Tax the Tan 'til There Ain't No Tan No More

From the Washington Post:

One of the less-publicized measures in the new health-care law, the tax imposes a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet indoor tanning beds.

Supporters -- including the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and dermatologists -- have argued that the tax will raise an estimated $2.7 billion toward the cost of expanding health coverage to the uninsured, while discouraging a practice that increases the risk of skin cancer by as much as threefold in frequent users, according to scientific research.

Explain this to me, please: if you raise the cost (tax) of something, it reduces demand, right? And according to the article, one of the justifications for the new "tan-tax" is to discourage the practice. So if people stop tanning, how, exactly, is that supposed to raise $2.7 billion to fund Obamacare?

These clowns never cease to amaze me. I'm not an economist, but even I can see the gaping holes in this plan. When the money fails to come in, they're going to have to "find funding elsewhere," meaning either raising more taxes or, more probably, placing a fee on something like internet usage (something that almost everyone uses and, honestly, would be really, really hard to live without). It's inescapable.

Actually, that's not entirely true. There's one way out: vote out the Democrats in November. All of them.