include these:

    No more bills for treating idiots who have stayed out in the sun too long and developed melanoma.
    No more bills for morons hurt crashing their car whilst pissed.
    No more bills for lung cancer caused by ciggies.
    No more bills for injuries suffered by morons who cannot hold their liquor and fall over / injure themselves.
    No more bills for the idiots who deafen themselves via too loud ‘music’ systems.
    No more dental bills for kids who have bad teeth caused by [insert name of sweets]
    No more bills for obesity surgery.

    Yup… that’ll work. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. BlairM (2,288 comments) says:

    There are a lot of National MPs, probably the majority of them truth be told, who are actually in the wrong party, but there are few of whom it is more true than Dr Hutchison. He is from the Nanny end of the party, and should be challenged for selection when his nomination comes up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rightandleft (638 comments) says:

    This is the kind of crazy stuff I expect to see from the Greens. What happened to the party of personal responsibility? I also thought making different laws for people of different skin colours was a policy of the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    If there was any alternative, National would lose my vote for this crap – if I wanted a nanny state I’d vote for Labour.

    Key needs to give Hutchison a good smack in the face for this. I know National is not a libertarian party (wasn’t it them who banned Sudafed to solve the P problem?) but they should stay away from this type of regulation.

    Labour were talking about banning plastic bags! That was the ultimate in ridiculousness. What great ammunition for National – a party who wanted to ban incandescent lights and leave us with nothing but “slow-to-glows” or expensive halogens, now wanting to ban shopping bags. How stupid Labour looked with their list of things to ban.

    But then a National member (in a very safe electorate) wants to join the “ban it brigade” too. Ammunition lost. It’s official: National is as bad in the “we know best, we’re the government” department as Labour. National has their own doctor who will instruct you how to live your life in the healthiest way possible – you are not able to make these decisions for yourself.

    I don’t care about sunbeds. But I hate the idea that because Hutchison has been a doctor for 30 years, and no doubt has had a few patients who died of melanoma, that he thinks he should be able to control what others are able to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    Like I say, the easiest thing to do is not let government MPs submit private members’ bills. Backbench government MPs of whatever party are invariably the stupidest group in the House. In addition, backbench government MPs already have sympathetic access to the government caucus and to the cabinet should they they miraculously come up with a good idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    tristanb

    +1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Michael (896 comments) says:

    If Government members don’t submit bills it gives the opposition a free run on the Government via the Members bills process. Surprised this made it past caucus though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    >”We’re calling for sunbeds and laser devices to be operated only by licenced providers.”

    That bit of the full article makes sense. If the situation now is that anyone can operate these things without a clue how to.
    If I wanted to sit in a toaster, I’d like to know the person operating it knew what level/time to set it at.

    Beyond that, as long as people know the risks, it’s up to them.

    Tristan >Labour were talking about banning plastic bags! That was the ultimate in ridiculousness.

    I thought that was the least ridiculous on the ‘be scared’ list the other day!
    (In comparison to the rest, that is You can get those sort-of-cloth re-usable ones in supermarkets now that last for years. And hessian ones. No need for a ban to enforce an alternative).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. JeffW (320 comments) says:

    DPF is correct, of course: in the long run, a public health system cannot support both aging and stupid people, possibly neither. Better to cull the stupid ones first (from taxpayer funding).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    @Mary Rose: I know the re-useable bags. Unfortunately they don’t actually last that long. I tend to walk ~1.5 km to the supermarket, and needed to get a new re-useable after about 10 shops. The other thing is grocery bags are used for bin liners, and there seems to be a good equilibrium between supermarket bags to buy stuff, and rubbish output. So if we don’t get them from the supermarket, we’d eventually have to purchase them (at the supermarket) from Glad then carry them home in a re-useable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. DJP6-25 (1,270 comments) says:

    Are you sure this guy isn’t in the Greens? What a waste of time!

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Viking2 (11,146 comments) says:

    http://screencast.com/t/3jZIG5sb6TsG

    Kinda sums it up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nigel Kearney (864 comments) says:

    If we are making all these rules based on statistics, how about a rule that nobody with the title ‘doctor’ before their name can be elected to Parliament. We’ve had a few of them and they tend to be a lot more dangerous than sunbeds and even less useful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Great… Let’s ban cigarettes as well…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    Don’t worry Nigel. I’m pretty sure he isn’t a real doctor. He’s a GP, it’s not like he has the expertise in anything that comes with a PhD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. landoftime (35 comments) says:

    I have used a sun bed hundreds of times. So I should seriously be denied healthcare if I get cancer? Are you serious? I should just be left to die and my children without a mother – because I used a sunbeds before i knew any better? I was actually addicted to sun beds and used to use them every second day or so for a number of years. Luckily I managed to stop. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the damage has been done. You wouldn’t deny treatment to an alcoholic or drug addict. Why would you deny me? Thank God, you are not in charge – that is all I can say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    There actually was an attempt a few years ago to define the ‘core’ health services that would be offered by the public health system. It didn’t get very far among anguished cries of “rationing”, but at no point was there anything as DPF-crazy as this – a suggestion of restricting some treatments to ‘deserving cases’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. sparky (235 comments) says:

    @Mikenmild, the Doctor you are referring to is a Specialist. He would know better than you, that is for sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.