Decius wrote:

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 likewise, I do not see how you can find coughing on someone and fucking someone equivalent. Yes, I understand they are both vectors for infection. One is casual contact, something that is bound to happen in a school when kids are near each other. The other is intimate contact, something that an individual makes a conscious decision to engage in. It generally does NOT happen AT school. While coughing on someone at school is not grounds for expulsion, fucking someone at school IS.

If a parent wants their child to have this vaccine, that should be their personal choice, not the State's. I'm sorry if you think I have an emotional hangup about sex. Believe me, I do not. Sometimes I get sick of living in the Bible belt because of prevailing attitudes about what's best for me based on their idea of morality. I say if you want to do something, and it doesn't hurt someone else, go for it.

At the same time, this forced vaccination of children for STD's is yet another assault by someone telling me what's best for me based on their idea of ethics. I can't think of many other ways to say it, or any other creative analogies. I guess what it boils down to is whether one believes personal responsibility should come into play here, or do people not know what is for their own good, thus the Nanny State has to step in and make those decisions for us?

The availability of waivers will vary from state to state. Texas did not have a reason of conscience affidavit until Sept. 2003. Before that, it required a religious affidavit. What about people who claim no religion? The point I'm trying to make is that to get out of these programs, you have to go through a lot of red tape. It gets crammed down your throat.

Public Health is a touchy subject without a lot of black and white. I know there are people that rail just as hard against forcing children to get MMR shots. My personal ideology there is that the risks of contracting those diseases is very high, and they are nasty disesases. To me, the risk of complications from an MMR shot is worth the benefit.

However, sex is something the individual has 100% control over. I have no control over going to a class and catching something from the air. I have complete control over going to a class and having sex with someone there. Thus, there is no public health concern as it relates to the context of a classroom. School is the context that all of this debate is being framed in. What you are expressing is that there is an STD epidemic in schools that adversely affects the learning experience of a majority of children. To believe otherwise is to say you want to pre-emptively stamp out STDs just because "It's the right thing to do," not because of any specific need as it pertains to the public school system.

I don't know how else to put it. If you still don't see my point of view about coughing and fucking not being equivalent, lets just say we respect each others opinions and move on.

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.

A big puzzle for the actuaries to unravel. One case may look a little something like this: Jane contracted HPV at the age of 15. She did not receive regular medical checkups. This strain of HPV did not clear up on its own. At the age of 21 as part of a routing pregnancy checkup, Jane discovers the early stages of cervical cancer. The strain she had was not one that was caught by the HPV vaccine, which she did not receive in school.

The pieces of the puzzle the actuary does not have are the original infection date. How would one know without getting the regular medical checkups or STD tests? It is a very big puzzle, I understand very clearly what you are saying.

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.

Automotive insurance and health insurance are completely different from each other. I don't think that is a good analogy. I carry health insurance for my health, and automotive insurance for damage to both my body and my car as it relates to driving.

What I meant by personal choice is that pregnancy is something a couple decides they want to embark on. Yes, I understand that pregnancies are sometimes unplanned, or caused by rape, etc. Without actually have statistics though, I think it's safe to say the majority of pregnancies are the result of people's personal choices. Therefore, why is it a federal law that insurance companies MUST insure these people? Insurance should be for unexpected illnesses, not planned life events.

No, I also don't agree to a pick and choose "religious exemption." Either your religion prohibits modern medical treatment or it doesn't.

What if one's religious beliefs are fine with MMR shots, but not for pre-emptively treating STD's? "Sexual hangups" can be construed as religious beliefs, can they not? And for those that do not presribe to any religion, that's why we need to make sure that people always have the option of getting a reason of conscience affidavit.

Most parents are just going to sign the approval forms without thinking about it anyway, because, "Oh wow, cancer prevention, what a great thing!" so you guys are going to get your STD vaccines, there's no reason to worry. I just want to make sure people have informed consent available to them, and have the ability to opt out if they maybe just might possibly see the difference between couging and fucking and say, "No thanks. This is not an epidemic like you say it is. I'll make the call, Nanny State."

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls