[But on the flip side, that means more business for Merck than if it was an option at direct parental expense, where parents can see it. (It is at parental expense in the big picture, because the insurance company recoups the cost through the premiums it charges. Insurance policies never create money never.)]
On the flip side, Merck created a vaccine that prevents women form dying of cervical cancer. Why shouldn’t Merck profit from that? It is cheaper for the insurance company to pay for the administering of the disease than the treatment of the disease. So from a state Gov’t’s perspective, when it is mandated by the federal Gov’t to provide Medicaid, I can see where it is in the state’s interest to mandate the vaccine. Imagine all the mandates that will be in the state’s interest under Obamacare. This issue actually highlights that very well.
Let Merck profit, if it wants, by putting its product on the free, opt-in market.
Another thing that non-Texans don’t get about Gardasil is the impact on our Hispanic population.
1) Hispanics are a majority in Texas.
2) Hispanics in TX have an extremely high rate of teen pregnancy. (Shh, that means they’re having sex.)
3) Hispanics in TX have a high rate of poverty.
4) Gardasil is $360 (@ $120 ea.)
5) High teen pregnancy & poverty rates equals increased risk of contracting HPV.
6) Gardasil has the potential to save TX taxpayers millions in healthcare costs for our Hispanic population by preventing cancer treatments later.
There are lots of arguments against a Gardasil mandate. The above is an argument for a Gardasil mandate (properly done via legislature.)