Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: Should parents be responsible for costs associated with choosing not to vaccinate their children?
Yes, the parents should be charged significantly higher insurance premiums if they refuse to vaccinate. 27 31.03%
Yes, the parents should have to reimburse the government, families and insurers if they refuse to vaccinate. 0 0%
Yes, the parents should be responsible for both higher insurance premiums *and* reimbursement of actual costs, should they be incurred. 15 17.24%
No, parents should have the right to choose not to vaccinate their children, and no penalties should be applied. 45 51.72%
Voters: 87. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:29 PM
 
3,004 posts, read 3,886,738 times
Reputation: 2028

Advertisements

Americans value their freedoms. If the government or the medical community or the insurance companies tried to strong-arm people into getting vaccines against their will, there would be a backlash.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:30 PM
 
3,004 posts, read 3,886,738 times
Reputation: 2028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
You know it is possible to have a reasonable debate about differences of opinion without telling your debate opponent that they are mentally ill.

.
You seem to have no problem calling vaccine-wary parents derogatory names because they don't agree with you and don't trust the sources that you have chosen to trust.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,440,877 times
Reputation: 8564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

Are you familiar with the pertussis epidemic in California? At least 10 babies have died, and there have been thousands of cases. It has cost government and private insurers a ton of money.
I posted a snippet about it in post #10.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,779,853 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
I posted a snippet about it in post #10.
Some people aren't paying attention! It's all over the internet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,744,889 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The risks are much less than the benfits, in almost 100% of the cases.

True, but the failure rate is low. Most vaccines protect against severe disease in almost 100% of cases, and against getting sick at all in a large percentage of cases.

Maybe; that's why I favor incentives to immunize, rather than punishment if the parents don't.

Are you familiar with the pertussis epidemic in California? At least 10 babies have died, and there have been thousands of cases. It has cost government and private insurers a ton of money.
10 babies ???? Hmmmmm.... they probably abort more than 10 babies every half hour.

They have 37 million people. I don't think the death of 10 babies warrants any kind of special attention.

This shouldn't cost government a dime since government shouldn't be involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,779,853 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
10 babies ???? Hmmmmm.... they probably abort more than 10 babies every half hour.

They have 37 million people. I don't think the death of 10 babies warrants any kind of special attention.

This shouldn't cost government a dime since government shouldn't be involved.
1. This is not a thread about abortion. Do not hijack.

2. I think it's pretty important to those babies' families. How callous!
Interesting you are so concerned about fetuses, but not about the babies after they're born.

3. You obviously have no idea what the public health service does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,744,889 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
1. This is not a thread about abortion. Do not hijack.

2. I think it's pretty important to those babies' families. How callous!
Interesting you are so concerned about fetuses, but not about the babies after they're born.

3. You obviously have no idea what the public health service does.

I didn't say it was of no concern to the parents of the ten babies. It certainly is. But to put it in perspective, 10 babies is not a big item. I'm sure there are much larger issues to deal with than 10 out of millions.

Interesting that you are not concerned about millions of fetuses, but you are concerned about 10 babies. How callous!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:46 PM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,440,877 times
Reputation: 8564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

Some people aren't paying attention! It's all over the internet.
I know. :sigh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post

10 babies ???? Hmmmmm.... they probably abort more than 10 babies every half hour.

They have 37 million people. I don't think the death of 10 babies warrants any kind of special attention.

This shouldn't cost government a dime since government shouldn't be involved.
This thread has nothing to do with abortion. This thread is about parents with real, live children who are below the recommended age to vaccinate, whose living, breathing children are being exposed to deadly diseases by the children of other parents who have intentionally elected not to immunize them from said deadly diseases. It is these wanted, living babies whose lives are being risked by other people's choices.

And I'm sure those 10 babies' parents aren't quite so willing to wave this issue away as you are, just because only 10 of the infected babies died (so far).

As to your last sentence, I'm not sure you're understanding here. At this moment, the way things are, the government is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per outbreak to deal with containing the infections, and sometimes paying for the medical care of children who are on Medicaid. Insurers are spending hundreds of thousands to treat diseases that children would not have contracted were it not for exposure to a child with the disease that was not immunized.

It's already costing the government money. I actually agree with you! The government shouldn't have to pay a dime for an individual's personal choice to put their child at risk of a communicable disease! That's why I propose that if a communicable disease affects the community and it can be traced back to parents who intentionally didn't immunize their child, the government (aka we tax payers) should be reimbursed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:58 PM
 
6,993 posts, read 6,339,494 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
But they do result in potentially unhealthy kids. Health care premiums should reflect the individual risk. No different than say auto insurance premiums.
Do we charge people more if they don't have a full sized spare tire? That full sized spare is much safer than the factory dounut spare.
Another question I have is their an age limit to when immunizations must be given? For example what if the parents opted to forgo immunizations until the child is say 4 years old?
In Florida, a child must be up to date with their immunizations when they start public school - maybe private school, also.

Last edited by ray1945; 01-23-2011 at 09:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,779,853 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
But they do result in potentially unhealthy kids. Health care premiums should reflect the individual risk. No different than say auto insurance premiums.
Do we charge people more if they don't have a full sized spare tire? That full sized spare is much safer than the factory dounut spare.
Another question I have is their an age limit to when immunizations must be given? For example what if the parents opted to forgo immunizations until the child is say 4 years old?
There are age limits for some immunizations. Hib and Prevnar are not recommended for kids over 5. DTaP is not recommended for kids over 7, there is a substitute, Td, and, once the kids are >10, Tdap for one dose of the series.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:39 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top