What the heck is happening here in TX

[Matthew Carberry]

Haha yeah you're right. That's what I get for posting like five minutes after I wake up.

Yeah, that's my excuse.

No worries.  Though I was taking the "uppity whippersnapper" tack myself. 

[ilbob]

What really puzzles this Texan is that everyone seems to believe that Perry's "executive order" can be enforced. I mean, we have bicameral legislature in Texas - bills have to be passed by both the House and Senate before being passed on to the Governor - they become law AFTER he signs them.

Since when do governors MAKE law? If he says "FROG" is everyone supposed to jump?

If I had a young daughter, it's my wife and I that would decide on the immunization - the rants of a lone  politician, well, we'd ignore them.

As for selling off the lottery . . . last year, it put well over a billion dollars into state coffers. (Not that it was spent wisely . . . ) But selling it to private interests for a $14,000,000,000 ONE TIME windfall makes no sense.

Need I say that most of the money would be wasted in short order? Giving politicians large amounts of money is like giving car keys and beer to teenage boys - nothing good will come of it.

Based solely on the numbers, the state is getting about a 7% return on the value of the lottery. I'd say $14 billion is a pretty fair deal, based solely on the raw numbers. But, giving them a huge chunk of money only means they will spend it.

If they were to take the $14 billion and invest it, they probably could net $1 billion a year off the principle, and not have to screw around with running a lottery anymore. Maybe a permanent fund like Alaska has???

[HankB]

If they were to take the $14 billion and invest it, they probably could net $1 billion a year off the principle, and not have to screw around with running a lottery anymore.

You really expect a politician to behave rationally with OPM?*

How long do you think it would be until the money would be spent, most likely on something ". . . for the children . . . " which is the usual excuse for spending? Fourteen billion would burn a hole in their pockets for sure.

(Remember, this is the state where spending outstripped population growth, outstripped inflation, and in fact greatly outstripped the PRODUCT of population and inflation. No fiscal responsibility in Texas.)


* - OPM: Other People's Money

[The Rabbi]

Yeah.  Reagan saw correctly that the only way to limit government was to limit its funding source.  There are always wonderful programs that will benefit millions of needy people out there just waiting to be enacted and funded.  Without some very strict controls the money would be gone in no time.

[tyme]

The Gardasil backlash is hilarious and infuriating.  There are people on other forums comparing it to vioxx, diethylstilbestrol, and a variety of other medical calamities.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere has compared Gardasil to TGN1412.  None of those comparisons are relevant.  Drugs like Vioxx and DES and TGN1412 have totally different risks than vaccines..  Vaccine risks stem from additives (or allergic reactions if the vaccine is made from animal plasma).  Live vaccines like smallpox have additional problems, but Gardasil is not a live vaccine.  People have been concerned about vaccine additives for many years.  The primary complaints are about thimerosal (preservative) and aluminum hydroxide (adjuvant).  Gardasil doesn't contain thimerosal, and if you really care about reducing aluminum exposure, don't drink soft drinks.  Stick foil in a pot of water and boil it for a few minutes and there'll be so much AlOH that you'll see some precipitated out as a white powder.  Studies conflict over whether AlOH has any connection to mental disorders, and I have trouble believing that with all the liquids we consume after they've been exposed to aluminum, a small amount in vaccines makes any difference.

In an ideal family, before teens have sex they can talk to their parents about the issues, including getting relevant vaccinations and birth control.  Unfortunately, not all kids have that kind of open dialog with their parents.  For some, the subject is merely uncomfortable.  Others would get locked in the basement for mentioning sex.  Most parents won't second-guess the state and opt out, even if they have minor objections of their own, and I think that's a good thing.  Humans are not good at rationally evaluating long-term or contingent risks.  Our emotions tend to get in the way.

There is undoubtedly financial motivation for Merck.  Merck gets some protection against lawsuits if the vaccine is required by the state, and Merck also has a limited amount of time before its patent expires.  It's in their best interest to get the vaccine required in as many states as possible.  However, Merck's ulterior motivations aren't relevant.  The two most frequent complaints about Merck's conduct are the content of the placebo injection (it had aluminum... who cares, see above) and the fact that so few girls under 16 were involved in the trials.  Gee, I wonder why... perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they're minors and it's difficult to get parental consent?

The Governor is talking about requiring the vaccine for kids entering grade school, K-6

What do you mean K-6?  The EO makes it a standard vaccination for 6th grade, not before.  That makes perfect sense to me, unless puberty has nothing to do with sex?  If it were up to me, I might make it 7th or 8th grade, but is a year or two really worth throwing a tantrum?  You can always opt-out and get your daughter the vaccine later, if you feel like it.  Meanwhile you can pray that your daughter is the little angel you think she is.

This isn't some diabolical plot by Merck or Perry to make money or corrupt youth.  People don't want to die, and people don't want STDs.  Merck is simply responding to that desire, and now they're being criticized by people who say that not enough people die of cervical cancer for a vaccine to be worthwhile, or that vaccines are unsafe, or that we don't know enough about the vaccine (No kidding?!  It's brand new!  what do they expect?!).  Why can't people stop frakking complaining?  If they think cervical cancer and HPV isn't a worthy enough cause, why don't they go cure a more deadly disease?  If they think vaccines are unsafe, why don't they campaign against annual flu shots?  I'm really sick of it all.

[Art Eatman]

Carebear, I just went back and read the first post.  It sez entering sixth grade.  In today's world, per the daily papers, that's not an untypical age for many girls to become sexually active, regardless of anybody's rules.  Like some school administrator lady said live on TV up in the far northeast when objecting to teaching abstinence, "...but that's the only recreation they have!"

I spent six hours on the operating table and eight days on IV from one of the "easier" major cancers.

It ain't fun.

Art

[roo_ster]

Why can't people stop frakking complaining?

tyme:

You make some good points...none of which address the objection that it is none of the gooberment's business to go around requiring vaccines that have little/no possibility of transmission at school. 

A similar objection can and has been made WRT requiring hepatitis vaccination.  The means of transmission are not those encountered at school*.




* The implementation of mandatory mass orgies on school ground during school time or sloppy massacres with machetes slinging to & fro might do the trick, however.

[Matthew Carberry]

I apologize for misreading the EO.  My point remains the same.

The only justifiable reason for a government-mandated prophylactic (preventative of disease) program for children is to prevent the spread of diseases that could occur by normal, school-related contact among schoolchildren who, by law, are mandated to attend school.

It is exceeding governmental authority to mandate that children receive a vaccination against a disease that is not a risk to them from sharing water fountains, chance physical contact, breathing common air or touching common doorknobs and other fixtures. 

If the people decide, through their elected representatives, to make such a vaccine available for voluntary acceptance, fine, but they, as the State, cannot morally or Constitutionally use the leverage of forcing parents to either go into the private school system or accede to involuntary vaccination for a disease that cannot be caught at school by students obeying school regulations.

[Winston Smith]

No worries.  Though I was taking the "uppity whippersnapper" tack myself.  grin

Yeah maybe a little.

Just a weence.

I'm finding myself agreeing with you at this juncture, carebear.

[Matthew Carberry]

My position is not being argued from medical utility, medical safety or moral grounds (religious or not). 

It's a straight individual rights position, the responsibility for getting kids elective vaccines belongs to the parent and then the child when they reach adulthood. 

The same justification that mandating a vaccine against HPV, which is pretty much only passed through sexual contact, could save lives and societal money through medical treatment can be used, without modification, to justify mandating that all post-pubescent girls in school have to receive birth control.  After all, that would reduce pregnancies and probably some abortions (saving lives) and would prevent the cost to society of supporting unwed teen mothers.

What else could we throw in there?  How about mandating kids in the public school system take the drugs that make you violently ill if you drink alcohol?  That's a savings in lives and treasure, if we can cut down on teen drinking early. 

Heck, we have the procedures and ability to conduct random urine tests for hundreds of people in a small amount of time, we could mandate kids submit to those as well, so we can identify kids that need treatment.  That's reasonable, drugs are illegal and they shouldn't be using them.  Doing so costs lives and public money and has a strong correspondence to other criminal acts.

Should we go on?  Or should we draw a line somewhere at mandating things, as a requirement for attending school (which is mandatory), that are not directly related to a safe education?

[Guest]

And still no one questions the whole idea of mandatory public schooling?  

[Matthew Carberry]

I was trying to keep it somewhat on topic. 

Undoing public schooling is unlikely, drawing a line on completely unreasonable mandatory vaccinations is possible.  And will serve to illustrate the larger issues of government mandating anything, thus potentially opening some minds to bigger changes.

[Guest]

I was trying to keep it somewhat on topic. 

Undoing public schooling is unlikely, drawing a line on completely unreasonable mandatory vaccinations is possible.  And will serve to illustrate the larger issues of government mandating anything, thus potentially opening some minds to bigger changes.

O.K., it's a deal; you fix one, I'll fix the other. 

[client32]

Carebare, thanks for your comments.  It is one of these things that get me aggravated for several reasons.  I think your comments are spot on and is the argument that needs to be made.  The first thought that crossed my mind was that our governor has decided that I don't know how to raise me kid.

My favorite comment came locally, "if we are going to force this vaccine then we should start giving our kids alcohol at 4 so they have a tolerance built up by the time they hit high school." It might be off point, but I found humor in it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Someone explain to me how forcing all schoolchildren to take Gardasil is fundamentally different from forcing all children to take birth control. 

Both are reasonable medical precautions that limit the potentially adverse effects of promiscuity.  (Right?  Gardasil keeps young girls who have sex from getting cancer.  Birth control keeps young girls who have sex from getting pregnant.  Neither condition is contagious or a health risk to other students.  Or do I misunderstand something?) 

How is the one any different from the other, except in the specific nature of the medical calamity they seek to prevent?  If you can justify forcing Gardasil on children, why can't you justify forcing them onto birth control, "for their own good"?

[roo_ster]

And still no one questions the whole idea of mandatory public schooling? 

Oh, I question it.  That doesn't mean I can't question outrages against the citizenry brought on by the existence of mandatory public schooling.

I can't fight all battles simultaneously.

[Perd Hapley]

And still no one questions the whole idea of mandatory public schooling?  

I question mandatory schooling, whether private, public or home. 

[tyme]

You [don't] address the objection that it is none of the gooberment's business to go around requiring vaccines that have little/no possibility of transmission at school.

A similar objection can and has been made WRT requiring hepatitis vaccination.  The means of transmission are not those encountered at school*.

HPV is largely asymptomatic.
Most people who are sexually active end up with one strain or another, and the vaccine addresses the most common strains.  They plan to add more strains in the future.

It's a probability game.  The spread of any common disease is roughly geometric.  There's a certain percentage of population vaccination beyond which the rate of disease will drop over time, because on average each person infects less than 1 other person.  That's the goal.  Voluntary vaccinations don't tend to reach that level.

Hepatitis isn't transmitted at school?  You have a high opinion of the sanitary habits of students and cafeteria workers.

And for heaven's sake, the vaccine is optional.  It's just opt-out optional rather than opt-in optional.  It's good public policy to give vaccines to children whose parents aren't paying attention, because those children are more likely to be or end up in high-risk groups for all sorts of diseases.

[Matthew Carberry]

And for heaven's sake, the vaccine is optional.  It's just opt-out optional rather than opt-in optional.  It's good public policy to give vaccines to children whose parents aren't paying attention, because those children are more likely to be or end up in high-risk groups for all sorts of diseases.

So?  I shouldn't have to pay for them to get a shot to prevent a disease that doesn't get transmitted in school by children who are obeying school rules.

If the problem is "poor folk", then say so and hit them with the needle during the WIC inspection.