Hijexx wrote:
It's almost as if you didn't even read what I said about my ideology about airborne communicable diseases. I am referring SPECIFICALLY to this HPV vaccine.

I was refering to your specific comment about the "nanny state." I'm simply pointing out that general appeals to the concept of freedom from overbearing regulation that could be applied to any law in any context are not persuasive with regard to the difference between virus A and virus B.

If you have sex and you impregnate or are impregnated, you did not choose to have a child if you did not make a conscious decision to do so.

Makes sense to me. This is the difference between an accidental and intentional pregnancy.

Should we start mandating that kids take birth control so they are protected from unwanted pregnancy?

There is no way to enforce that, but we do have sex education.

Some people accept that sex can have consequences and accept the personal responsiblity for their choice. Contracting a sexually transmitted disease is one such risk.

Yes, thats correct, but its not persuasive as to the question of whether or not its OK for the government to treat an STD as public health problem. In my previous post I mentioned that you get to choose where you eat, just as you get to choose who you have sex with. If you're arguement is that your choice in who you have sex with should mean that the government has no business dealing with STDs as a public health problem, then by inferrence that fact that you get to choose where you eat means that the government has no business dealing with the cleanliness of restaurants in order to protect public health. I don't agree with either conclusion. Perhaps you agree with both?

What is your demarcation line between a disease that requires public health management and one that does not? You know where mine is.

Name a disease that can be managed through vaccination and impacts a significant percentage of the population that we do not manage as a public health problem. In my opinion the demarcation line is where we can.

Your point was addressed, not sidestepped. You brought up auto accidents, and I said that's what I have auto insurance for. I said that is a bad analogy. I will consider your statement now as tacit acknowledgement that you agree the analogy did not hold.

No, my point was sidestepped. You addressed my example instead of addressing my point. You said, "I should feel really warm and fuzzy about subsidizing the treatment for something that is an effect of A PERSONAL CHOICE." I was attempting to demonstrate that health insurance does cover the effects of personal choices. The example I provided was covered by car insurance, but thats irrelevent. There are many many many many other examples that are covered by health insurance. Instead of addressing the general point, you attacked the specific example.

I previously stated that "insurance should be for unexpected illnesses, not planned life events." Your further statements are just examples of exactly what I said about insurance being there for accidents.

No, I quoted your exact statement above, but if this is what you meant, then I can understand. I presume that you also think that health insurance should not cover menapause, aging effects, puberty, or any other predictable life events. Whatever, I don't agree. People use health insurance as a general way of paying for health expenses because it allows them to amortize expenses over time as well as among society.

Where I differ in opinion is that I don't think contracting an STD or becoming pregnant are accidents. "I don't know what happened, one minute we're sitting on the couch, the next thing I know we were naked and fucking!" That's a lot different than falling out of a tree or crashing on your bicycle.

So, in your mind, if I have sex with someone, and it turns out they had an STD, but neither of us knew it, thats not an accident, thats the inevitable result of my actions. But If I'm riding a bike and I fall, thats an accident, not the result of participating in am inherently dangerous activity. I don't understand. I think you have a hangup about sex. You wish for the responsibility that people bear for their actions if they have sex and something unwanted happens to exceed the responsibility they bear if they engage in other risky activities and something unwanted happens.

Why should I pay for schools?

Because you live in a society with other people, and if those people are stupid, your society becomes poor, and your life will suck as a result.

Why do you get angry about the idea that you're funding social insitutions that occaisonally help people?

The first time I heard about this, which was oh, two or three days ago when I read it on Drudge Report, my jaw dropped. I thought, what the hell is going on? This is an outrage!

Outrages are what partisan news sources are for, after all!

I'm sure Governor Perry is a fine upstanding man who would never let Merck, influence his decision making.

I've never counter argued this possibility. I'm discussing the general case of STD management and not the specific case. I don't have enough data on the economic and medical impacts of this to have a specific opinion, nor do I have time to research it. I simply do not see it as obviously wrong on it's face.

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls