If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   SC Governor Nikki Haley vetoes bipartisan bill to provide HPV vaccine to young students. Who cares if a few young girls die of cervical cancer if it furthers your political career, amirite?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 473
    More: Sick, HPV Vaccine, HPV, cervical cancer, vetoes  
•       •       •

3331 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2012 at 6:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



473 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-20 02:44:42 PM
farking republicans.
 
2012-06-20 02:47:49 PM
They call themselves, "Pro-Life."

How cute.
 
2012-06-20 02:52:38 PM
Hey now, if they get cancer and die or their family goes bankrupt from the cancer treatments, it's their fault for possibly maybe being sexually active.

Or not being sexually active. Doesn't matter, still their fault.
 
2012-06-20 02:52:57 PM
He had to do it, just to keep up with Richard Mourdock of Indiana.

GOP: The Pro-Cancer Party.
 
2012-06-20 02:54:11 PM
If they're not sluts, they won't get cancer
 
2012-06-20 02:55:36 PM

vygramul: They call themselves, "Pro-Life."

How cute.


That only applies while you're in the womb... After that, they'll gleefully watch you starve to death, die from preventable diseases, and get blown to bits by American bombs and missiles.
 
2012-06-20 03:00:12 PM
I know the comments so far have been pretty disrespectful to Governor Haley, but before you decide to cast any other dispersions on her character, I'd be interested to know how much money you want from me and the other tax payers to pay for this mandated $130/dose vaccine. How many lives is it going to save? 1,000,000? Then it may just be worthwhile.

But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.
 
2012-06-20 03:00:31 PM

FloydA: He had to do it, just to keep up with Richard Mourdock of Indiana.

GOP: The Pro-Cancer Party.


She. And that makes it even worse. She's vetoing a vaccine that is proven to help prevent cervical cancer.
 
2012-06-20 03:00:48 PM

keylock71: That only applies while you're in the womb... After that, they'll gleefully watch you starve to death, die from preventable diseases, and get blown to bits by American bombs and missiles.


Don't forget "kill you if you've been convicted of a capital crime".
 
2012-06-20 03:04:55 PM

Lucky LaRue: But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.


Isn't that the exact same logic that teabaggers claim the "socialist death panels" are using?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-20 03:06:26 PM
If they get cancer it's Gods punishment for having sex. God planed it that way because kids always throughly evaluate consequences before they make a decision.
 
2012-06-20 03:07:25 PM

Lucky LaRue: I know the comments so far have been pretty disrespectful to Governor Haley, but before you decide to cast any other dispersions on her character, I'd be interested to know how much money you want from me and the other tax payers to pay for this mandated $130/dose vaccine. How many lives is it going to save? 1,000,000? Then it may just be worthwhile.

But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.


That's mighty teabagger of ya.
 
2012-06-20 03:08:01 PM

Lucky LaRue: I know the comments so far have been pretty disrespectful to Governor Haley, but before you decide to cast any other dispersions on her character, I'd be interested to know how much money you want from me and the other tax payers to pay for this mandated $130/dose vaccine. How many lives is it going to save? 1,000,000? Then it may just be worthwhile.

But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.


8/10
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-20 03:09:06 PM

Lucky LaRue: I know the comments so far have been pretty disrespectful to Governor Haley, but before you decide to cast any other dispersions on her character, I'd be interested to know how much money you want from me and the other tax payers to pay for this mandated $130/dose vaccine. How many lives is it going to save? 1,000,000? Then it may just be worthwhile.

But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.


And it will do the most good going to Lockheed Martin, Iraq and subsidies for oil companies. Taxpayer money isn't to be wasted on taxpayers, it's against the Constitution.
 
2012-06-20 03:09:44 PM

Lucky LaRue: I know the comments so far have been pretty disrespectful to Governor Haley, but before you decide to cast any other dispersions on her character, I'd be interested to know how much money you want from me and the other tax payers to pay for this mandated $130/dose vaccine. How many lives is it going to save? 1,000,000? Then it may just be worthwhile.


"dispersions." lol. nice touch. 8/10.
 
2012-06-20 03:16:55 PM

reported: Lucky LaRue: But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.

Isn't that the exact same logic that teabaggers claim the "socialist death panels" are using?


Maybe.. So what? I'm not a teabagger or a herbal teabagger. I'm just looking at it from (admittedly seriously flawed) statistics. The numbers, as I run them are this:

- There are approximately 550,000 girls under the age of 18 in South Carolina, and it costs $130/dose for the vaccine. That means South Carolina tax payers would pay north of $70 million to fund this effort.

- About 0.01% of the over-18 population in the US develop cervical cancer every year. That translates to about 60 SC women each year.

Let's be generous and say that, over the course of 60 years, there will be 60 new cases of cervical cancer that could otherwise have been avoided, for a total of 3600 cases. 1/3 will die. The question is whether or not spending $70 million to save 1200 people is the right thing. Could the money have been spent on something that would have made a bigger difference?
 
2012-06-20 03:23:31 PM

Lucky LaRue: reported: Lucky LaRue: But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.

Isn't that the exact same logic that teabaggers claim the "socialist death panels" are using?

Maybe.. So what? I'm not a teabagger or a herbal teabagger. I'm just looking at it from (admittedly seriously flawed) statistics. The numbers, as I run them are this:

- There are approximately 550,000 girls under the age of 18 in South Carolina, and it costs $130/dose for the vaccine. That means South Carolina tax payers would pay north of $70 million to fund this effort.

- About 0.01% of the over-18 population in the US develop cervical cancer every year. That translates to about 60 SC women each year.

Let's be generous and say that, over the course of 60 years, there will be 60 new cases of cervical cancer that could otherwise have been avoided, for a total of 3600 cases. 1/3 will die. The question is whether or not spending $70 million to save 1200 people is the right thing. Could the money have been spent on something that would have made a bigger difference?


Stop using your brain goddammit! There is a war on women, can't you see!?
 
2012-06-20 03:24:06 PM
Yeah, but they get that cancer from having ess-ee-ecks, so those sluts deserve it, amirite?
 
2012-06-20 03:26:48 PM

Lucky LaRue:
- There are approximately 550,000 girls under the age of 18 in South Carolina, and it costs $130/dose for the vaccine. That means South Carolina tax payers would pay north of $70 million to fund this effort.


That works out to about 15 bucks per person.

Please consider that calculation before you decide whether or not women's lives are really worth so little.
 
2012-06-20 03:27:43 PM

Lucky LaRue: The question is whether or not spending $70 million to save 1200 people is the right thing.


Yes. Even if the numbers you cite are correct $58K is two days in a hospital room, a very small price to pay.

Lucky LaRue: Could the money have been spent on something that would have made a bigger difference?


That's not the right question. You should estimate the direct cost of treatment for 3600 cases of cervical cancer and the indirect costs to the survivors.
 
2012-06-20 03:28:15 PM

violentsalvation: Lucky LaRue: reported: Lucky LaRue: But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.

Isn't that the exact same logic that teabaggers claim the "socialist death panels" are using?

Maybe.. So what? I'm not a teabagger or a herbal teabagger. I'm just looking at it from (admittedly seriously flawed) statistics. The numbers, as I run them are this:

- There are approximately 550,000 girls under the age of 18 in South Carolina, and it costs $130/dose for the vaccine. That means South Carolina tax payers would pay north of $70 million to fund this effort.

- About 0.01% of the over-18 population in the US develop cervical cancer every year. That translates to about 60 SC women each year.

Let's be generous and say that, over the course of 60 years, there will be 60 new cases of cervical cancer that could otherwise have been avoided, for a total of 3600 cases. 1/3 will die. The question is whether or not spending $70 million to save 1200 people is the right thing. Could the money have been spent on something that would have made a bigger difference?

Stop using your brain goddammit! There is a war on women, can't you see!?


It's incomplete analysis. It fails to take into account the lost productivity from the early death, and the tax revenues therefrom, and the potential cost to public health spending in the case of unemployed emergency room visits, and so on.

Not saying the cost/benefit analysis isn't worth doing, but that you need to be thorough.

On the other hand, isn't this exactly the kind of calculation a death panel would be making, and that's a bad thing, and so we should give the vaccine?
 
2012-06-20 03:28:35 PM

Lucky LaRue: but before you decide to cast any other dispersions on her character, I'd be interested to know how much money you want from me and the other tax payers to pay for this mandated $130/dose vaccine.


$130.
 
2012-06-20 03:30:36 PM

flaEsq: Lucky LaRue: The question is whether or not spending $70 million to save 1200 people is the right thing.

Yes. Even if the numbers you cite are correct $58K is two days in a hospital room, a very small price to pay.

Lucky LaRue: Could the money have been spent on something that would have made a bigger difference?

That's not the right question. You should estimate the direct cost of treatment for 3600 cases of cervical cancer and the indirect costs to the survivors.


I'll be damned - there's even a CDC powerpoint (in pdf form) on the question of cost-effectiveness. Fascinating!
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2012-06-20 03:31:52 PM

FloydA: Lucky LaRue:
- There are approximately 550,000 girls under the age of 18 in South Carolina, and it costs $130/dose for the vaccine. That means South Carolina tax payers would pay north of $70 million to fund this effort.

That works out to about 15 bucks per person.

Please consider that calculation before you decide whether or not women's lives are really worth so little.


Let's also not forget insurance already covers some of that cost for many girls. Using a "retail" price if $130 per dose as a basis for a calculation is naïve at best, and likely intentionally dishonest.
 
2012-06-20 03:33:21 PM

Lucky LaRue:

- There are approximately 550,000 girls under the age of 18 in South Carolina, and it costs $130/dose for the vaccine. That means South Carolina tax payers would pay north of $70 million to fund this effort.

- About 0.01% of the over-18 population in the US develop cervical cancer every year. That translates to about 60 SC women each year.

Let's be generous and say that, over the course of 60 years, there will be 60 new cases of cervical cancer that could otherwise have been avoided, for a total of 3600 cases. 1/3 will die. The question is whether or not spending $70 million to save 1200 people is the right thing. Could the money have been spent on something that would have made a bigger difference?



A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
 
2012-06-20 03:34:52 PM
So. It sounds like someone wants to be noticed as a potential VP pick.
 
2012-06-20 03:39:08 PM

vygramul: It's incomplete analysis. It fails to take into account the lost productivity from the early death, and the tax revenues therefrom, and the potential cost to public health spending in the case of unemployed emergency room visits, and so on.

Not saying the cost/benefit analysis isn't worth doing, but that you need to be thorough.

On the other hand, isn't this exactly the kind of calculation a death panel would be making, and that's a bad thing, and so we should give the vaccine?


Sure. I tried to disclaim my woefully inadequate analysis up-front, but to be clear: You'd have to be an idiot to rely on my statistical analysis of this or anything else. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done (and for the record, I think it should be covered for the girls whose family don't have the insurance or means to get it themselves), just that we need to put more thought into it than concluding that Governor Haley is a teabagger, so obviously she wants our daughters dead..
 
2012-06-20 03:40:35 PM
Hmmm, looks like the Pharma that makes the HPV vaccine didn't give enough to Nikki Haley's campaign.

On a side note: every time I see Nikki Haley's name I immediately think 'stripper'
 
2012-06-20 03:42:26 PM

Lucky LaRue: I know the comments so far have been pretty disrespectful to Governor Haley, but before you decide to cast any other dispersions on her character, I'd be interested to know how much money you want from me and the other tax payers to pay for this mandated $130/dose vaccine. How many lives is it going to save? 1,000,000? Then it may just be worthwhile.

But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.


Number of HPV-Associated Cancer Cases per YearDuring 2003-2007, an average of 31,392 cancers were potentially associated with HPV (rate of 10.6 per 100,000) in the United States. The table below shows the average number of cases and the incidence rate for each type of HPV-associated cancer.


www.cdc.gov

Do you see the listing for "oropharynx" cancers? DO do realize what that means? Son , this shiat will give you cancer in places you didn't even know you had and fark sure can't pronounce
 
2012-06-20 03:45:24 PM

Lucky LaRue: Let's be generous and say that, over the course of 60 years, there will be 60 new cases of cervical cancer that could otherwise have been avoided, for a total of 3600 cases. 1/3 will die. The question is whether or not spending $70 million to save 1200 people is the right thing. Could the money have been spent on something that would have made a bigger difference?


Using those admittedly pulled-out-of-the-ass numbers, that works out to $58,333 per saved life. You don't think the government should spend $58K of taxpayer dollars to save a life? What if that life was yours? Or your mother's, or your kid's? What do you think the limit should be on how much taxpayer money the government should spend per life saved? $50,000? $5,000? $500? Should the fire department decide how much it's going to cost to respond to a fire every time someone calls 911 to report that their apartment house is burning down and they're trapped inside, and if it's over a certain amount, should they just let 'em fry?

More importantly, if we're going to put this in purely economic terms without any consideration of a moral component, how much do you think it costs someone--either an insurance company for those who have insurance, or the government for those who are uninsured or on Medicaid or Medicare, to treat each case of cancer? Using your numbers of $70 million being spent to prevent 3600 cases of cervical cancer, that's $19,444 per preventable case of cancer. You don't think that, on average, far more than $19K per case of cancer will be spent on treatment (both those who survive and those who don't)--much of that by the government? Sounds to me like a good investment to pay for prevention up front rather than to pay more for treatment down the road, even putting aside the issue of preventing a disease, horrible misery, and death for thousands of citizens. Add to that the costs of lost productivity for the private sector attributable to people missing work and/or using sick leave because of their cancers, and it seems like a value-added proposition.
 
2012-06-20 03:47:02 PM

vygramul: I'll be damned - there's even a CDC powerpoint (in pdf form) on the question of cost-effectiveness. Fascinating!


Thank you for the link, I love learning new things like QALY. HPC vaccines for 12 year old girls looks like a quantitative no brainer (or I am a no brainer and misreading, or both)
 
2012-06-20 03:48:12 PM

Lucky LaRue: just that we need to put more thought into it than concluding that Governor Haley is a teabagger, so obviously she wants our daughters dead..


You're new here, aren't you?
 
2012-06-20 03:48:35 PM
Why is the rate of mouth cancer so high among men? What are they putting in their mouths to cause....

oh.
OH
 
2012-06-20 03:49:50 PM

Lucky LaRue: - There are approximately 550,000 girls under the age of 18 in South Carolina, and it costs $130/dose for the vaccine. That means South Carolina tax payers would pay north of $70 million to fund this effort.

- About 0.01% of the over-18 population in the US develop cervical cancer every year. That translates to about 60 SC women each year.


First, I don't think that the cost of the vaccine is paid for by the state for everyone. I imagine health insurance will cover it for many people.

Second, HPV is a cause of other cancers besides cervical. It is a known cause of about 80% of cases of oropharyngeal cancer. It's associated with other types too, including penile and anal cancers, so it's not only something that women have to worry about. The CDC estimates that 25,000 cancers per year are caused by HPV in the US.

CDC statistics
 
2012-06-20 03:51:03 PM

Magorn: Do you see the listing for "oropharynx" cancers? DO do realize what that means? Son , this shiat will give you cancer in places you didn't even know you had and fark sure can't pronounce


The HPV related oropharyngeal cancers are from blowjobs. This is actually my area of research (the cancer, not the bjs).
 
2012-06-20 04:00:08 PM
Just about everyone here in SC hates her and this just another reason. I can't wait to see her get voted out (or better yet, kicked out due to the pending ethics investigation).
 
2012-06-20 04:01:02 PM

sweetmelissa31: Magorn: Do you see the listing for "oropharynx" cancers? DO do realize what that means? Son , this shiat will give you cancer in places you didn't even know you had and fark sure can't pronounce

The HPV related oropharyngeal cancers are from blowjobs. This is actually my area of research (the cancer, not the bjs).


Have you thought about expanding into other disciplines?
 
2012-06-20 04:02:16 PM

sweetmelissa31: Magorn: Do you see the listing for "oropharynx" cancers? DO do realize what that means? Son , this shiat will give you cancer in places you didn't even know you had and fark sure can't pronounce

The HPV related oropharyngeal cancers are from blowjobs. This is actually my area of research (the cancer, not the bjs).


Damn...
 
2012-06-20 04:02:46 PM

loveblondieo: Just about everyone here in SC hates her and this just another reason. I can't wait to see her get voted out (or better yet, kicked out due to the pending ethics investigation).


She really screwed up supporting the dredging of the Savannah River to help Savannah at Charleston's expense..
 
2012-06-20 04:03:20 PM

Lucky LaRue: reported: Lucky LaRue: But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.

Isn't that the exact same logic that teabaggers claim the "socialist death panels" are using?

Maybe.. So what? I'm not a teabagger or a herbal teabagger. I'm just looking at it from (admittedly seriously flawed) statistics. The numbers, as I run them are this:

- There are approximately 550,000 girls under the age of 18 in South Carolina, and it costs $130/dose for the vaccine. That means South Carolina tax payers would pay north of $70 million to fund this effort.

- About 0.01% of the over-18 population in the US develop cervical cancer every year. That translates to about 60 SC women each year.

Let's be generous and say that, over the course of 60 years, there will be 60 new cases of cervical cancer that could otherwise have been avoided, for a total of 3600 cases. 1/3 will die. The question is whether or not spending $70 million to save 1200 people is the right thing. Could the money have been spent on something that would have made a bigger difference?


Only approximately 486 people get diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (which has one of the highest death rates) every year. There's approximately 588 new diagnoses of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma every year. However, because these cancers are rare and the death rates are high, it's not worth devoting public money to researching these cancers, right, Lucky LaRue?
 
2012-06-20 04:03:25 PM
Let's see.

Haley said the bill was unnecessary because its language would merely allow, not require, the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control to implement a voluntary vaccination and education program on human papillomavirus, or HPV.

And then...

Haley, the mother of a 14-year-old daughter, said parents should have the right to decide whether their daughters receive the vaccination.

Hmm.
 
2012-06-20 04:05:10 PM
The way I look at it is that they could pay the up front one time cost of preventing girls from getting it in the first place, or they could ignore that and then have private insurers (if they have insurance if not the state is going to paying a hell of a lot more than if they'd just used to vaccine) have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for treatment of the disease, putting unnecessary strain on the health care system.

Either way, the money is coming out of your pocket.
 
2012-06-20 04:05:14 PM
If analysis reveals the options are either option A) OR option) is a teabagger stupid wrong and ill-informed and you go with the latter you'll be right 99% of the time.
 
2012-06-20 04:06:30 PM

Lucky LaRue: loveblondieo: Just about everyone here in SC hates her and this just another reason. I can't wait to see her get voted out (or better yet, kicked out due to the pending ethics investigation).

She really screwed up supporting the dredging of the Savannah River to help Savannah at Charleston's expense..


Yeah, many believe she sold us out because of this.
 
2012-06-20 04:09:45 PM

RexTalionis: Only approximately 486 people get diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (which has one of the highest death rates) every year. There's approximately 588 new diagnoses of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma every year. However, because these cancers are rare and the death rates are high, it's not worth devoting public money to researching these cancers, right, Lucky LaRue?


That certainly stretches the point I'm trying to make... I guess it depends: for simplicity sake, lets assume we could save each of these (approximately) 1000 people with a $1 treatment. That sounds like a deal: A thousand bucks a year to save the lives of a thousand people. Awesome. On the other hand, if I could save 5000 people from dying of X with that same $1000, then where is the obligation?

The other point I was trying to make (and made it further up the conversation chain) is that I am not arguing that we shouldn't fund this (or any other public health initiative), only that we need to expand the discussion beyond "Governor Haley is a teabagger, so she obviously wants our daughters dead. F*cking Republicans!"
 
2012-06-20 04:10:21 PM

Aarontology: The way I look at it is that they could pay the up front one time cost of preventing girls from getting it in the first place, or they could ignore that and then have private insurers (if they have insurance if not the state is going to paying a hell of a lot more than if they'd just used to vaccine) have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for treatment of the disease, putting unnecessary strain on the health care system.

Either way, the money is coming out of your pocket.


I'd say the money is coming out of your pants, which pocket is yet to be determined.

vygramul: It's incomplete analysis. It fails to take into account the lost productivity from the early death, and the tax revenues therefrom, and the potential cost to public health spending in the case of unemployed emergency room visits, and so on.

Not saying the cost/benefit analysis isn't worth doing, but that you need to be thorough.

On the other hand, isn't this exactly the kind of calculation a death panel would be making, and that's a bad thing, and so we should give the vaccine?


Oh I know, but there is a discussion to be had beyond the usual threadshiat in the boobies. I can't read the links right now but I will when I get home tonight.
 
2012-06-20 04:10:43 PM

FloydA: Lucky LaRue:
- There are approximately 550,000 girls under the age of 18 in South Carolina, and it costs $130/dose for the vaccine. That means South Carolina tax payers would pay north of $70 million to fund this effort.

That works out to about 15 bucks per person.

Please consider that calculation before you decide whether or not women's lives are really worth so little.



It also leaves out the fact that a lot of these people will have health insurance that will pay for the vaccine, or - get this -- could get it for way less than $130.00 at Planned Parenthood, if they weren't so goddamned determined to get rid of that "evil abortion factory."
 
2012-06-20 04:11:01 PM

Magorn: Lucky LaRue: I know the comments so far have been pretty disrespectful to Governor Haley, but before you decide to cast any other dispersions on her character, I'd be interested to know how much money you want from me and the other tax payers to pay for this mandated $130/dose vaccine. How many lives is it going to save? 1,000,000? Then it may just be worthwhile.

But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.


Number of HPV-Associated Cancer Cases per YearDuring 2003-2007, an average of 31,392 cancers were potentially associated with HPV (rate of 10.6 per 100,000) in the United States. The table below shows the average number of cases and the incidence rate for each type of HPV-associated cancer.


[www.cdc.gov image 527x311]

Do you see the listing for "oropharynx" cancers? DO do realize what that means? Son , this shiat will give you cancer in places you didn't even know you had and fark sure can't pronounce


Pe- ..... penis cancer... is a thing?!? o.O
 
2012-06-20 04:11:22 PM

Lucky LaRue: I know the comments so far have been pretty disrespectful to Governor Haley, but before you decide to cast any other dispersions on her character, I'd be interested to know how much money you want from me and the other tax payers to pay for this mandated $130/dose vaccine. How many lives is it going to save? 1,000,000? Then it may just be worthwhile.

But, really, at some point you have to look at the numbers and put your money to work where its going to do the most good, and if this is only going to help a couple thousand people dodge cancer, then maybe it makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.


It kills about 9 people in 100,000. So at a cost of $13M to vaccinate 100K of people you can save 9 lives that is $1.4M per life. That is just death and not considering those who get very sick from HPV and cervical cancer.
 
2012-06-20 04:11:59 PM

violentsalvation: I'd say the money is coming out of your pants, which pocket is yet to be determined.


That's why I wrap that shiat up.

Ain't nothing getting near my pants.
 
Displayed 50 of 473 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report