See my response to Jello. I don't consider it an "emotional hangup" to see the clear difference between a communicable disease and sexually transmitted disease.

I read that. I'm still not getting it. That fact that you can choose who you're going to have sex with or whether your going to have sex does not change the fact that people have sex and it spreads disease.

I don't see how you can not be bothered at all about vaccines for airborne illnessess on the one hand but vaccines for illnessess that spread in some other way you're gunna get seriously pissed off about. I just don't get that.

And you think it is a good idea for insurance companies to make the call on this? That just means WE will be subsidizing it through higher insurance premiums!

No, the point would be that it would reduce the cost of insurance. That whole thing I said about the vaccines costing less than the disease? Whether an increase or decrease in cost would get reflected in your insurance premium is a different matter. Prices are not a direct function of costs.

I should feel really warm and fuzzy about subsidizing the treatment for something that is an effect of A PERSONAL CHOICE.

If you get in car accident its often the effect of a personal choice, but you'll still get treated in the hospital and your insurance will still cover it. The point of that rules is to prevent insurance companies from treating pregnancy as a "pre-existing condition" if a pregnant woman changes providers (jobs) during a pregnancy. Health Insurance is not taxation, but if you're so pissed off about subsidising other people you don't have to carry it.

What do you disagree with in that blogger's post? I found the blog in question quite inI don't see a lot of room for misinterpretation, the facts pretty much speak for themselves. I think points 1 through 7 are solid. Points 8 and 9 are not really germane to the issue.

1,2, and 3 are irrelevent if the vaccine reduces the cost of the disease overall.
4. just means that the government is liable instead.
5. 6. She might have a point with regard to the need for a study with young girls, but most vaccines do not have longitudinal results prior to deployment. Is there a technical reason to suspect that the impact won't last? If not, why sit on your hands with it for 20 years while you do a longitudinal study? Things just don't work that way.
7. What does this disclaimer mean? Obviously, these problems didn't arise during lab or clinical trials or the drug wouldn't have been approved. If there is no technical reason to suspect this as a possibility than its probably not a problem.
8. This observation is interesting. I think it is germane to the issue.
9. This observation is a stupid conspiracy theory.

if this becomes a public health matter and is issued at schools like MMR was when I was in high school, who pays for the vaccines at that point?

Insurance.

I do suspect that once again, the taxpaper foots the bill.

Only if the kid is on medicade.

Scroll down to the heading "Compulsory Vaccination Negates the Spirit of Informed Consent."

Makes sense to me. Yes "Christian Scientists" who refuse to allow their children to get medical treatment of illnesses can sometimes be a controversial child welfare issue. No, I also don't agree to a pick and choose "religious exemption." Either your religion prohibits modern medical treatment or it doesn't.

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls