Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rand goes retard on vaccines
Author Message
fsquid Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 81,355
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 1835
I Root For: Memphis, Queens (NC)
Location: St Johns, FL

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesMemphis Hall of Fame
Post: #61
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
People that don't vaccinate would put Galileo to death back in the day
02-04-2015 01:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
VA49er Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,999
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation: 952
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-04-2015 01:01 AM)fsquid Wrote:  People that don't vaccinate would put Galileo to death back in the day

Let's just go back to this.

[Image: i92vgnv.jpg]
02-04-2015 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Offline
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-03-2015 10:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 09:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  What is the libertarian view on homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

Let's look at what I think it should be based upon the logic of what you say it should be for vaccines:

1) All homosexual sex is optional.
2) If you opt out of NOT having homosexual sex, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of treatment. No insurance help. No government help. You're on your own.
3) If you opt out of restraining yourself from having homosexual sex, and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as your homosexual sex being the transmission vector that caused another person to contract HIV because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to be able to fight off HIV, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of their treatment. You have to go into bankruptcy and have assets liquidated before the government or insurance covers any unfulfilled costs.

Does that sum up the "libertarian" view of homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

My view on all STDs, regardless of sexual orientation or any other factors, is that they should not be covered with exception of the following circumstances:

- Failure of a safe sex device which was reported to a licensed medical practitioner within the next two business days. No getting it and them coming back a month later when you realize you got it and going "doh golly musta broke".

- Rape

- Incest

- Case involving a pregnancy

- Case involving pass through to a fetus through whatever means, and the ongoing care after that fetus is born.

That would go hand in hand with making safe sex products easily attainable and cheap ... and making FULL STD workups (a lot don't even include herpes or hepatitis!) easily attainable and cheap. I'm talking about your local pharmacist being able to take the blood work and send it off.

Let's not get ridiculous here. Slippery slope. My son caught a nasty stomach virus that hit right in the middle of a basketball game amid 8,500 people. Among the attended were infants and elderly. Using some of your logic, I should be held responsible for everyone that got sick... or maybe he picked it up from school and someone else should be liable. There was a popular saying in the 60's that I really think we need to get back to as a society: sh*t happens. When do we get to the point that we ban events with large crowds or require all attendees to go through a government mandated health and virus detection screening at the door before entering.
02-04-2015 09:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #64
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
Public health does not lend itself to libertarian schemes very well. And the interest of the kids need to be accounted for, outside of the parents issues.
02-04-2015 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #65
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-04-2015 10:54 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Public health does not lend itself to libertarian schemes very well. And the interest of the kids need to be accounted for, outside of the parents issues.

Public health does not truly lend itself to socialist ideas either. Not if you are talking about actually improving health. The best systems for getting results are the Bismarcks, which don't work like Obamacare at all.
02-04-2015 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #66
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-03-2015 10:15 PM)G-Man Wrote:  If someone creates a fetus, and the fetus is born, he/she is responsible for creating the baby. Why shouldn't the people involved be responsible themselves to pay the FULL cost of healthcare for the baby if it has HIV, until they go broke, if one/both knew they had HIV prior to having sex? On the other hand, what if they create a healthy fetus and they decide to abort it-- who pays for the abortion? Who pays for the woman's psychiatric care later in life when she regrets having the abortion? What if the abortion causes her to become sterile in the future and she wants to adopt kids? Should health insurance pay for the cost of that, or the guy she had sex with who got her pregnant when she aborted her baby?

And if I understand you right, you're saying a guy who gives a woman the Human Papilloma virus should be made to go bankrupt paying her bills (if he can't pay them all before then), if she gets cervical cancer?

Because the baby is a third party to the irresponsible act. I'm pretty sure the baby wasn't lobbying for disease.

I would not include HPV in the STD list. The link between it and cervical cancer isn't cemented in a brick wall of science. There is evidence, but not overwhelmingly so. And the HPV vaccine has caused fatal reactions ... so I'm no fan of it.
02-04-2015 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #67
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-04-2015 09:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Let's not get ridiculous here. Slippery slope. My son caught a nasty stomach virus that hit right in the middle of a basketball game amid 8,500 people. Among the attended were infants and elderly. Using some of your logic, I should be held responsible for everyone that got sick... or maybe he picked it up from school and someone else should be liable. There was a popular saying in the 60's that I really think we need to get back to as a society: sh*t happens. When do we get to the point that we ban events with large crowds or require all attendees to go through a government mandated health and virus detection screening at the door before entering.

We were talking about STDs and vaccines here. I'm not advocating for liability costs for common airborne illnesses. It is wildly impractical (really impossible).
02-04-2015 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #68
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-04-2015 09:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 10:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 09:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  What is the libertarian view on homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

Let's look at what I think it should be based upon the logic of what you say it should be for vaccines:

1) All homosexual sex is optional.
2) If you opt out of NOT having homosexual sex, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of treatment. No insurance help. No government help. You're on your own.
3) If you opt out of restraining yourself from having homosexual sex, and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as your homosexual sex being the transmission vector that caused another person to contract HIV because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to be able to fight off HIV, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of their treatment. You have to go into bankruptcy and have assets liquidated before the government or insurance covers any unfulfilled costs.

Does that sum up the "libertarian" view of homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

My view on all STDs, regardless of sexual orientation or any other factors, is that they should not be covered with exception of the following circumstances:

- Failure of a safe sex device which was reported to a licensed medical practitioner within the next two business days. No getting it and them coming back a month later when you realize you got it and going "doh golly musta broke".

- Rape

- Incest

- Case involving a pregnancy

- Case involving pass through to a fetus through whatever means, and the ongoing care after that fetus is born.

That would go hand in hand with making safe sex products easily attainable and cheap ... and making FULL STD workups (a lot don't even include herpes or hepatitis!) easily attainable and cheap. I'm talking about your local pharmacist being able to take the blood work and send it off.

Let's not get ridiculous here. Slippery slope. My son caught a nasty stomach virus that hit right in the middle of a basketball game amid 8,500 people. Among the attended were infants and elderly. Using some of your logic, I should be held responsible for everyone that got sick... or maybe he picked it up from school and someone else should be liable. There was a popular saying in the 60's that I really think we need to get back to as a society: sh*t happens. When do we get to the point that we ban events with large crowds or require all attendees to go through a government mandated health and virus detection screening at the door before entering.

There is no slippery slope here and such an occurrence wouldn't bring out any liability.
02-04-2015 06:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Offline
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #69
Re: RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-04-2015 06:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 09:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 10:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 09:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  What is the libertarian view on homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

Let's look at what I think it should be based upon the logic of what you say it should be for vaccines:

1) All homosexual sex is optional.
2) If you opt out of NOT having homosexual sex, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of treatment. No insurance help. No government help. You're on your own.
3) If you opt out of restraining yourself from having homosexual sex, and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as your homosexual sex being the transmission vector that caused another person to contract HIV because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to be able to fight off HIV, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of their treatment. You have to go into bankruptcy and have assets liquidated before the government or insurance covers any unfulfilled costs.

Does that sum up the "libertarian" view of homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

My view on all STDs, regardless of sexual orientation or any other factors, is that they should not be covered with exception of the following circumstances:

- Failure of a safe sex device which was reported to a licensed medical practitioner within the next two business days. No getting it and them coming back a month later when you realize you got it and going "doh golly musta broke".

- Rape

- Incest

- Case involving a pregnancy

- Case involving pass through to a fetus through whatever means, and the ongoing care after that fetus is born.

That would go hand in hand with making safe sex products easily attainable and cheap ... and making FULL STD workups (a lot don't even include herpes or hepatitis!) easily attainable and cheap. I'm talking about your local pharmacist being able to take the blood work and send it off.

Let's not get ridiculous here. Slippery slope. My son caught a nasty stomach virus that hit right in the middle of a basketball game amid 8,500 people. Among the attended were infants and elderly. Using some of your logic, I should be held responsible for everyone that got sick... or maybe he picked it up from school and someone else should be liable. There was a popular saying in the 60's that I really think we need to get back to as a society: sh*t happens. When do we get to the point that we ban events with large crowds or require all attendees to go through a government mandated health and virus detection screening at the door before entering.

There is no slippery slope here and such an occurrence wouldn't bring out any liability.

Once government gets a foothold, it grows.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
02-04-2015 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #70
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-04-2015 07:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 06:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 09:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 10:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 09:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  What is the libertarian view on homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

Let's look at what I think it should be based upon the logic of what you say it should be for vaccines:

1) All homosexual sex is optional.
2) If you opt out of NOT having homosexual sex, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of treatment. No insurance help. No government help. You're on your own.
3) If you opt out of restraining yourself from having homosexual sex, and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as your homosexual sex being the transmission vector that caused another person to contract HIV because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to be able to fight off HIV, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of their treatment. You have to go into bankruptcy and have assets liquidated before the government or insurance covers any unfulfilled costs.

Does that sum up the "libertarian" view of homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

My view on all STDs, regardless of sexual orientation or any other factors, is that they should not be covered with exception of the following circumstances:

- Failure of a safe sex device which was reported to a licensed medical practitioner within the next two business days. No getting it and them coming back a month later when you realize you got it and going "doh golly musta broke".

- Rape

- Incest

- Case involving a pregnancy

- Case involving pass through to a fetus through whatever means, and the ongoing care after that fetus is born.

That would go hand in hand with making safe sex products easily attainable and cheap ... and making FULL STD workups (a lot don't even include herpes or hepatitis!) easily attainable and cheap. I'm talking about your local pharmacist being able to take the blood work and send it off.

Let's not get ridiculous here. Slippery slope. My son caught a nasty stomach virus that hit right in the middle of a basketball game amid 8,500 people. Among the attended were infants and elderly. Using some of your logic, I should be held responsible for everyone that got sick... or maybe he picked it up from school and someone else should be liable. There was a popular saying in the 60's that I really think we need to get back to as a society: sh*t happens. When do we get to the point that we ban events with large crowds or require all attendees to go through a government mandated health and virus detection screening at the door before entering.

There is no slippery slope here and such an occurrence wouldn't bring out any liability.

Once government gets a foothold, it grows.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

It isn't getting a foothold in anything.
02-04-2015 08:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Offline
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #71
Re: RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-04-2015 08:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 07:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 06:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 09:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 10:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  My view on all STDs, regardless of sexual orientation or any other factors, is that they should not be covered with exception of the following circumstances:

- Failure of a safe sex device which was reported to a licensed medical practitioner within the next two business days. No getting it and them coming back a month later when you realize you got it and going "doh golly musta broke".

- Rape

- Incest

- Case involving a pregnancy

- Case involving pass through to a fetus through whatever means, and the ongoing care after that fetus is born.

That would go hand in hand with making safe sex products easily attainable and cheap ... and making FULL STD workups (a lot don't even include herpes or hepatitis!) easily attainable and cheap. I'm talking about your local pharmacist being able to take the blood work and send it off.

Let's not get ridiculous here. Slippery slope. My son caught a nasty stomach virus that hit right in the middle of a basketball game amid 8,500 people. Among the attended were infants and elderly. Using some of your logic, I should be held responsible for everyone that got sick... or maybe he picked it up from school and someone else should be liable. There was a popular saying in the 60's that I really think we need to get back to as a society: sh*t happens. When do we get to the point that we ban events with large crowds or require all attendees to go through a government mandated health and virus detection screening at the door before entering.

There is no slippery slope here and such an occurrence wouldn't bring out any liability.

Once government gets a foothold, it grows.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

It isn't getting a foothold in anything.

You are advocating lawsuits for spreading viruses. If that isn't a foothold, I don't know what is.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
02-04-2015 10:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #72
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-04-2015 10:13 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 08:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 07:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 06:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 09:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Let's not get ridiculous here. Slippery slope. My son caught a nasty stomach virus that hit right in the middle of a basketball game amid 8,500 people. Among the attended were infants and elderly. Using some of your logic, I should be held responsible for everyone that got sick... or maybe he picked it up from school and someone else should be liable. There was a popular saying in the 60's that I really think we need to get back to as a society: sh*t happens. When do we get to the point that we ban events with large crowds or require all attendees to go through a government mandated health and virus detection screening at the door before entering.

There is no slippery slope here and such an occurrence wouldn't bring out any liability.

Once government gets a foothold, it grows.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

It isn't getting a foothold in anything.

You are advocating lawsuits for spreading viruses. If that isn't a foothold, I don't know what is.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Except I'm not.

I'm just saying negligence law should apply to these people who refuse to vaccinate. I explained what limits all of this earlier.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2015 10:18 PM by HeartOfDixie.)
02-04-2015 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Offline
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
Then what exactly are you arguing?
02-04-2015 10:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #74
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
My bad man, I altered that post too late.
02-04-2015 10:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
G-Man Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,369
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 481
I Root For: Truth & Justice
Location: Cyberspace
Post: #75
RE: Rand goes retard on vaccines
(02-04-2015 05:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(02-03-2015 10:15 PM)G-Man Wrote:  If someone creates a fetus, and the fetus is born, he/she is responsible for creating the baby. Why shouldn't the people involved be responsible themselves to pay the FULL cost of healthcare for the baby if it has HIV, until they go broke, if one/both knew they had HIV prior to having sex? On the other hand, what if they create a healthy fetus and they decide to abort it-- who pays for the abortion? Who pays for the woman's psychiatric care later in life when she regrets having the abortion? What if the abortion causes her to become sterile in the future and she wants to adopt kids? Should health insurance pay for the cost of that, or the guy she had sex with who got her pregnant when she aborted her baby?

And if I understand you right, you're saying a guy who gives a woman the Human Papilloma virus should be made to go bankrupt paying her bills (if he can't pay them all before then), if she gets cervical cancer?

Because the baby is a third party to the irresponsible act. I'm pretty sure the baby wasn't lobbying for disease.

Which baby? The one who got HIV, or the one who was aborted?

BTW, whichever baby it is, I really don't understand what question you're trying to answer. I asked why shouldn't the people who do bad things to babies, cover the costs, and you said, because the baby is a third party?
02-05-2015 02:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.