birdog1960 Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 this case My link illustrates a basic cause of the high cost of health care in the US. americans seem unwilling to accept that there are inherent risks in any health related endeavor and continue to insist that someone must pay when things go wrong. most refuse to accept that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few which is clearly the case in the area of immunizations. until this is accepted and made policy, we will continue to see skyrocketing healthcare costs. hopefully scotus will rule for wyeth but unfortunately that won't effectively change the mindset of the populace. comments?
Gene Frenkle Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 this case My link illustrates a basic cause of the high cost of health care in the US. americans seem unwilling to accept that there are inherent risks in any health related endeavor and continue to insist that someone must pay when things go wrong. most refuse to accept that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few which is clearly the case in the area of immunizations. until this is accepted and made policy, we will continue to see skyrocketing healthcare costs. hopefully scotus will rule for wyeth but unfortunately that won't effectively change the mindset of the populace. comments? If any of these claimants can actually prove that there is some link between their child's medical problems and the vaccine, then let them sue. The drug companies make basically no profit from producing vaccines and do not have huge profits as a motive for providing unsafe vaccines. As the article says, several large verdicts against Big Pharma might lead to the drug companies to decide that making vaccines is not worth the risk, which would be a national disaster. As it is, the vaccine schedule and the usual timing of the onset of Autism and some of these other diseases leads many parents to forget that correlation does not always equal causation. Every credible study done on this subject leads to the same conclusion: there is no link between Autism and vaccines. That's certainly a tough sell to parents who are dealing with these horrible diseases, but reality isn't always what you want to believe.
GG Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 If any of these claimants can actually prove that there is some link between their child's medical problems and the vaccine, then let them sue. The drug companies make basically no profit from producing vaccines and do not have huge profits as a motive for providing unsafe vaccines. As the article says, several large verdicts against Big Pharma might lead to the drug companies to decide that making vaccines is not worth the risk, which would be a national disaster. As it is, the vaccine schedule and the usual timing of the onset of Autism and some of these other diseases leads many parents to forget that correlation does not always equal causation. Every credible study done on this subject leads to the same conclusion: there is no link between Autism and vaccines. That's certainly a tough sell to parents who are dealing with these horrible diseases, but reality isn't always what you want to believe. Yikes, we're in agreement? The thimerosal issue is a prime evidence of junk science gone legally batty. How many times have you seen a medical publication issue a massive mea culpa on the shoddy initial study, yet the ambulance chasers are ramming at full speed? All it does is hurt the kids who won't be vaccinated because of the scare and bring back extinct diseases.
TheMadCap Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 this case My link illustrates a basic cause of the high cost of health care in the US. americans seem unwilling to accept that there are inherent risks in any health related endeavor and continue to insist that someone must pay when things go wrong. most refuse to accept that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few which is clearly the case in the area of immunizations. until this is accepted and made policy, we will continue to see skyrocketing healthcare costs. hopefully scotus will rule for wyeth but unfortunately that won't effectively change the mindset of the populace. comments? Drug companies do not make huge profits off of vaccines like they do from meds for your Johnson. However, I would tend to agree that many people think everything should be free and without risk. This is why I have no problem with my current Co-insurance, which covers me for serious injury and everything else ~80%...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 If any of these claimants can actually prove that there is some link between their child's medical problems and the vaccine, then let them sue. The drug companies make basically no profit from producing vaccines and do not have huge profits as a motive for providing unsafe vaccines. As the article says, several large verdicts against Big Pharma might lead to the drug companies to decide that making vaccines is not worth the risk, which would be a national disaster. As it is, the vaccine schedule and the usual timing of the onset of Autism and some of these other diseases leads many parents to forget that correlation does not always equal causation. Every credible study done on this subject leads to the same conclusion: there is no link between Autism and vaccines. That's certainly a tough sell to parents who are dealing with these horrible diseases, but reality isn't always what you want to believe. Round 2 on the yikes thing. I couldn't have said it any better.
birdog1960 Posted October 13, 2010 Author Posted October 13, 2010 If any of these claimants can actually prove that there is some link between their child's medical problems and the vaccine, then let them sue. The drug companies make basically no profit from producing vaccines and do not have huge profits as a motive for providing unsafe vaccines. As the article says, several large verdicts against Big Pharma might lead to the drug companies to decide that making vaccines is not worth the risk, which would be a national disaster. As it is, the vaccine schedule and the usual timing of the onset of Autism and some of these other diseases leads many parents to forget that correlation does not always equal causation. Every credible study done on this subject leads to the same conclusion: there is no link between Autism and vaccines. That's certainly a tough sell to parents who are dealing with these horrible diseases, but reality isn't always what you want to believe. agreed but i still feel this is a bigger issue. even if a link was found, i would still argue that the vaccinations were given on the best available evidence and that public health officials calculated the risk benefit analysis and recommended proceeding with mass immunization. despite due diligence and careful consideration of available data, there will always be some bad outcomes. unless there's been negligence or suppression of bad data on the part of the agency or manufacturer i don't see why either should be culpable. a similar argument can be made throughout health care and in many other fields. bad outcomes are not necessarily someones fault.
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Of course, I agree with all of the above...but that's not what the Supremes have to rule on. The specifics of the case they're hearing are: should people have the right to sue vaccine makers for negligence (real or presumed)? Reasonably, I think the court should rule that people should - that the federal government basically has no business shielding vaccine makers from civil damages. And then I think such ridiculous lawsuits should be thrown out of civil court.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Of course, I agree with all of the above...but that's not what the Supremes have to rule on. The specifics of the case they're hearing are: should people have the right to sue vaccine makers for negligence (real or presumed)? Reasonably, I think the court should rule that people should - that the federal government basically has no business shielding vaccine makers from civil damages. And then I think such ridiculous lawsuits should be thrown out of civil court. Take that, and add: the people who file these ridiculous lawsuits should have to pay for the cost of them in full, and we agree. Cripes there's too much agreement in this thread. We need conner/peace/..lybob/Dave Norfalk to come in here and say something dopey as per normal.
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Take that, and add: the people who file these ridiculous lawsuits should have to pay for the cost of them in full, and we agree. Supremes can't make that ruling, though...that's not even remotely part of the case in front of them. Probably also a pipe dream - the responsibility for that reform would devolve to the states, which would simply mean that a lot of class-action "venue-shopped" cases would be filed in the states that didn't make that reform. And I doubt many states would institute any such reform anyway - it's "heroic" to be a victim in the US, no politician in their right mind would disparage heroes like that. Nice pipe dream...but still a pipe dream. Cripes there's too much agreement in this thread. We need conner/peace/..lybob/Dave Norfalk to come in here and say something dopey as per normal. If it helps, I can call you all idiots. Hell, I'm sure birddog deserves it anyway - he must have posted something stupid somewhere else today.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Supremes can't make that ruling, though...that's not even remotely part of the case in front of them. Probably also a pipe dream - the responsibility for that reform would devolve to the states, which would simply mean that a lot of class-action "venue-shopped" cases would be filed in the states that didn't make that reform. And I doubt many states would institute any such reform anyway - it's "heroic" to be a victim in the US, no politician in their right mind would disparage heroes like that. Nice pipe dream...but still a pipe dream. Crap. But, questions: 1. Is there some way to tally up the cost as we go? And, can't we stick them with the original state costs? 2. Can we make them pay into Federal Reserve type thing, that uses the money for public defenders, thus allowing for "victimhood" transference? If it helps, I can call you all idiots. Hell, I'm sure birddog deserves it anyway - he must have posted something stupid somewhere else today. Nice, I knew I could count on you for the lulz.
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Crap. But, questions: 1. Is there some way to tally up the cost as we go? And, can't we stick them with the original state costs? 2. Can we make them pay into Federal Reserve type thing, that uses the money for public defenders, thus allowing for "victimhood" transference? In the interests of making our Daily PPP Venomous Disagreement Quota, and in the absence of conner here, I'm simply going to answer these with... Of course not. What the !@#$ is wrong with you? ...and give no explanation as to why I disagree. You're welcome.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 this case My link illustrates a basic cause of the high cost of health care in the US. americans seem unwilling to accept that there are inherent risks in any health related endeavor and continue to insist that someone must pay when things go wrong. most refuse to accept that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few which is clearly the case in the area of immunizations. until this is accepted and made policy, we will continue to see skyrocketing healthcare costs. hopefully scotus will rule for wyeth but unfortunately that won't effectively change the mindset of the populace. comments? Okay. If nobody pays, isn't the injured party a burden to society? Some kind of money/settlement must be reached... As a society, we can't let them dangle on the vine. Should they be pushing for 100% vaccine rate when 75% will effectively innoculate the herd?
Gary M Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Okay. If nobody pays, isn't the injured party a burden to society? Some kind of money/settlement must be reached... As a society, we can't let them dangle on the vine. Should they be pushing for 100% vaccine rate when 75% will effectively innoculate the herd? Depends on who loses money by leaving out the 25%
birdog1960 Posted October 13, 2010 Author Posted October 13, 2010 Okay. If nobody pays, isn't the injured party a burden to society? Some kind of money/settlement must be reached... As a society, we can't let them dangle on the vine. Should they be pushing for 100% vaccine rate when 75% will effectively innoculate the herd? no. there are plenty of folks with ailments as or more debilitating than seizures or autism who don't receive damages for their fate. if they qualify for disability they get the same benefits as anyone else. where do you get the 75% number? firstly, the number is dependent on the effectiveness of the vaccine (not all immunizations result in adequate antibody production and therefore immunity). the current guidelines call for 90% vaccination rate goal but no one would argue that 100% would yield a yet lower incidence of vaccine preventable diseases in the "herd".
OCinBuffalo Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Okay. If nobody pays, isn't the injured party a burden to society? Some kind of money/settlement must be reached... As a society, we can't let them dangle on the vine. Should they be pushing for 100% vaccine rate when 75% will effectively innoculate the herd? no. there are plenty of folks with ailments as or more debilitating than seizures or autism who don't receive damages for their fate. if they qualify for disability they get the same benefits as anyone else. where do you get the 75% number? firstly, the number is dependent on the effectiveness of the vaccine (not all immunizations result in adequate antibody production and therefore immunity). the current guidelines call for 90% vaccination rate goal but no one would argue that 100% would yield a yet lower incidence of vaccine preventable diseases in the "herd". Guess I should have included EEI(how did I forget? ) in my list of "somebody will come here and say something dopey" posters.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Guess I should have included EEI(how did I forget? ) in my list of "somebody will come here and say something dopey" posters. You are welcome! Both sides seem unreasonable. Is it 90%? I thought the general herd immunity was lower.
Gene Frenkle Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 You are welcome! Both sides seem unreasonable. Is it 90%? I thought the general herd immunity was lower. It depends on the disease I think.
Nanker Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 If any of these claimants can actually prove that there is some link between their child's medical problems and the vaccine, then let them sue. The drug companies make basically no profit from producing vaccines and do not have huge profits as a motive for providing unsafe vaccines. As the article says, several large verdicts against Big Pharma might lead to the drug companies to decide that making vaccines is not worth the risk, which would be a national disaster. As it is, the vaccine schedule and the usual timing of the onset of Autism and some of these other diseases leads many parents to forget that correlation does not always equal causation. Every credible study done on this subject leads to the same conclusion: there is no link between Autism and vaccines. That's certainly a tough sell to parents who are dealing with these horrible diseases, but reality isn't always what you want to believe. There's probably more correlation of multiple sonograms during gestation than there is to vaccinations vis-à-vis cases of autism.
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2010 Posted October 13, 2010 Okay. If nobody pays, isn't the injured party a burden to society? Some kind of money/settlement must be reached... As a society, we can't let them dangle on the vine. That presumes ALL injury involves fault that must be settled monetarily. Typical immature American attitude. Should they be pushing for 100% vaccine rate when 75% will effectively innoculate the herd? Closer to 95%, as I recall. 75% not only doesn't effectively innoculate the herd, it doesn't even effectively innoculate the innoculated.
Recommended Posts