Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

In some cases people do need to be told what to do. Vaccination is a clear example, if over 10% of the population are left unimmunised then the population isn't covered endangering everyone. I have no problem with vaccinations being made compulsory, and if state power is used to enforce that, so much the better. Respect for individual rights should not extend to allowing people to endanger the lives of others for their beliefs.

---

I don't know where you live but immunization is not required by law in the US. It is only required for a child to attend school. It isn't easy but there is a way for a parent to opt out their children. Of course I consider it foolish not to vaccinate your child

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Based on that belief, some immunizations probably shouldn't take place. Should a parent be forced to imminize a child, with a chance that such immunization might cause health problems or death, to prevent them getting an illness they might never be exposed to?

---

The risk of an immunisation causing health problems is always less than the risk of the same being caused by the disease itself, otherwise immunisation isn't carried out. The public perception though is different, especially after several generations of immunisations when the public forget how nasty the diseases were in the first place.

Your question should read - should a parent have the right to not immunise a child and therefore risk the health of other children who have been immunised by their parents by lowering herd immunity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

The risk of an immunisation causing health problems is always less than the risk of the same being caused by the disease itself, otherwise immunisation isn't carried out. The public perception though is different, especially after several generations of immunisations when the public forget how nasty the diseases were in the first place.

Your question should read - should a parent have the right to not immunise a child and therefore risk the health of other children who have been immunised by their parents by lowering herd immunity?

---

There are quite a few people these days who chose not to immunize for certain things as such immunizations have been proven to cause higher percentages of medical problems, and treatment for the actual disease is simple.

The herd immunity issue is really out the window if you consider that the immunizations work. Only those not immunized would be affected, so those chosing not to do so would not endanger anyone but themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

There are quite a few people these days who chose not to immunize for certain things as such immunizations have been proven to cause higher percentages of medical problems, and treatment for the actual disease is simple.

The herd immunity issue is really out the window if you consider that the immunizations work. Only those not immunized would be affected, so those chosing not to do so would not endanger anyone but themselves.

---

Do you mind presenting the evidence that immunisations cause higher percentages of medical problems? Are you talking about MMR? If so you'll find the evidence against immunisation is so weak its funny, while the medical complications of the disease protected against are far more severe than the problems caused by the vaccine.

Immunisations aren't 100% effective. Only 90% of those immunised will end up immune against whatever disease they're immunised against. By happy coincidence, viral disease can't take a grip on a population unless well over 10% are susceptible. Therefore if 100% are immunised and 90% end up
actually immune then the population as a whole is protected even if all individuals are not. That is what is meant by herd immunity.

If the immunisation take up rate drops below about 95 % then only about 88% or so of the population are actually immune to the disease and this lets the disease spread again. Therefore only a small proportion of people have to refuse immunisations in order to allow the disease to take hold again. And because the vaccine is only 90% effective 1 in 10 of those who were immunised will still get the disease.

In the UK the MMR take up rate dropped in some places by 10 % to 90% or so. That was enough to allow measles and mumps to reappear again, and we've had the first measles death for decades in London last year in someone who was immunised. I'm sure we'll see a good few kids crippled with serious neurological damage too (another measles complication) or made sterile (mumps).

Thats why your assertion that people who aren't immunised are only endangering themselves is false, they endanger everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Do you mind presenting the evidence that immunisations cause higher percentages of medical problems? Are you talking about MMR? If so you'll find the evidence against immunisation is so weak its funny, while the medical complications of the disease protected against are far more severe than the problems caused by the vaccine.

---

Indeed, and there are certain parts of the media who should be facing serious sanctions for their scaremongering over MMR, which flew in the face of the overwhelming evidence from hundreds of seperate studies the world over. It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when one rogue doctor with a vested interest can have his flawed report disseminated so widely that it puts lives at risk. :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

Indeed, and there are certain parts of the media who should be facing serious sanctions for their scaremongering over MMR, which flew in the face of the overwhelming evidence from hundreds of seperate studies the world over. It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when one rogue doctor with a vested interest can have his flawed report disseminated so widely that it puts lives at risk. :s

---

Precisely — yet despite this, large sections of the public still think that there 'must be something wrong with it'. As you say, this is complete and utter rubbish. It's not helped by the fact that, in situations such as the fears about MMR, most politicians are now so afraid to be seen to be arrogant or out-of-touch that they don't tell the public 'Stop being so stupid', which is what they should have done all along.

So we've had a good little while to think about this, lots of speaches, press conferences and the like.

Anyone got any idea how we pay for all this yet?

Chuck34, I dont want to appear mean but you've asked the question as to how the US will pay for nationalised healthcare a million times on this thread. Well OK that was a slight exaggeration but maybe no one is answering you repeated question because firstly they just dont care or secondly because even though the US government probably cant afford it, it doesn't mean they wont just go ahead and do it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GridGirl

Chuck34, I dont want to appear mean but you've asked the question as to how the US will pay for nationalised healthcare a million times on this thread. Well OK that was a slight exaggeration but maybe no one is answering you repeated question because firstly they just dont care or secondly because even though the US government probably cant afford it, it doesn't mean they wont just go ahead and do it anyway.

---

So no one cares about adding a trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) to our National Debt? Don't you think that is something that should be considered in this debate? Is it not a valid question?

And do you think that just because the Congress will "just go ahead and do it anyway" makes it ok? That we shouldn't ask these questions?

Why give them a free pass on this question?

I'm not from the US and it wont affect me so I really couldnt care whether the US adds to their debt or not. I'd be willing to debate the actually system and how it will work but the cost I really couldn't care about personally.

Your asking these questions repeatedly and no one including your fellow Americans are answering them. Maybe right now no one actually has the answer.