ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:33 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: libertarianism != anarchy, dude.
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:38 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
arwing wrote:
krylex wrote:
arwing wrote:
this is an argument against somewhat-socialized healthcare and "big government" in general not an argument against this vaccine.

What if people were required to pay for their child's vaccine, tax deductible? This would bypass the HANDS OUT OF MY POKET TAXMAN factor, and have the public health benefits.


I understand I'm not arguing against a vaccine. I'm arguing against a mandatory, state-funded vaccine.

Yes, the religious nutters are the ones on the news about this getting shot down, but all of the people in the government aren't religious nutters. It is highly probable that the reason many people voted against the vaccine is for the same reasons I have stated.

I also believe (although I could be mistaken) that there was a bit of confusion on the accuracy of the vaccine. Something to the tune of it not being above 95% effective. I'll have to research more into it, but I'm in the middle of the ocean with less than dial up speeds at the moment.
You really think that the health of the general public is not a cause worthy of funding? You don't think the government should keep otherwise incurable diseases from rampaging though the population by means of a minor inconvenience?

I'm sorry if this imposes on your right not to be pricked in the arm sometime before entering certain grades.

Looking out for the welfare of the people is pretty much the reason any government exists.



Did some research on my slow ass internet -

Cost of the whole series of shots - $360.

The vaccine, gardasil, only prevents four kinds of HPV. There is still a 30% chance of getting a strand that can still cause cancer and a 10% chance of still acquiring genital warts.

It has not been proven effective in males.

It is also less than two years old and there is no data to indicate its longevity.

So here we have a vaccine that is only 70% effective towards its marketed goal (prevention of cancer). Seventy percent is good enough that I would still get it for my children.

Back on to the cost subject - $360 for a full treatment. According to <a href=http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/tables/SC-EST2006-02-48.xls>spreadsheet</a> from the census bureau, there are an estimated 855 thousand girls age 10-14. That's 308 million in costs. That's just for Texas and that's just for girls in the middle school age bracket.

Now the estimate for the whole country is 10 million girls age 10-14. That's a total cost nationwide of 3.6 billion just for this set.

I personally don't like the amount of taxes I pay now. Making a mandatory vaccine that the state must fund doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather educate about the vaccine and promote people to do it privately.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: LETS TALk NUMBARS.
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
krylex wrote:
arwing wrote:
krylex wrote:
arwing wrote:
this is an argument against somewhat-socialized healthcare and "big government" in general not an argument against this vaccine.

What if people were required to pay for their child's vaccine, tax deductible? This would bypass the HANDS OUT OF MY POKET TAXMAN factor, and have the public health benefits.


I understand I'm not arguing against a vaccine. I'm arguing against a mandatory, state-funded vaccine.

Yes, the religious nutters are the ones on the news about this getting shot down, but all of the people in the government aren't religious nutters. It is highly probable that the reason many people voted against the vaccine is for the same reasons I have stated.

I also believe (although I could be mistaken) that there was a bit of confusion on the accuracy of the vaccine. Something to the tune of it not being above 95% effective. I'll have to research more into it, but I'm in the middle of the ocean with less than dial up speeds at the moment.
You really think that the health of the general public is not a cause worthy of funding? You don't think the government should keep otherwise incurable diseases from rampaging though the population by means of a minor inconvenience?

I'm sorry if this imposes on your right not to be pricked in the arm sometime before entering certain grades.

Looking out for the welfare of the people is pretty much the reason any government exists.



Did some research on my slow ass internet -

Cost of the whole series of shots - $360.

The vaccine, gardasil, only prevents four kinds of HPV. There is still a 30% chance of getting a strand that can still cause cancer and a 10% chance of still acquiring genital warts.

It has not been proven effective in males.

It is also less than two years old and there is no data to indicate its longevity.

So here we have a vaccine that is only 70% effective towards its marketed goal (prevention of cancer). Seventy percent is good enough that I would still get it for my children.

Back on to the cost subject - $360 for a full treatment. According to <a href=http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/tables/SC-EST2006-02-48.xls>spreadsheet</a> from the census bureau, there are an estimated 855 thousand girls age 10-14. That's 308 million in costs. That's just for Texas and that's just for girls in the middle school age bracket.

Now the estimate for the whole country is 10 million girls age 10-14. That's a total cost nationwide of 3.6 billion just for this set.

I personally don't like the amount of taxes I pay now. Making a mandatory vaccine that the state must fund doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather educate about the vaccine and promote people to do it privately.
of course you'd only have to give the vaccine to all girls 10-14 once, then after that you'd have to pick the most appropriate aged girls to give the vaccine to so that'd cut that number by ROUGHLY 4 after the first year making it about $900,000 per year. Let's see... 3,700 American women die of cervical cancer each year and this vaccine would save roughly 2590 of them. Of course we will have to wait 47 or so years for the benefits to surface since the average age of death from cervical cancer is 57. The retirement age is 65 but is supposed to go up (to what I don't remember) so that would make 8 years until retirement adding, after approximately 2062, 20,720 more incomes per year.

So in order for the vaccine to pay for itself, after 55 years, each woman would have to pay an average yearly income tax of $43.47.

:V IT MIGHT BE CLOSE GUYS


Of course this does assume the cost of the vaccine will remain the same and that the average number of girls in the US stays the same, but does not account for the cost of treatment for genital warts and cervical cancer.

But for now the horrible extra $3 per American per year will totally ruin all of our lives.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:33 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
I understand the desire to get rid of a cancer causing virus, however it is premature to force me to pay for a vaccine that has no proof of longevity and has no competition (the nearest competitor only takes care of half of the strains that gadrasil does).

It is premature to force a new product that isn't completely tested onto the people.


Four dollars a person (assuming all persons over 18 in the US pay taxes) doesn't seem like much, but I don't like any of the taxes taken out of my check as it is, let alone adding more in for something that doesn't have a lot of evidence for longevity, or something that won't directly benefit me. If they find that it is effective in males, I'll go get it myself, but I'll be damned if I expect you to help pay for it.


I will concede for now, as I don't have much else to work with at the moment. Time will simply be the best judge.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group