[Naderfan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020201001.html

The Governor of Texas has signed an executive order requiring all girls to receive the HPV vaccine when they're in 6th grade. While some parents are opposing this on religious reasons (could be seen as condoning premarital sex somehow) I'd be upset due to the fact that this is still a fairly new vaccine. Plus, as the article mentions, the gov. has a lot of ties to Merck, the company selling the drug.

Does anyone else find this a bit shady? Or is this a good plan? I know that, so far, no side effects have been associated with this drug, but is it still a good idea to require kids to get it? In the article, the gov. says that this is no different than requiring kids to get the polio vaccine. Is that really an appropriate analogy?

[PKIDelirium]

[Foj]

It does seem a bit shady. I wouldn't mind it being offered to people who want to get it voluntarily, but not required.

[Dorian Gray]

Of course it's shady! Did you know that the US market, about 5% of world population, is responsible for half of the profits made by the entire world's pharmaceutical corporations? The endless lobbying and lax regulatory environment is responsible for that. As a result the US population is bled dry by these monstrous leeches.

I simply do not know how anyone could work for one of these companies and sleep at night. [Shudder.]

[bassplayinMacFiend]

I would want more case studies before making this a mandatory vaccine to receive. Once there's more corroboration of its effectiveness without endangering the recipients, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be given to every girl, just like other vaccines. I just worry because of its newness and the fact it's been shown the FDA will allow drugs on the market without sufficient studies (i.e. Vioxx, Celebrex, etc.).

[zippy]

Isn't "unobtrusive government" one of the Republican party platforms? I suppose Hypocrisy Above All Else trumps the other platform agendas.

Texas needs to find some new stock for it's politicians.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by zippy Texas needs to find some new livestock for it's politicians.

T, TFTY.

/hypocrisy.

[Schnauzer]

uhh wtf, thats way too much government inference

[turtle]

Originally Posted by Schnauzer uhh wtf, thats way too much government inference

States requiring vaccinations is nothing new. At least in public schools that is.

I'm not yet for or against this policy, though it does sound fishy based on the Gov's ties into the drug industry. I need to know more facts before I'll jump the gun.

[Naderfan]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 States requiring vaccinations is nothing new. At least in public schools that is. I'm not yet for or against this policy, though it does sound fishy based on the Gov's ties into the drug industry. I need to know more facts before I'll jump the gun.

my big fear is just how new this vaccine is, along with the gov.'s ties. The drug industry hasn't exactly been batting a thousand when it comes to safe drugs. I fear that years from now, we'll have a massive number of young girls who were given this drug suffering from some yet unknown side-effect. I know it's a risk with any drug, but I'd rather people take that risk voluntarily rather than being forced.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by Naderfan my big fear is just how new this vaccine is, along with the gov.'s ties. The drug industry hasn't exactly been batting a thousand when it comes to safe drugs. I fear that years from now, we'll have a massive number of young girls who were given this drug suffering from some yet unknown side-effect. I know it's a risk with any drug, but I'd rather people take that risk voluntarily rather than being forced.

Yeah, more time for a vaccine to be tested seems logical. But I know nothing about this one so I don't even know how long it's been in tested, etc. I'm one of the military members who was forced to take the Anthrax vaccination and there have been no side effects to me yet. I must admit, I pray there never are either. I'm only one shy from completing the series too and they wouldn't give me the final booster because the stink raised be service members and families.

[Moogs]

Shady: Exxon reporting the greatest corporate profit in American history, while we've been gouged at the pump, during a time when gas prices are disproportionate to the price of a barrel of oil.

At least what this guy is proposing has clear health benefits. I'm sure it does benefit his cronies too; that's how all these jack-offs operate. They are their own lobbyist. Or most of them anyway. That's why I was so glad to see a bunch of ordinary citizens / veterans win election as state reps this past November. Get the corporate assholes out of office.

Another reason to like Obama too: he could've easily gone the corporate route with his education, before going into politics. Instead he became a university professor, worked for neighborhood projects in Chicago... he's more one of us than one of them, even if he does have a pretty fancy education (nothing wrong with that).

[hiltond]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray I simply do not know how anyone could work for one of these companies and sleep at night. [Shudder.]

Just fine.

I don't like to take drugs myself and I don't like being required to, having family members being required to or any other such nonsense. However if I was really ill I'd worship at the Merck alter once more. The drug company isn't the bad guy here, it is, I am assuming the Texas legislature.

[digitalprimate]

I agree with turtle here.
Generally, compulsive vaccination can be good to reach the people that most need it. But then they should make it free, imo.

[intlplby]

25% of women have HPV by the time they are 40.....

in women HPV can lead to cervical cancer.....

there are many types of HPV, some cause genital warts and some don't

generally vaccines are produced in university or in publicly funded research.... many drug companies have the goal of treatment instead of curing.... treatment ensures years of revenue.... curing ends the revenue stream

[Bryson]

Indeed, intlplby - what is happening here is not about preventing warts - it's cervical cancer they're trying to prevent. Which seems like a worthwhile cause, no? Conspiracy theories are fun, and I'm sure that there may be an element of personal gain attached to this, but it does have a very big upside in terms of public health.

Originally Posted by turtle2472 I'm only one shy from completing the series too and they wouldn't give me the final booster because the stink raised be service members and families.

Now That's ridiculous. So you get 90% of the risk and don't get the lasting protection? That's insane.

[Naderfan]

Originally Posted by hiltond Just fine. I don't like to take drugs myself and I don't like being required to, having family members being required to or any other such nonsense. However if I was really ill I'd worship at the Merck alter once more. The drug company isn't the bad guy here, it is, I am assuming the Texas legislature.

Actually, the legislature has no power over this. It was executive order by the gov. Only the governor can revoke it. I may have felt a little better had the legislature voted on it. At least then it would have been debated and the people might have been able to voice their opinion. But this way, it's just the guy with all these ties to the drug company deciding on his own to do it. That's a big decision for just one person to make.

[Moogs]

No conspiracy necessary Bryson. What this guy is proposing can be both beneficial to public health and his friends' wallets at the same time. All perfectly legal in Texas; we're just saying it's probably not all altruism behind the move.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by Bryson I... Now That's ridiculous. So you get 90% of the risk and don't get the lasting protection? That's insane.

Yeah, I really did ask that they finish with my last booster too, but I guess I'll have to lick a cow if I want it now.

After a little more thought and from my small understanding of HPV, I'm not opposed to this order. Most states will cover the cost of immunizations, though most people run it through their insurance companies anyway. If the state doesn't outright cover the cost, then it's given for a small fee at the health department offices. I think that last time I had my oldest daughter immunized there it was only $10. Now I go through my family Doc and it's more like $75 to my insurance and $25 for my co-pay. I trust my Doc though.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Of course it's shady! Did you know that the US market, about 5% of world population, is responsible for half of the profits made by the entire world's pharmaceutical corporations? The endless lobbying and lax regulatory environment is responsible for that. As a result the US population is bled dry by these monstrous leeches. I simply do not know how anyone could work for one of these companies and sleep at night. [Shudder.]

I agree with you completely, Dorian. I DESPISE the American pharmaceutical companies, and I am *continually* reminded of my loathing by the INCESSANT drug ads on television.

What enrages me the most is that I feel certain that research into the *cure* of diseases receives only paltry funding in comparison with research into drugs to treat the symptoms of disease.

Why?

Because it is in the best financial interest of pharmaceutical companies NOT to see diseases eliminated, since they are making money hand over fist by the *continuation* of disease and chronic ailments. The more people suffer, the more money the drug companies make.

Greedy bastards!

[intlplby]

what if it was Polio? then would you support it? Meningitis? then would you support it? Tuberculosis?

this is a public health issue.... it is contagious and therefore affects all people?

[Dorian Gray]

It's not just the US pharmas of course, Windswept (and I didn't mean to imply that although my wording was confusing). Most of the big pharmas, e.g. Roche (Swiss), GlaxoSmithKline (British), etc., make their biggest profits in the US market. This is one of the reasons why the US spends vastly more per capita and as a proportion of GDP (17% if memory serves) on healthcare than any other country in the world, despite having results at best equal to other countries spending half that. I think the Swiss are the second biggest spenders on healthcare (12% of GDP perhaps?), but they do seem to get something better in return (e.g. infant mortality rate of 4 deaths per 1000 live births versus 6 deaths per 1000 live births in the US, longer life expectancy, etc.). The Swiss healthcare system is similar to the US in that it's essentially market-based, and consumers therefore spend a disproportionate amount of time and effort researching the multitude of insurance providers, trying to avoid being ripped off, and generally worrying about their healthcare in a way that is alien to people who live in countries with nationalised healthcare systems.

Despite appearances, I do have a respect for markets: it would be stupid not to. But markets have their limits, and one would think that by 2007 this would be common knowledge. I dislike dogma.

As evidence of my appreciation of the worth of markets, you could read my reply to this post. (And the others; the young ladies and gents that hang out on the Neocrats are very smart and literate. Saleem, a self-described writer-in-denial, is quite brilliant at times.)

[Naderfan]

Originally Posted by intlplby what if it was Polio? then would you support it? Meningitis? then would you support it? Tuberculosis? this is a public health issue.... it is contagious and therefore affects all people?

Even all the other vaccines that are out there aren't mandatory. They are HIGHLY recommended and most schools won't accept your kids without certain vaccines, but there is no mandatory rule that you have to have your child vaccinated. That's the big difference. I would highly support this plan, to pay for children's vaccines so parents don't have to worry about it, if it wasn't required for all these girls to get it.

And as far as HPV goes, it's a sexually transmitted disease, which makes it a bit different from things like polio and meningitis which are spread much much more easily. Yes, it's important to help protect girls. But individuals should have the right to choose for themselves if they trust this vaccine.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray As evidence of my appreciation of the worth of markets, you could read my reply to this post. (And the others; the young ladies and gents that hang out on the Neocrats are very smart and literate. Saleem, a self-described writer-in-denial, is quite brilliant at times.)

God dammit, Dorian, you've got to stop *doing* that. I... I agree with you. (God, I feel so dirty.)



The point about capitalism being an amazing mechanism that not only counters, but fundamentally *relies* on our baser instincts to make something positive is precisely why I trust it as a successful approach much more than a controlled market, or worse, one that relies on everyone playing fair. It's harder to rig a game that assumes everyone is cheating.

Dead on with the crosshairs on the fictional personhood of the corporation. It's grown into a legal fiction that has surpassed its intent, or need, and frankly, exhibits almost textbook psychopathic personality traits. If they were real people, we'd have them committed.

[intlplby]

even you've never seen The Corporation, i highly recommend it....

the concept of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders basically legally obligates people in positions of power in corporations to do what will make the most money regardless of the ethical value of the decision required

[InactionMan]

I think it's great that the Governor is requiring this. Health Canada (or the Government of Ontario) is pushing this vaccine hard right now. They're aren't requiring it but I'd support it if they were even if were just to force the hand of nutbar parents that would rather have their child die of cancer then entertain the thought of their child having pre-martial sex.

[intlplby]

HPV is for all intents and purposes pretty harmless for guys....

for guys it's more complicated, but as long as they get regular check-ups it's not that bad....

other STDs are worse because they are painful and prone to infection

[Banana]

Dorian/Kickaha, while I am for capitalism generally I do wonder about whether it's the best approach for healthcare (and other areas, say, education), since there is an assumption that you cannot put a price on anybody's life, and everyone ideally has equal right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness which implicitly stipulates that they are entitled to highest quality care available.

The whole market approach fundamentally require that you put a price on life (what else how will they organize the coverage plan?), which is odd with that ideal. I would be more inclined to think that healthcare should be an entitlement rather than a benefit and remove any consideration of costs associated, but am kind of stuck with how to best motivate medical research, which if I'm not mistaken, is more successful in such system.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Banana Dorian/Kickaha, while I am for capitalism generally I do wonder about whether it's the best approach for healthcare (and other areas, say, education), since there is an assumption that you cannot put a price on anybody's life, and everyone ideally has equal right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness which implicitly stipulates that they are entitled to highest quality care available.

Er... exactly how do you make that leap?? In that case, why aren't we all entitled to the highest level of living accommodations? Dammit, I want my mansion!

I don't want to turn this into another sidebattle, but I've never understood how the *PURSUIT* of happiness automatically translates into *ENTITLEMENT* of happiness. You get the opportunity to go after it, with no guarantee you'll get it. That's all. Crap happens, we deal with it, we move on. Despite what the document says, all people are *not* created equal when it comes biology - some have advantages, some have disadvantages, and we all make the best with what we're handed. Obviously, from the viewpoint of the law, everyone should be considered to have been created equally - the context in which that was written was to denounce 'rule by God', where the nobility was assumed to have been granted that position by God, and was therefore inviolate from reproach from the 'lower classes'. Literally, there chosen, and non-chosen classes. The founding documents of this country threw that out the window, instead, removing artificial government-imposed barriers to advancement through one's own skills. Everyone has the right to *try* and gain what they want in life, but no one has the right to automatically be *granted* it. Trying to ensure that everyone *ends up* in the same state of X, be it happiness, wealth, or health, is a losing battle IMO. Instead, we should be doing what we can to create opportunities for people to grasp, or not, as they choose.

Now, to bring this back on topic, I've long thought that pharma companies would be best serving us all if they were not-for-profits. Unfortunately, it was precisely the for-profit model that led to the initial massive influx of investor funding that created the massive research facilities we have now. So, what was initially an incredibly good move has turned into a short-sighted, again, psychopathic culture of corporate management. How to fix it? I have no idea. You can't liquidate the assets to buy back the shares without destroying the very infrastructure that creates what we want in the end. Having the government take over is, I believe, the worst possible outcome - they can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. (When are SEC rules going to apply to the largest corporation we have, eh? Yup, none of the rules intended to create best management practices, transparency to shareholders, etc, are followed by the GAO or other accounting bodies of the US Govt.)

Unfortunately, what we have now in the healthcare industry isn't a free market any longer, but a pseudo-controlled market, and it's horribly broken. It's not just the pharma companies, it's the entire healthcare system, including the hospitals, insurance companies, HMOs, and legislation that put the burden of healthcare provisions on the employers. It all combined to cause a spiral where the basic relationship of a capitalistic market is gone. The buyer (patient) and seller (healthcare provider) are separated by many levels and layers of middlemen, each of whom is grabbing their cut, and jacking up the prices as a whole. The fact that these layers are required by law just makes it worse.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana ...everyone ideally has equal right to life, liberty and pursuit of property...

T, FTFY.