U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-01-2011, 12:21 PM
 
4,267 posts, read 5,146,633 times
Reputation: 3579

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
because non-vaccinated children can get exposure to illnesses that have been dormant due to vaccination. once the diseases start to appear and spread again, they evolve to to spread and get stronger and make vaccines useless. vaccination only works when the community as a whole participates. otherwise, the entire principle of how they work is null.
If the disease evolves or mutates as a result of mass vaccination then that is not the fault of those who choose to forgo vaccinations. That is a problem with mass vaccinations.

Here is some info regarding pertussis mutation that happened in the Netherlands. CDC - Adaptation of Bordetella pertussis to Vaccination: A Cause for Its Reemergence? It's possible that this is why we are seeing such a high number of cases here in
the US.

 
Old 02-01-2011, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,557 posts, read 26,166,023 times
Reputation: 26585
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
because non-vaccinated children can get exposure to illnesses that have been dormant due to vaccination. once the diseases start to appear and spread again, they evolve to to spread and get stronger and make vaccines useless. vaccination only works when the community as a whole participates. otherwise, the entire principle of how they work is null.
Not exactly. If you are vaccinated, you are protected. The vaccine is not useless.

Then, the larger percentage of the population that is vaccinated, the less likely it is for someone to catch disease; that's herd immunity. If you vaccinate essentially everyone, you can completely eliminate the disease, such as with smallpox.
 
Old 02-01-2011, 02:13 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,751,269 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman View Post
If premiums should go up for unvaccinated children(proven to be more robust and amazingly healthy), then lets get real and increase premiums for people who eat fast junk food, people who are overweight, people who smoke, people who drink, people who are underweight, people who don't get enough exercise etc etc, where does it end??? and who gets to play God and decide whether the way other people live their lives is appropriate or not????
i get a discount on my premiums because i'm a non-smoker and pledge to always wear a seatbelt, and some other things.

bottom line is, when you're participating in a "risk pool", it's unfair for some to take more risks than others, yet the cost be spread across the board. so if you want insurance you have to pay for it, based on the risks you're willing to take. don't want to vaccinate a child? then you should either pay more because of the increased risks, or the people who do vaccinate should get discounts. don't want to go for yearly checkups when you reach a certain age? then you're at higher risk for costing an insurance company much more money when you end up with an issue that is more costly to treat because you caught it late.

since insurance companies already play god and decide what's appropriate for us, i'm fine with them playing god more or allowing the government to control it with incentives for preventative care.

you always have the option of moving to a remote area where you don't have to interact with society as much if you choose to take those greater risks that effect the community as a whole...
 
Old 02-01-2011, 03:02 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,751,269 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick View Post
Dorthy wrote:


Which is off topic since insurance premiums aren't the government, but I'll put it back on topic...

No one has the right to impose their disease-carrying child on the community. I don't agree that insurance premiums should go up, however I do feel that insurance companies should cover vaccinations 100%, no deductible, as preventative health care. I feel that they should -also- refuse to cover anyone whose parent -refused- to vaccinate them, if that child gets the sickness that the vaccine is supposed to cover. I also feel that insurance companies should go after the parent of the child whose unvaccinated illness causes other people to get sick.

In short: if Susie's pertussis makes me sick, then my insurance company would sue Susie's mom's insurance company to cover the cost of my treatment. Just like car insurance works now. If you cause my illness, then you're insurance company should pay for it, and then your insurance premiums would go up because of that payout. If your child doesn't get anyone sick, then you have nothing to worry about. If your child is vaccinated, you and your insurance company won't be held responsible. If your child *cannot* be vaccinated due to medical reasons, and your child is found to be a carrier, then your child should be quarrantined until he/she is cleared medically. It's sad for a kid to not be allowed out of the house, but it's even worse to grow up knowing that your mother's decision to let you run around infecting people, caused an epidemic.
i agree with this generally...but, in NJ, we have "no fault" insurance which the reasoning is it reduces the burden on the courts. i see the benefit, but the downside is, most of us are paying far more for insurance than we otherwise would, even though we have clean records.
 
Old 02-01-2011, 03:05 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,751,269 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Not exactly. If you are vaccinated, you are protected. The vaccine is not useless.

Then, the larger percentage of the population that is vaccinated, the less likely it is for someone to catch disease; that's herd immunity. If you vaccinate essentially everyone, you can completely eliminate the disease, such as with smallpox.
vaccine is not 100% effective for every vaccination. if you give the virus or bacteria a chance to infect some, that virus can change to adapt to the vaccine. it's the simple concepts of evolution. so if there's a growing number of people who don't vaccinate, and they get sick, you've basically created a petri dish for those bacteria to start spreading. some will spread to those who are vaccinated, and the strongest survive. the vaccinated may show no symptoms, but now carry the stronger bacteria in their system, and pass it along to someone else. etc etc.
 
Old 02-01-2011, 03:10 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,751,269 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
If the disease evolves or mutates as a result of mass vaccination then that is not the fault of those who choose to forgo vaccinations. That is a problem with mass vaccinations.

Here is some info regarding pertussis mutation that happened in the Netherlands. CDC - Adaptation of Bordetella pertussis to Vaccination: A Cause for Its Reemergence? It's possible that this is why we are seeing such a high number of cases here in
the US.
the diseases will evolve and mutate, vaccinations or not. but vaccinations only work if you use the herd immunity concept. so it's not the fault of mass vaccinations, it's the fault of those who forgo the vaccination, that allow the disease to continue to foster. if everyone was vaccinated, that would be the most effective scenario. that's just science.

for the parents that forego vaccinations and travel, then come back, that's just downright irresponsible. if one wants to remove themselves from certain ethical obligations to society (whether it's legal or not is a seperate issue), then they also have to take responsibility and give things up that are a result of foregoing those societal obligations. that's just my opinion.

it's not illegal for someone who has HIV to stop having relations with others, but it's unethical to not inform the partners of the risks. sure, it's not illegal to forego vaccinations, but it's unethical to expose those non-vaccinated children to the society around them that has generally agreed upon the herd immunity concept.

for the parents who are ok foregoing the daycares, the schools, the public places, etc., that the rest of people are participating in...go for it. to the ones who still want to be full participating members in the society, then vaccinations should be an ethical obligation, if not a legal one.


so, to bring it back to topic...just like non-smokers receive a discount on premiums in many cases, vaccinated persons should enjoy a discount as well, since they help lower the risk to the pool of insured.
 
Old 02-01-2011, 03:15 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,751,269 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
Yes but there are still more things out there that they could be charging higher premiums for and there are still other things out there that they could be offering incentives for. My concern is that if we charge people higher premiums for not vaccinating or even refusing a single vaccine, we could also find ourselves being charged more for things like not breastfeeding, or eating fast food, etc. My concern is that it gives too much power and control to the insurance companies and will price many more people out of being able to afford health insurance. It seems like a very slippery slope.
eating fastfood (regularly) would already be reflected in someone's premiums by way of higher cholesterol, higher weight vs averages, etc...those factors are part of obtaining insurance with a physical.

i'm not sure that the breast feeding vs formula feeding is as clearly "Decided" even though studies point to what you say. maybe i'm wrong there, but i don't think that's a fair comparison to the goal of herd immunity, so i don't think that's something that would be on the table as a "rasied" rate or lack of discount because you do or don't breastfeed.
 
Old 02-01-2011, 03:29 PM
 
4,267 posts, read 5,146,633 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
eating fastfood (regularly) would already be reflected in someone's premiums by way of higher cholesterol, higher weight vs averages, etc...those factors are part of obtaining insurance with a physical.

i'm not sure that the breast feeding vs formula feeding is as clearly "Decided" even though studies point to what you say. maybe i'm wrong there, but i don't think that's a fair comparison to the goal of herd immunity, so i don't think that's something that would be on the table as a "rasied" rate or lack of discount because you do or don't breastfeed.
The article in the OP says that the reason for raising premiums would be related to increased health care costs, not due to herd immunity. Similar to the reasons why smokers pay more.

Insurance companies are all about money. Studies show that $13 billion dollars could be saved annually if 90% of mothers breastfed for 6 months. Breastfeeding May Save U.S. $13 Billion a Year - ABC News I see no reason why insurance companies wouldn't decide to jump on something like this and either charge higher premiums for formula feeding parents or offer discounts for breastfeeding parents. That's part of the slippery slope that I don't think many people would be as willing to swallow. I think that it hands too much power and control over to insurance companies who imo already have way too much of both.
 
Old 02-01-2011, 03:34 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,751,269 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
I agree with a lot of what you say but I don't think that higher premiums are the answer. There are many reasons why people choose not to breastfeed and there are many reasons why people choose to forgo vaccinations. Maybe incentives would work but even with those incentives in place I doubt it would change very many people's decisions regarding those two particular issues.

I also think that it would be prudent before implementing something like this to examine medical costs, side by side of unvaccinated children and vaccinated children to determine how much more money that unvaccinated children are supposedly costing the system. As of yet we don't even know if unvaccinated children are spending more on Dr. visits then those who vaccinate.
if i had to bet on it, i'd bet that insurance actuaries have this calculation already. the data they have (correct and incorrect) isn't always used, but they have it.
 
Old 02-01-2011, 03:44 PM
 
Location: THE USA
3,254 posts, read 5,262,889 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
Studies show that $13 billion dollars could be saved annually if 90% of mothers breastfed for 6 months. Breastfeeding May Save U.S. $13 Billion a Year - ABC News I see no reason why insurance companies wouldn't decide to jump on something like this and either charge higher premiums for formula feeding parents or offer discounts for breastfeeding parents. .
Because some people WANT to breastfeed but have medical issues forcing them not too, some people want to breastfeed and have issues with latching. There are a variety of reasons why some do not breastfeed only. Some children do not gain weight and mothers MUST supplement. If you have a truly valid reason to not breastfeed only then I am sure there would be some kind of letter your doctor would submit in your defense.

People who choose not to vaccinate are doing a disservice to their children and society as a whole. But they are within their rights to be neurotic and risk their childrens health.

Now if we were to be able to find out that a certain child whose parents did not vaccinate (and did not have a Dr. advising against it) and that child infected another child who maybe CAN'T get vaccinations due to medical reasons, then I would see no reason the sick child's parents couldn't sue them in civil court for monetary damages and pain and suffering.

Last edited by Taboo2; 02-01-2011 at 04:04 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top