Is Perry's HPV vaccine stance really outrageous?

Bluegrass Pundit ^ | September 17, 2011 | Bluegrass Pundit

[thackney]

So you are against all required vaccines in all states?

[icanhasbailout]

Unless required by a public health emergency, unequivocally yes. That is simply not the proper role of government.

[thackney]

Unless required by a public health emergency

So only after many more thousands, tens of thousands, die, not before?

[Hoodat]

Thanks.

[icanhasbailout]

So only after many more thousands, tens of thousands, die, not before?

Women and children hit worst?

Come on, if you believe in that line of argument there's no big-government overreach you can't justify.

[thackney]

I’m trying to understand where you would draw the line. Some believe we have already passed that point, some don’t.

If we have an effective early warning system for a disease, where treatment can be more likely successful with early dectection, and the dectection is widely used, and still results in thousands of deaths per, is that enougH?

Or does it need to be ten thousand deaths per year, or one hundred thousand per year?

You stated: “required by a public health emergency, unequivocally yes”.

I wanted to know how many would need to die before you agree it is an appropriate infringement of liberty.

It appears we agree there is a time and place for the government to do so, we just disagree when that is. Would you accept that only after a million die per year?

[icanhasbailout]

It needs to be a case of an imminent public health emergency of a scale that qualifies as a national defense issue in order for government to have a legitimate role. Anything beyond that point it is the choice of individuals what medicines they wish to take for themselves.

Once you accept that government can demand specific medical care of its citizens, there is NO significant impediment left on the slippery slope to socialized medicine or fascist Obamacare. As the old saying goes, once you accept that role for government, "We’ve established what you are. [in this case, a socialist]. Now we’re just negotiating over the price."

[thackney]

It needs to be a case of an imminent public health emergency of a scale that qualifies as a national defense issue in order for government to have a legitimate role.

Those are nice fancy words, but what do they mean? Vaccines are used against contagious disease. The need for them isn't known until after death and crippling effect. The people that make the decisions have to draw a line somewhere. At what point will you draw that line? A actual number, for that is what has to be used to meause when your phrase above is met.

And after it has been shown to have that result, would you agree to continue it to prevent it from happening again, even decades later?

Once you accept that government can demand specific medical care of its citizens

In Texas, we can choose to opt out, for no other reason than we don't want to participate. Some other states require a medical necessity. Some allow religious reasons but then apply to all vaccines. In Texas, we get to choose we don't like a single one and opt out of it alone.

We’ve established what you are. [in this case, a socialist]. Now we’re just negotiating over the price."

I believe we both agree there is a place, you just may want millions dead before we agree to the actions.

[Finny]

I deg to biffer -- the short AND the long answer are both "Yes," and there is justified outrage on the part of thoughtful free citizens over the matter.

Rationale that sharing the cost to make it more affordable required that it be a "mandatory" vaccine are once again, betrayals of conservative principle. Yes I know there was an opt-out, but what I wonder is (and would like to hear from any FReepers who know first-hand):

1. Was the opt-out difficult and cumbersome with paperwork, a go-out-of-your way process?

2. Was the opt-out such that the parent could opt-out for that particular vaccine and keep the others?

The reason I ask is that I've read anecdotal stuff that indicates that the opt-out protocol was complicated and a hassle, and that you didn't have the choice of ONLY opting out of the HPV vaccine, but it was an all-or-nothing opt-out. Don't know if it's true, and REGARDLESS --

Santorum said it best: that the purpose of mandated vaccines for school-age children is to prevent the immediate spread of certain sicknesses, that one kid getting sick endangered all, and that was the reason for the vaccines. This HPV vaccine is STRICTLY a presumptuous act of a nanny state, especially because a) it isn't to prevent the contagious spread of a disease, but to shield against consequences once the disease is contracted AND b) it addresses a potential health problem that won't even happen until the subject of the vaccine is very near adulthood. The HPV shots are pure nanny statism, an orange compared to the applies of childhood vaccines against measles, polio, etc.

Perry, Merck, the medical establishment, and any other entity, are welcome to encourage parents to use the vaccine for their girls in order to protect them in the future, but to mandate it with an opt-out is a betrayal of limited government conservatism. With the other vaccines, there's at least a little bit of sense and logic to the mandating of polio, whooping cough, mumps, etc. vaccines in school kids. But mandating the HPV shots because it would force the sharing of costs to lower the prices, was pure and simple overstepping of bounds.

[smoothsailing]

BUMP!

[apocalypto]

Agreed. His stance is outrageous. But not nearly as outrageous as his stance on the illegal alien threat to us.

[icanhasbailout]

Those are nice fancy words, but what do they mean?

They mean if people are not going to die in significant numbers in the short term with no other way to protect themselves, then it's not the government's business.

Once you start dealing with long-term diseases, government has no role in the issue. People can make their own long-term decisions and they have plenty of time to make them and decide for themselves what to do.

The people that make the decisions have to draw a line somewhere.

And the "people that make the decision" in America is We the People, not our Lord High Masters the elected official. They are our servants not our masters.

You need to get your head away from the "government makes decisions for the people" line of thinking. That is not what government is about. Government is the servant of the people. Its function to act according to our will, not to force us to act according to its will.

Get the master-servant relationship straight and all these difficult questions are very straightforward. All you need to do is not be afraid of the concept that individuals are free men who have both the right and the responsibility to make decisions for themselves.

[icanhasbailout]

By the way, you should be ashamed that this line came out of your fingers:

I believe we both agree there is a place, you just may want millions dead before we agree to the actions.

That is practically word-for-word the hardcore lefty argument for socialized medicine.

[dforest]

Oh yeah, since this gets the guys worried about their willie, stab them girls with Gardasil.

How about it just gets mandated for guys, then they don’t have to worry?

[Finny]

And yet, like MB, her rabid supporters (or those rabid anti Perrys) won’t shut up. They will not shut up until we all admit MB should be President for life and that Perry should be executed for his EO on guardisil. Blah blah blah blah.

That little tidbit from your post indicates that you might be every bit as emotional and hot-headed as the women you rail against.

Quite a few of us -- I would venture to say MOST of us -- like Perry but see his statist tendencies, and when asked if the HPV thing was "outrageous" or not, are saying, Yes, it Was. As for Bachmann, a lot of us, myself included, like her politics but recognize her sad lack of skill; putting her in the presidency would be like putting a good amateur baskebatll player in the NBA and thinking he was ready for game. Bachmann is NOT "ready for prime time."

You, on the other hand, appear to be of the emotion-driven "If you disagree with me, you're an insane idiot who discounts eveyrthing good about my favorite candidate and who thinks your candidate is 100 percent perfect." It is a hot-headed emotional response wholly lacking in sense or logic.

[thackney]

Yes I know there was an opt-out, but what I wonder is (and would like to hear from any FReepers who know first-hand):

1. Was the opt-out difficult and cumbersome with paperwork, a go-out-of-your way process?

2. Was the opt-out such that the parent could opt-out for that particular vaccine and keep the others?

I am a parent living in Texas, with a teenage and younger daughters.

In 2003, Texas changed our opt out such that you could opt out of any single vaccine, or all of them. Also it included the reason to opt out for person conviction, not just medical necessity or religious beliefs.

That was in place at the time of the Executive Order. Perry's EO added the option for the opt to both be requested and submitted by the internet.

Since that time, the Health Department has added additional red tape, requiring it be renewed every 2 years. After the 2003 action, you could do it once and be done for life.

Today you can request the form online, but a notarized completed form is required for the schools to accept it.

More information is available at:
http://vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/index.shtml

[giotto]

Keep spinning. There's nothing you can say or do that will mitigate this colossal abuse of power. He keeps calling it a "mistake." But unless it's an emergency, you err on the side of caution. There was no emergency, no epidemic, no crisis. The only urgency was the one being hyped by Merck and their lobbyists. Perry has no defense.

Perry's mistake was that he listened to his campaign donor instead of the people who entrusted him with power. That was their mistake.

[thackney]

die in significant numbers in the short term

So what is a significant number? Why do avoid that question? Why only short term? If the people are going to die, but it takes years to start and typically years after detection to die, why is that exempted.

Once you start dealing with long-term diseases, government has no role in the issue.

Really? After you find you have cancer, then you get to decide? The vaccine will not stop a HPV infection, it will only prevent it, and only six months at best after the first dose with any dependancy.

We the People, not our Lord High Masters the elected official. They are our servants not our masters.

Each individual could opt out in Texas, as we do for the other vaccines. But for your "imminent public health emergency", it takes an elected official. We agree on that. I am trying to learn what you define as that emergency. Why do avoid that description when you agree there is a situation that would require it?

[Finny]

Governor Perry modified our process so that a parent could opt out of any (or all) vaccine and do it solely for personal choice. It was no longer required to be a religious or medical reason.

That is good news and merits a checkmark on the "plus" side for Perry.

[icanhasbailout]

So what is a significant number?

Depends on the population. I'd say that if the number exceeded 0.01% of the population that starts to get into significant numbers.

Why do avoid that question?

I can't avoid a question that nobody asked.

Why only short term?

Because anything longer than short term is not an emergency and thus there is no justification for the government to usurp a citizen's inalienable rights to life and liberty.

Really? After you find you have cancer, then you get to decide?

You can decide for yourself at any time.

The vaccine will not stop a HPV infection, it will only prevent it, and only six months at best after the first dose with any dependancy.

Who cares about the vaccine? The question at hand is whether the government has the right to make that decision. If you believe it does you are a socialist and the only remaining question is to what degree.

Each individual could opt out in Texas, as we do for the other vaccines.

"Opt-out" is BS when the government can (and does, often) make that a bureaucratic nightmare to accomplish.

But for your "imminent public health emergency", it takes an elected official. We agree on that. I am trying to learn what you define as that emergency. Why do avoid that description when you agree there is a situation that would require it?

See above. Can't avoid a question you didn't ask. Now that you've asked it you've got your answer.