bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

I've heard somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of sexually active adults have gotten HPV, so...no, not really.

No matter who wins, America loses.

Sock Ruh Tease: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x309]

RETARD FIGHT!

Let me help you with that...

Schlock: bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

I've heard somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of sexually active adults have gotten HPV, so...no, not really.

You see he finds women difficult to spread so he wants those that spread for someone else to be punished.

Wait, those are actually two separate people in the photo there? I thought it was shopped. The Jack Johnson/John Jackson thing really is dead on

hillbillypharmacist: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I love how that's what they focus on when YOU CAN OPT OUT OF IT. Meanwhile, there are several vaccines you must take in order to enroll in public school. They don't seem to care about those vaccines. What's the difference, teabaggers?

Those other vaccines don't keep you from receiving one of God's punishment for sex.

Precisely. They would rather their children suffer from cancer one day than teach them about responsible sex. I know my two boys will be getting it so that they can't give it to anyone if they should happen to contract the disease. Its bloody cancer people. One of the most cruel diseases of modern times. Its not like you can just take antibiotics and solve the problem. If they came up with a vaccine for breast cancer people would be lining up around the block.

Schlock: bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

I've heard somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of sexually active adults have gotten HPV, so...no, not really.

About 6 million people a year are infected with the virus, according to the CDC. That's not 80%, but you are right it isn't nothing. But it isn't as contagious as the other required vaccines. It requires doing something beyond simply showing up at school, which is completely different, IMO.

Look, if you wanna offer it for free, I have no problem with that. But to require it barring an opt out just seems like going a bit to far. Especially when you get money from Merck.

Wicked Chinchilla: If they came up with a vaccine for breast cancer people would be lining up around the block.

I don't think so. For prostate cancer yes, but breast cancer is a women's issue. So it would be supported by Democrats and repudiated by Republicans because of that. For some specious reason they will make up.

bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

Its not at all difficult to spread. Its asymptomatic in men the vast majority of the time and does not have a standard rapid test. You have to request the test specifically in order to find out if you have it or not. Its incredibly common. I believe the last statistic I heard was that over 1 in 4 sexually active women in the US have tested positive for at least one strain of HPV. One in FOUR. Thats not diffficult to spread, its a damned epidemic, and several strains cause cancer. I think its a travesty that the issue has been tainted because of the Merck donation thing. As much as I dispise a great many of Perry's positions (raging commie here, or so I have been told) on this one he was right. From a public health standpoint it SHOULD be mandatory. Cancer is cruel and terribly expensive to treat. Vaccines are cheap and easy to administer. Why would you NOT want to try to prevent the spread of a virus which causes cancer? Are you against breast cancer treatmets? Colon cancer screenings? Its not different.

Schlock: Wait, those are actually two separate people in the photo there? I thought it was shopped. The Jack Johnson/John Jackson thing really is dead on

You can tell them apart by their lapel pins. Why does Romney hate America?

Good. Savage him for the tepid, malleable, half-measure, questionably-religioned Obama clone that he is. I'm very concerned.

ghare: I don't understand why, if the Tea Party is viewed less favorably than Obama or atheists, these nuts are pandering to them.

Which nuts are you speaking of? The Republican politicians or the news networks? Because both nuts are equally guilty to this collection of vile human beings.

Wicked Chinchilla: If they came up with a vaccine for breast cancer people would be lining up around the block.

No. Because only women who have abortions develop breast cancer.

I think that's how the argument goes. I remember reading some god-gurgling goon's cooked up piece on that so-called link, and it was cute to see how the religious dorks jumped all over it.

For a time, before the whole thing was debunked and the author humiliated, they were beating people over the head with something other than their stupid Bibles. It was somewhat refreshing.

Wicked Chinchilla: Its not at all difficult to spread. Its asymptomatic in men the vast majority of the time and does not have a standard rapid test. You have to request the test specifically in order to find out if you have it or not. Its incredibly common. I believe the last statistic I heard was that over 1 in 4 sexually active women in the US have tested positive for at least one strain of HPV. One in FOUR. Thats not diffficult to spread, its a damned epidemic, and several strains cause cancer. I think its a travesty that the issue has been tainted because of the Merck donation thing. As much as I dispise a great many of Perry's positions (raging commie here, or so I have been told) on this one he was right. From a public health standpoint it SHOULD be mandatory. Cancer is cruel and terribly expensive to treat. Vaccines are cheap and easy to administer. Why would you NOT want to try to prevent the spread of a virus which causes cancer? Are you against breast cancer treatmets? Colon cancer screenings? Its not different.

No I'm not against those. But I might be against mandating them. My point is that it is more difficult to spread than the others kids are required to be vaccinated for. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that. I think its a great vaccine. I think everyone should get vaccinated with it. I'm just not so sure it should be required to attend school.

Wicked Chinchilla: I believe the last statistic I heard was that over 1 in 4 sexually active women in the US have tested positive for at least one strain of HPV. One in FOUR. Thats not diffficult to spread, its a damned epidemic, and several strains cause cancer.

Even better was the 100% exposure rate if you have slept with seven people. As in there's no chance of not having HPV if you've had even a below average number of partners.

Shaggy_C: Even better was the 100% exposure rate if you have slept with seven people. As in there's no chance of not having HPV if you've had even a below average number of partners.

Uh, condoms?

bartink: Uh, condoms?

HPV spreads through skin to skin contact; even with a condom, you are not protected.

bartink: Shaggy_C: Even better was the 100% exposure rate if you have slept with seven people. As in there's no chance of not having HPV if you've had even a below average number of partners.

Uh, condoms?

Not to mention the spurious math and awful conclusion.

bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

A thousand times THIS. Requiring that vaccine had nothing to do with the good of the state; it had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Perry's corporate masters would have made a shiat-ton of profit.

Polls show he's still very clearly the frontrunner, but we saw tonight that he's not immortal.

Immortal? Really? TPM felt Perry may have been immortal? Hillary or Obama could debate circles around Rick Perry and the media would be all over any little flaw. GOP candidates get held to such a low standard that it's damn near impossible to screw up.

bmongar: Not to mention the spurious math and awful conclusion.

There's also a statistic out there that says that 50% of sexually active adults will have HPV at some point in their lives.

Shaggy_C: bmongar: Not to mention the spurious math and awful conclusion.

There's also a statistic out there that says that 50% of sexually active adults will have HPV at some point in their lives.

Which is a lot different than saying there is no chance of not contracting it with 7 partners.

King Wicker: King Wicker: I love that people yelled out that the uninsured should be allowed to die. But at what point do we decide to allow them to die? Perhaps we would need some sort of a panel to make those kind of decisions.

I want Obama to be asked a similar hypo in a future debate. Something like - Under Obamacare, if a young person that hasn't paid much of anything into the system becomes ill and falls into a coma, then requires $1million per year in medical spending to keep them alive. Does Obamacare pay the full million each year no matter how many years the patient remains in a coma or is there a cut off to the spending?

That's just a different version of what Ron Paul was asked and that's "How much do taxpayers pay for someone that becomes ill?". I'd like to hear Obama explain how that situation works itself out under Obamacare.

tnpir: bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

A thousand times THIS. Requiring that vaccine had nothing to do with the good of the state; it had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Perry's corporate masters would have made a shiat-ton of profit.

Public health gets shiat on quite a bit, ESPECIALLY in this country. So what if it the motivation was centered in greed. It would have saved many lives and millions of dollars in the long run. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad and the final results would have been astronomically better than some misgivings that the vaccine maker would make money.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: I love how that's what they focus on when YOU CAN OPT OUT OF IT. Meanwhile, there are several vaccines you must take in order to enroll in public school. They don't seem to care about those vaccines. What's the difference, teabaggers?

Those other vaccines don't turn our daughters into dirty, dirty, whores.

This (internicene warfare against their best chance) is good news. For Obama.

Satanic_Hamster: Your numbers don't conflict with his. 80% get it as *some point in their lives*. CDC says that 6 million people get it *every year*. It's not the same six million people getting it every year you know.

There are 300 million Americans. 80% is high.

MeinRS6: Under Obamacare, if a young person that hasn't paid much of anything into the system becomes ill and falls into a coma, then requires $1million per year in medical spending to keep them alive. Does Obamacare pay the full million each year no matter how many years the patient remains in a coma or is there a cut off to the spending?

Yes. Well, not so much 'Obamacare' per se, that didn't change too much in this case. But traditional Medicare/Medicaid like we've had for many decades now would. You remember... the Medicare that the GOP were white-knighting for two years ago? The family would burn through any possessions he might have had. Have him declared bankrupt. He'd certainly qualify for a Social Security Disability check. After a year of being on permanent SSDI, you're qualified for Medicare no matter your age.

Not that different from a first-world system, except that in a first-world system, he wouldn't necessarily be bankrupted at the get-go (i.e., maybe his kids or family would have some inheritance). But, otherwise similar.

Rick Perry: "I am always going to err on the side of life."

/except when it comes to wrongfully convicted inmates. Then anything goes.

Shaggy_C: bartink: Uh, condoms?

HPV spreads through skin to skin contact; even with a condom, you are not protected.

That's true. You can get it from a hummer or some box munching. This is a sad development...for her.

/ducks

Wicked Chinchilla: tnpir: bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

A thousand times THIS. Requiring that vaccine had nothing to do with the good of the state; it had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Perry's corporate masters would have made a shiat-ton of profit.

Public health gets shiat on quite a bit, ESPECIALLY in this country. So what if it the motivation was centered in greed. It would have saved many lives and millions of dollars in the long run. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad and the final results would have been astronomically better than some misgivings that the vaccine maker would make money.

The whole greed argument doesn't make any sense to me, considering that private health insurers have a major incentive to deny healthcare in order for them to make profit. They are businesses that exist in order to make profit for the stockholders.

How is having a public health insurance system, who's sole concern profit wise is to break even, greedy?

MeinRS6: King Wicker: King Wicker: I love that people yelled out that the uninsured should be allowed to die. But at what point do we decide to allow them to die? Perhaps we would need some sort of a panel to make those kind of decisions.

I want Obama to be asked a similar hypo in a future debate. Something like - Under Obamacare, if a young person that hasn't paid much of anything into the system becomes ill and falls into a coma, then requires $1million per year in medical spending to keep them alive. Does Obamacare pay the full million each year no matter how many years the patient remains in a coma or is there a cut off to the spending?

That's just a different version of what Ron Paul was asked and that's "How much do taxpayers pay for someone that becomes ill?". I'd like to hear Obama explain how that situation works itself out under Obamacare.

I would imagine they would do what they do now. Consult experts and find out if the guy is a vegetable or not. Its not like insurance companies want to pay out millions of dollars on a vegetable either. Terry Schiavo scenarios are very rare and often the result of custody battles. In this case it was the parents (who wanted her kept alive no matter what) and the husband (who knew her final wishes and wanted her to pass.) The Doctors never really gave her any odds of recovery. It was the parents and the Republicans in Florida who really made a complete shambles out of due process and medical procedure out of some misguided religious aversion to death with dignity.

Out of curiosity, what would you find acceptable? If there is a cutoff are you going to scream death panels? If its longer than you, in your surely expert opinion, think it should be are you going to scream its a socialist waste of money?

Shakin_Haitian: Wicked Chinchilla: tnpir: bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

A thousand times THIS. Requiring that vaccine had nothing to do with the good of the state; it had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Perry's corporate masters would have made a shiat-ton of profit.

Public health gets shiat on quite a bit, ESPECIALLY in this country. So what if it the motivation was centered in greed. It would have saved many lives and millions of dollars in the long run. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad and the final results would have been astronomically better than some misgivings that the vaccine maker would make money.

The whole greed argument doesn't make any sense to me, considering that private health insurers have a major incentive to deny healthcare in order for them to make profit. They are businesses that exist in order to make profit for the stockholders.

How is having a public health insurance system, who's sole concern profit wise is to break even, greedy?

Because socialism, that's why.

Supes: Rick Perry: "I am always going to err on the side of life."

/except when it comes to wrongfully convicted inmates. Then anything goes.

That's what stuck the most out of this whole debate. That the crowd is perfectly OK with letting the uninsured die, or let Perry use millions in taxpayer money to execute hundreds of inmates, but his HPV vaccine mandate is the one thing they're not OK with.

Pro-life mentality at work. fark these trolls.

Shakin_Haitian: Wicked Chinchilla: tnpir: bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

A thousand times THIS. Requiring that vaccine had nothing to do with the good of the state; it had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Perry's corporate masters would have made a shiat-ton of profit.

Public health gets shiat on quite a bit, ESPECIALLY in this country. So what if it the motivation was centered in greed. It would have saved many lives and millions of dollars in the long run. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad and the final results would have been astronomically better than some misgivings that the vaccine maker would make money.

The whole greed argument doesn't make any sense to me, considering that private health insurers have a major incentive to deny healthcare in order for them to make profit. They are businesses that exist in order to make profit for the stockholders.

How is having a public health insurance system, who's sole concern profit wise is to break even, greedy?

Good question. I was talking about the accusations that the proposal to require the HPV vaccines with the option to opt out in Texas was because of Merck political donations in an effort to make them lots of money (they make the vaccine.) Thus, I am not sure what bearing your question has on my post...

"Ron Paul joined in with Romney, claiming Perry - Paul's governor down in Texas - has raised his state taxes and eluding to the thousands in new government jobs that fueled the Texas job boom of the recent past."


Elude is a perfectly cromulent word, but I'm thinking the author mixed up elude and allude. Seems an editor or proof reader needs a dictionary.

Lawnchair: MeinRS6: Under Obamacare, if a young person that hasn't paid much of anything into the system becomes ill and falls into a coma, then requires $1million per year in medical spending to keep them alive. Does Obamacare pay the full million each year no matter how many years the patient remains in a coma or is there a cut off to the spending?

Yes. Well, not so much 'Obamacare' per se, that didn't change too much in this case. But traditional Medicare/Medicaid like we've had for many decades now would. You remember... the Medicare that the GOP were white-knighting for two years ago? The family would burn through any possessions he might have had. Have him declared bankrupt. He'd certainly qualify for a Social Security Disability check. After a year of being on permanent SSDI, you're qualified for Medicare no matter your age.

Not that different from a first-world system, except that in a first-world system, he wouldn't necessarily be bankrupted at the get-go (i.e., maybe his kids or family would have some inheritance). But, otherwise similar.

Except you didn't really answer the question, much like Obama probably would not. What is the cost to taxpayers in dollars for a patient in a coma at $1Million a year? And he lives for 12yrs. And he was broke to begin with, so bankruptcy is irrelevant. Is there no cut off? What if he came out of his coma after 12yrs and lived another 20yrs but still had $400k in medical spending a year?

Weaver95: Romney won't be permitted to win the GOP nomination. the evangelicals don't think he's one of them.

Well, if he doesn't get it then the Republicans have no shot. This country will not elect Rick Perry, or Bachmann, the only other people close right now. Huntsman would be a possible contender but if they don't want Romney they sure as all hell won't want Huntsman.

MeinRS6: Lawnchair: MeinRS6: Under Obamacare, if a young person that hasn't paid much of anything into the system becomes ill and falls into a coma, then requires $1million per year in medical spending to keep them alive. Does Obamacare pay the full million each year no matter how many years the patient remains in a coma or is there a cut off to the spending?

Yes. Well, not so much 'Obamacare' per se, that didn't change too much in this case. But traditional Medicare/Medicaid like we've had for many decades now would. You remember... the Medicare that the GOP were white-knighting for two years ago? The family would burn through any possessions he might have had. Have him declared bankrupt. He'd certainly qualify for a Social Security Disability check. After a year of being on permanent SSDI, you're qualified for Medicare no matter your age.

Not that different from a first-world system, except that in a first-world system, he wouldn't necessarily be bankrupted at the get-go (i.e., maybe his kids or family would have some inheritance). But, otherwise similar.

Except you didn't really answer the question, much like Obama probably would not. What is the cost to taxpayers in dollars for a patient in a coma at $1Million a year? And he lives for 12yrs. And he was broke to begin with, so bankruptcy is irrelevant. Is there no cut off? What if he came out of his coma after 12yrs and lived another 20yrs but still had $400k in medical spending a year?

Why do you want a specific number? Every patient is different and not all coma's are created equal, yet here you are asking for a general rule based off of one extreme case. The answer is that it should be evaluated at the case level. If its national insurance then the amount of money spent is secondary to prognosis. If the Doctors give Mr Apple no odds then the family should be told as such and consulted to pull the plug. If he has a chance then treat away. The brain has lots and lots of secrets still hidden within it but medical science has gotten a whole lot better in figuring out when one is still working and when it isn't.