The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**reds8n**

whembly wrote:

It's a massive, and worthwhile debate to have. RIght?

No, not really.

Least not for rational people or those who understand that there's a significant difference between a thought experiment and the actualities of real life.

That's not what's being advocated here...

That is most definitely the inference.

Don't believe in the effectiveness of vaccines -- don't have to have'em.

.. because FREEDOM hurrr .

or something.

Therefore if someone, for example, doesn't believe in the need to wash their hands after using the toilet when preparing food... so be it !

Don't believe in ciggies causing cancer ? Me and my child will smoke 30 a day. Filterless.

Actually, lawyers thrives in regulations.

And govt., indeed society is impossible without rules.

**Stonebeard**

There comes a point when stupidity should be considered criminal. Ran Paul would qualify with this statement: "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

Any medically trained professional who has managed to get through medical school without learning about postnatal neurodevelopmental disorders, and would go so far as to present them as, at the very least, a tacit justification against vaccination, is so unbelievably stupid that they have no right to breath, let alone represent large portions of the population.

As far as the right to be wrong is concerned, you do have that; however, the supreme court has ruled on at least two separate occasions that, while you have the right to believe in silly things, you do not have the right to martyr, or indeed endanger, your children for those silly beliefs. That being the case, I fail to see how vaccines against fairly common, and deadly, pathogens can be anything but absolutely mandatory. An adult may have the right to be a moron of the first order, but they do not have the right to endanger their children with their stupidity. Unless a medically valid justification is present, and provable, vaccines should be mandatory in all cases across the board.

**whembly**

reds8n wrote:
whembly wrote:

It's a massive, and worthwhile debate to have. RIght?

No, not really.

Least not for rational people or those who understand that there's a significant difference between a thought experiment and the actualities of real life.

The debate is constrained to whether or not the government should mandate vaccines. And furthermore, how is it enforced.

I remember reading somewhere that the UK or Aussie government uses incentives to encourage vaccinations. IE, child tax credits or rebates for maintaining vaccinations schedules.

That's an interesting use of "social engineering" in the tax codes.

That's not what's being advocated here...

That is most definitely the inference.

Don't believe in the effectiveness of vaccines -- don't have to have'em.

.. because FREEDOM hurrr .

or something.

Therefore if someone, for example, doesn't believe in the need to wash their hands after using the toilet when preparing food... so be it !

Don't believe in ciggies causing cancer ? Me and my child will smoke 30 a day. Filterless.

Heh... they go into circles

Again, I'm usually the loudest critic whenever someone wants the government to "do something". However, in this case, it is absolutely the government's interest to formulate policies with respects to vaccines. And arguably, government exists in the first place to have something in place to protect against life-threatening diseases.

Just look at the paperwork needed to move livestock across state borders.

The question really should be how such policy is implemented and weighed appropriately across the individual rights.

Actually, lawyers thrives in regulations.

And govt., indeed society is impossible without rules.

No one is disputing this... only *how*.

**streamdragon**

Just in case stopping the spread of disease via vaccine is too confusing for you, Senator Thom Tillis (R. NC) has something simpler:

Bring back Cholera! (okay, that's not really what he said)

Once we’re done debating whether children should be vaccinated, we can move on to other pressing public health questions, such as whether eateries can force their employees to wash their hands after they use the bathroom.

At least one freshman U.S. senator thinks, “nah.” Because freedom.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), at the end of an appearance Monday at the Bipartisan Policy Center, volunteered a story about “his bias when it comes to regulatory reform.”

Tillis said he was at a Starbucks in 2010 talking to a woman about regulations and where businesses should be allowed to opt out. His coffee companion challenged him, asking whether employees there should be required to wash their hands.

“As a matter of fact I think this is one where I think I can illustrate the point,” he recalled telling her. “I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don’t require our employees to wash our hands after leaving the restroom. The market will take care of that. It’s one example.” (Is requiring a sign not a regulation?)

Tillis, who told the story with his right hand raised for emphasis, concluded that in his example most businesses who posted signs telling customers their food workers didn’t have to wash their hands would likely go out of business. Ah, the free market!

Closing the event, Bipartisan Policy Center President Jason Grumet said, “I’m not sure if I’m going to shake your hand…” (But then he did.)

Just so you know, in describing why handwashing is required, the FDA says, “Proper handwashing reduces the spread of fecal-oral pathogens from the hands of a food employee to foods.”

If Tillis’s career in politics doesn’t work out, may we politely suggest he pursue anything but food service.

Basically, the invisible hand of the market is pretty frelling gross.

**CptJake**

And the fact remains, where the Feds currently have authority and power over the immunization issue, they are failing. Almost every outbreak in the US is attributable to folks coming in from outside the US, and generally non-US citizens. And the Feds control immigration and visas for non-immigrant visitors.

So sure, more Federal power and regulation is clearly the answer.

Again, EVERY state already has laws and regulations based on current Federal guidelines. The enforcement is NOT a federal issue, except for the part where the feds are failing to enforce their own guidelines and allowing infected people into the US, and some of you are using that as a reason for further expansion of their power, with some of you actually advocating they be able to take children away from families over this.

Honestly, a few hundred cases a year is not an emergency and does not warrant emergency type power be given. If states want to rethink how/why they give waivers, let them. If counties want to deny kids admission to schools over it, let them.

If infected people can enter the US, all the old folks and kids to young to be vaccinated and folks who can't be vaccinated for other reasons are still at risk. The fact the CDC seems to trace the majority of outbreaks to folks entering the US bringing the disease seems to indicate THAT is your real issue, not whether or not someone thinks Jesus told them shots are the work of the Devil.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Is it truly a public heath crisis? Is it so grave that it demands we begin stripping away people's freedoms? Or worse yet, TAKE YOUR CHILDREN away from you?

Yes.
Whooping cough kills
Polio kills and paralyzes
measles can kill or blind or neuter

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:

If infected people can enter the US, all the old folks and kids to young to be vaccinated and folks who can't be vaccinated for other reasons are still at risk. The fact the CDC seems to trace the majority of outbreaks to folks entering the US bringing the disease seems to indicate THAT is your real issue, not whether or not someone thinks Jesus told them shots are the work of the Devil.

The idiot refusing not to vaccinate his kids is just as much at fault as the person entering the country without being vaccinated. I know people have explained herd immunity many times, even in this thread, so it must be willful ignorance at this point. But I'm gonna draw you a fancy picture:

Having 50 children without vaccinations is just as bad as having 50 immigrants who were never vaccinated entering the United States.

The argument is as stupid as pushing your kids into the middle of traffic and then complaining that other drivers are the reason they got run over.

But hey, at least we had the same argument many decades ago:

**MrDwhitey**

I weep at the beauty of that MSPaint graphic.

**whembly**

Nicely done d... pull that out of your work's infection control website?

I thought that the herd defense was largely debunked ages ago... back when that Lancelot Study was bandied about?

Sooo... is this a call for us to start demanding immunizations for all illegal immigrants, and a check on vaccination status for welfare recipients. Even liabilities for trendy private schools that don’t require vaccination???

**Ensis Ferrae**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think the kids should wear something that says they where not vaccine ated, and the parents too. Some thing like " my principles are more important then my child's health"

Maybe like a golden star on an armband??

I am kidding, seriously.

But yeah, I agree with Ouze, but also with CptJake.... I don't necessarily see it being a Federal issue in most instances, so it really should be down to the States to enforce any mandatory immunization laws. It's the same thing with guns... FFLs have to follow Federal rules, and each state, in theory isn't supposed to undermine or circumvent the Fed standards. In that situation, we have Fed organizations that are prepared to step in, in the instance of a State's enforcement being wrong or if an offense goes above the State's offenses. So, for most instances, where we already have CDC oversight, I don't really see how much else could/should be done.

Obviously, if the State can take kids away if parents dont feed them; the State, not the Feds should be able to remove them for immunizations. Or, if we want to be really Orwellian, we change the delivery method of vaccines and give it to the kids unknowingly... like Vaccine laced Oreos, or some other gluten-free hypoallergenic, peanut free bubble wrapped treat that Michelle Obama wants to remove from schools

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Nicely done d... pull that out of your work's infection control website?

I thought that the herd defense was largely debunked ages ago... back when that Lancelot Study was bandied about?

Sooo... is this a call for us to start demanding immunizations for all illegal immigrants, and a check on vaccination status for welfare recipients. Even liabilities for trendy private schools that don’t require vaccination???

Works for me.

**MrDwhitey**

Googling "herd immunity debunked" gave me ebola.

**CptJake**

d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:

If infected people can enter the US, all the old folks and kids to young to be vaccinated and folks who can't be vaccinated for other reasons are still at risk. The fact the CDC seems to trace the majority of outbreaks to folks entering the US bringing the disease seems to indicate THAT is your real issue, not whether or not someone thinks Jesus told them shots are the work of the Devil.

The idiot refusing not to vaccinate his kids is just as much at fault as the person entering the country without being vaccinated. I know people have explained herd immunity many times, even in this thread, so it must be willful ignorance at this point. But I'm gonna draw you a fancy picture:

Having 50 children without vaccinations is just as bad as having 50 immigrants who were never vaccinated entering the United States.

Not the point. The 50 kids here without vaccinations don't spontaneously contract a disease. An INFECTED person coming into the US is the typical start of the outbreak. That guy/gal ain't allowed onto US soil and the problem goes away.

But even that isn't the point. The point is: Forcing vaccination of citizens is not a Federal issue. Again, the very few cases just do not justify more Federal programs/power/spending. The very few cases (even fewer if the feds did their job and controlled immigration/non-immigrant visitors) is a pretty good indicator the states are doing okay.

Again, if the states want to change how/why they grant waivers, go for it. If the states or counties want to change the requirements for school attendance, great.

**Frazzled**

Agreed its not a federal issue, but it IS a state issue., and states have the authority to requre vaccinations for all persons.

**sirlynchmob**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think the kids should wear something that says they where not vaccine ated, and the parents too. Some thing like " my principles are more important then my child's health"

Maybe like a golden star on an armband??

I am kidding, seriously.

But yeah, I agree with Ouze, but also with CptJake.... I don't necessarily see it being a Federal issue in most instances, so it really should be down to the States to enforce any mandatory immunization laws. It's the same thing with guns... FFLs have to follow Federal rules, and each state, in theory isn't supposed to undermine or circumvent the Fed standards. In that situation, we have Fed organizations that are prepared to step in, in the instance of a State's enforcement being wrong or if an offense goes above the State's offenses. So, for most instances, where we already have CDC oversight, I don't really see how much else could/should be done.

Obviously, if the State can take kids away if parents dont feed them; the State, not the Feds should be able to remove them for immunizations. Or, if we want to be really Orwellian, we change the delivery method of vaccines and give it to the kids unknowingly... like Vaccine laced Oreos, or some other gluten-free hypoallergenic, peanut free bubble wrapped treat that Michelle Obama wants to remove from schools

I think a more effective way would be, if you want your income tax credit, submit proof of vaccinations signed by your doctor saying your kids are up to date on their vaccinations. Otherwise those who submit to the IRS a request for tax credit, with no proof, gets a visit from their friendly neighborhood CPS workers.

**streamdragon**

CptJake wrote:

Not the point. The 50 kids here without vaccinations don't spontaneously contract a disease. An INFECTED person coming into the US is the typical start of the outbreak. That guy/gal ain't allowed onto US soil and the problem goes away.

But even that isn't the point. The point is: Forcing vaccination of citizens is not a Federal issue. Again, the very few cases just do not justify more Federal programs/power/spending. The very few cases (even fewer if the feds did their job and controlled immigration/non-immigrant visitors) is a pretty good indicator the states are doing okay.

Again, if the states want to change how/why they grant waivers, go for it. If the states or counties want to change the requirements for school attendance, great.

Check your stats again.

In 2014 many unvaccinated US citizens visiting the Philippines, and other countries, contracted measles, resulting in 288 cases being recorded in the United States in the first five months of 2014, a twenty-year high.

wiki source

Most cases are people who are US citizens going abroad, contracting it where the Herd Immunity is low, and then coming back and spreading it. If they had been immunized, they would have been considerably less likely to contract the disease when they visited those places. In turn, they would have been far, far less likely to spread it among people back in the US.

I will reiterate. I did not say 100% that it should be a Federal issue, only that it could be argued to be one. In the end, I frankly don't care who enforces it. The simple fact is: unvaccinated children (and people, really) are a risk to everyone around them, including vaccinated people. It is not, and should not, be acceptable to be unvaccinated barring medical exemptions.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Sooo... is this a call for us to start demanding immunizations for all illegal immigrants

No, the third world countries they are fleeing generally have universal healthcare and mandated vaccinations with no opt-outs, so they're covered.

**hotsauceman1**

I think are are also noting another problem, certain vaccinated people can still carry the diseases. Some can as and incubators w/o the body attacking it and spreading

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
and a check on vaccination status for welfare recipients

Somehow I cropped this. I absolutely think that the children of welfare recipients should be checked to see if they have been vaccinated, because I think every child should be vaccinated. I'd wholeheartedly agree with asking welfare recipients if their children are vaccinated because as people with limited means, if they have avoided getting the vaccination because they can't afford it, the state should cover the cost of the vaccination. MMR is like $2 per dose but the doctor visit might be problematic for poor people with a child who isn't actually "sick".

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
and a check on vaccination status for welfare recipients

Somehow I cropped this. I absolutely think that the children of welfare recipients should be checked to see if they have been vaccinated, because I think every child should be vaccinated. I'd wholeheartedly agree with asking welfare recipients if their children are vaccinated because as people with limited means, if they have avoided getting the vaccination because they can't afford it, the state should cover the cost of the vaccination. MMR is like $2 per dose but the doctor visit might be problematic for poor people with a child who isn't actually "sick".

Damn you Ouze for being so reasonable!!! This is Dakka, you're supposed to be frothing at the mouth or something!!

Personally, I would think the easiest and "safest" place for many kids to get vaccinated would be at their schools. Especially if they are public school kids, it's far too easy for them to line everyone up, basic training style and stick everyone who doesn't have a medical exemption. As it is a public health concern, I completely agree that people, especially kids who are immune-compromised should be vaccinated, and there should be no choice in the matter. In order to protect the ones who physically cannot protect themselves (the immune compromised), everyone should be vaccinated for most things.

**CptJake**

streamdragon wrote:
CptJake wrote:

Not the point. The 50 kids here without vaccinations don't spontaneously contract a disease. An INFECTED person coming into the US is the typical start of the outbreak. That guy/gal ain't allowed onto US soil and the problem goes away.

But even that isn't the point. The point is: Forcing vaccination of citizens is not a Federal issue. Again, the very few cases just do not justify more Federal programs/power/spending. The very few cases (even fewer if the feds did their job and controlled immigration/non-immigrant visitors) is a pretty good indicator the states are doing okay.

Again, if the states want to change how/why they grant waivers, go for it. If the states or counties want to change the requirements for school attendance, great.

Check your stats again.

In 2014 many unvaccinated US citizens visiting the Philippines, and other countries, contracted measles, resulting in 288 cases being recorded in the United States in the first five months of 2014, a twenty-year high.

wiki source

Most cases are people who are US citizens going abroad, contracting it where the Herd Immunity is low, and then coming back and spreading it. If they had been immunized, they would have been considerably less likely to contract the disease when they visited those places. In turn, they would have been far, far less likely to spread it among people back in the US.

I will reiterate. I did not say 100% that it should be a Federal issue, only that it could be argued to be one. In the end, I frankly don't care who enforces it. The simple fact is: unvaccinated children (and people, really) are a risk to everyone around them, including vaccinated people. It is not, and should not, be acceptable to be unvaccinated barring medical exemptions.

Not sure how what you posted negated what I did (now in orange).

But here is a non-wiki source:

According to the World Health Organization , 57,564 suspected cases of measles, including 21,403 confirmed cases and 110 measles deaths, were reported in the Philippines from January 1 through December 20, 2014. Additionally, during 2014, 25 US travelers who returned from the Philippines have become sick with measles. Most of these cases were among unvaccinated people.

From the CDC: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices/watch/measles-philippines

Also from CDC (FAQ on measles)

Before the measles vaccination program started in 1963, we estimate that about 3 to 4 million people got measles each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 developed encephalitis (brain swelling) from measles.

Every year, measles is brought into the United States by unvaccinated travelers (Americans or foreign visitors) who get measles while they are in other countries. They can spread measles to other people who are not protected against measles, which sometimes leads to outbreaks. This can occur in communities with unvaccinated people.

Most people in the United States are protected against measles through vaccination, so measles cases in the U.S. are uncommon compared to the number of cases before a vaccine was available. Since 2000, when measles was declared eliminated from the U.S., the annual number of people reported to have measles ranged from a low of 37 people in 2004 to a high of 644 people in 2014.

State and local health departments have the lead in investigating measles cases and outbreaks when they occur. CDC helps and supports health departments in these investigations by—

providing technical support for measles prevention and control
testing specimens from patients with suspected measles infection
providing rapid assistance on the ground during outbreak investigations, often through a formal request from the state health department.

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/faqs.html

And this is the source your wiki article uses as a reference for your quote: http://www.washingtondcnews.net/index.php/sid/222436243

I'll note, it does not show data like the CDC does (on the CDC site you can go to each year's report) and it uses 'resident' vice 'citizen' used in your quote (the CDC reports also use resident).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Personally, I would think the easiest and "safest" place for many kids to get vaccinated would be at their schools. Especially if they are public school kids, it's far too easy for them to line everyone up, basic training style and stick everyone who doesn't have a medical exemption. As it is a public health concern, I completely agree that people, especially kids who are immune-compromised should be vaccinated, and there should be no choice in the matter. In order to protect the ones who physically cannot protect themselves (the immune compromised), everyone should be vaccinated for most things.

Waiting until they are school aged seems pretty damned silly.

**Easy E**

So basically, the Right's whole argument against immunizations comes down to.... immunizatiosn are fine as long the FEDS aren't involved?

**Ouze**

Yeah, but hiss and snarl when you say "feds".

**d-usa**

The *fedssssss* need to stop making my waiter wash the poop off his hands!

http://m.newsok.com/u.s.-senator-dont-force-food-workers-to-wash-hands-after-using-toilet/article/feed/791871

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
The *fedssssss* need to stop making my waiter wash the poop off his hands!

http://m.newsok.com/u.s.-senator-dont-force-food-workers-to-wash-hands-after-using-toilet/article/feed/791871

At some point we need to stop laughing about this and ask what the feth happened to the Republican party in this country in the last couple of years.

**hotsauceman1**

They decideded the corporations deserve more rights then people.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

CptJake wrote:
Almost every outbreak in the US is attributable to folks coming in from outside the US, and generally non-US citizens.

You keep saying this, but haven't offered any proof confirming that it is true.

None of your CDC stuff didn't prove that disease ridden-immigrants are coming to the US to infect all the granola-crunchers' children. Measles is highly contagious and worst of all, you are infectious before you show symptoms which makes it even easier to spread. Twenty five people returning home carrying measles can infect a large number of people in areas where herd immunity is low, which have so far been what we are seeing. Also, you can still becoming infected with measles even if you have been vaccinated.

Xenophobia won't fix this problem.

**dementedwombat**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
They decideded the corporations deserve more rights then people.

Well if you want to get all technical about the legal definition, a corporation is treated as a person for a surprisingly large number of legal issues. Just an interesting legal tidbit that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The *fedssssss* need to stop making my waiter wash the poop off his hands!

http://m.newsok.com/u.s.-senator-dont-force-food-workers-to-wash-hands-after-using-toilet/article/feed/791871

At some point we need to stop laughing about this and ask what the feth happened to the Republican party in this country in the last couple of years.

If you're going to bash the Republicans for this... bash the Democratic party too as they're equally, if not more, culpable.

Speaking of politics, by the Democrats own criteria, they've terroistically held hostage the DHS today:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/3/democrats-filibuster-dhs-spending-bill/

**Ensis Ferrae**

CptJake wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Personally, I would think the easiest and "safest" place for many kids to get vaccinated would be at their schools. Especially if they are public school kids, it's far too easy for them to line everyone up, basic training style and stick everyone who doesn't have a medical exemption. As it is a public health concern, I completely agree that people, especially kids who are immune-compromised should be vaccinated, and there should be no choice in the matter. In order to protect the ones who physically cannot protect themselves (the immune compromised), everyone should be vaccinated for most things.

Waiting until they are school aged seems pretty damned silly.

Ohh, I wouldn't wait until school age, but that's where I'd play "catch up" with the kids who haven't been vaccinated yet.