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.
One such example from the article, tells about a child whose parents refused to vaccinate him in 2008, then took him to Europe where he contracted the measles. When they got back to the U.S., 839 people were exposed, causing 49 children who were too young to have been vaccinated to have to be both vaccinated and quarantined, one of whom had to be hospitalized.
The article goes on to put figures to this situation:
"[The] average family cost [was] $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to private insurers."
So, should parents who refuse to vaccinate their children be considered a potential health danger to the public, and be forced to either pay significantly higher premiums to cover their childrens' health care; be forced to refund the government, families and insurers their costs when their unvaccinated child causes a public outbreak or quarantine; or should it be a protected right for parents not to vaccinate their children, with no consequences should others suffer medically because of their (in)actions?
While I support a person's civil right to privacy to do as they want with their own bodies, including vaccinations, in this case I believe that if your choice ends up adversely affecting others' health, and results in out-of-pocket expenses to individuals and governments, and increased insurance premiums spread throughout the pool, that those individuals responsible should be personally held liable financially.
No, what's next? People who send their kids to school sick should be forced to reimburse my insurance company? My kids get sick much more often from those kinds of people than they ever will from unvaccinated kids.
No, what's next? People who send their kids to school sick should be forced to reimburse my insurance company? My kids get sick much more often from those kinds of people than they ever will from unvaccinated kids.
Does your child getting a cold end up costing the government and insurance companies hundreds of thousands of dollars? Are colds preventable by vaccines, or is everyone subject to them?
Why not? They are endangering the people around them through their own bad choices.
That sounds like they got off easy there, my wife just watched a similar start...un-vaccinated kid got sick and exposed the pediatrics waiting area including some kids that were too young to be vaccinated. A number got sick, a few stayed in the ICU with respiratory symptoms and seizures (ICU stays cost well over $5k a day). She got to declare brain death on the un-vaccinated kid and another that was exposed and too young after they developed encephalopathy (the brain inflames, squeezes against the skull).
Personally I thought it was scarring enough when the kids older sister asked her parents why they let this happen when they could have easily prevented it.
No. Higher insurance premiums should be based upon the indivudual's frequency of claims, nothing more.
Smokers pay higher premiums because they knowingly take part in an activity that puts them at greater risk of smoking-related illnesses, which will ultimately lead to higher payouts by insurance providers. Are you against that, as well?
if as a parent, you choose not to vaccinate, you are letting your child benefit off of heard immunity, not to mention your child could infect countless others in the classroom.
Basically you are letting other kids do the work for you. Irresponsible, plain and simple. If you want to benefit off of heard immunity without taking part, you should either live in complete total isolation, or pay much more.
As I said on parenting, I'd rather see some incentives for getting kids immunized, say, lower co-pays or deductibles for people whose kids are up to date on their imms; discounts on imms for those with high-deductible policies and for those who pay cash; maybe some sort of rebate once the immunizations are complete.
To all the people who are voting that parents shouldn't pay higher premiums or be responsible for covering the costs of care of those who become infected as a direct result of their choices, what do you say to things like this?
"Deadly diseases are making a comeback. Pertussis, or whooping cough, has killed nine infants this year in California, and outbreaks of measles and Hib meningitis have struck U.S. communities in the past three years. At the heart of all these outbreaks: Parents who have chosen not to vaccinate their children."
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.
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.
