Ugh. That will be a much replayed soundclip by Democrats. Christie wasn't much better.

And that was decidedly NOT the libertarian position from Rand. If you wanted to go libertarian on vaccines, you'd do it like this:

1) All vaccines optional.
2) If you opt out of a vaccine*, 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 a vaccine*, and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as the transmission vector that caused another person to contract the illness because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to take the vaccine themselves, 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.


* Only applies to a known white list of low risk high success rate vaccines for major illnesses. Stuff like MMR and polio. Trivial crap and low effective crap like the flu does not apply.

I think these are very stupid positions as well.

(02-02-2015 11:24 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I think these are very stupid positions as well.

Let us hear your grand alternative.

(02-02-2015 11:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 11:24 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I think these are very stupid positions as well.

Let us hear your grand alternative.

interesting

You sound rather touchy on this subject, so I think I'll just leave it in your hands.

# 3 doesn't fly. That isn't how tort law operates. I take it that is what you mean for it to be.

(02-02-2015 11:51 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  interesting

You sound rather touchy on this subject, so I think I'll just leave it in your hands.

The subject isn't some huge deal to me ... but saying HAHA that's dumb with no explanation or counterpoint is pretty RobertN of you. If you have a superior alternative let's hear it. But if you're not willing to offer up solutions or even any effort whatsoever to have criticism ... why bother at all? Even Hannity and Maddow at least make an attempt to explain their positions.

(02-03-2015 12:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  # 3 doesn't fly. That isn't how tort law operates. I take it that is what you mean for it to be.

I realize it is difficult in practice unless the contagion is something rare. I'd like to hear a legal explanation though for why that doesn't work. It seems to me if you willingly opt out of, say, a polio vaccine ... then you get polio and give it to others at some daycare who couldn't have the vaccine yet because they were sick ... you should be culpable for the damages your negligence has caused.

It's just a classic negligence action. If you can prove a person was the proximate cause of your illness, polio or whatever, then you have a classic negligence action. Tort operates on a perponderance of the evidence burden, not a criminal type beyond a reasonable doubt.

To make it more fair you can turn around a recognize a strict contributory negligence theory. That is to say that while it was negligent that I wasn't vaccinated your lack of a vaccination contributed to your harm and thus you can't recover. It means idiots can't gain from the stupidity of others.

paul screwed up with this tonight. its over for him now, sadly.

NBC got what they wanted out of it: a gaffe and republican infight.

Yea, this wasn't a good look.

I think he'll "revise and amend" his statements and still be a player in this election. Least I hope so.

(02-02-2015 10:50 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Ugh. That will be a much replayed soundclip by Democrats. Christie wasn't much better.

And that was decidedly NOT the libertarian position from Rand. If you wanted to go libertarian on vaccines, you'd do it like this:

1) All vaccines optional.
2) If you opt out of a vaccine*, 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 a vaccine*, and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as the transmission vector that caused another person to contract the illness because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to take the vaccine themselves, 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.


* Only applies to a known white list of low risk high success rate vaccines for major illnesses. Stuff like MMR and polio. Trivial crap and low effective crap like the flu does not apply.

What did Rand say?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I read where Mississippi actually has the highest vaccination rates. They don't allow any exemptions for school admission. It is really that simple.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(02-02-2015 10:50 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Ugh. That will be a much replayed soundclip by Democrats. Christie wasn't much better.

And that was decidedly NOT the libertarian position from Rand. If you wanted to go libertarian on vaccines, you'd do it like this:

1) All vaccines optional.
2) If you opt out of a vaccine*, 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 a vaccine*, and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as the transmission vector that caused another person to contract the illness because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to take the vaccine themselves, 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.


* Only applies to a known white list of low risk high success rate vaccines for major illnesses. Stuff like MMR and polio. Trivial crap and low effective crap like the flu does not apply.

That's not really a choice though. It's analogous to religion and free will. Sure, you don't have to have a relationship with Jesus. But if you don't, then you spend eternity in hell. Or Obama stating you can build a new coal fired power plant, but you will be bankrupted by the gov't.

Vaccines should be mandated, because you risk the health of others in the process - specifically the health of the child. It violates his/her inalienable rights IMO.

(02-03-2015 01:06 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 12:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  # 3 doesn't fly. That isn't how tort law operates. I take it that is what you mean for it to be.

I realize it is difficult in practice unless the contagion is something rare. I'd like to hear a legal explanation though for why that doesn't work. It seems to me if you willingly opt out of, say, a polio vaccine ... then you get polio and give it to others at some daycare who couldn't have the vaccine yet because they were sick ... you should be culpable for the damages your negligence has caused.

... Because most schmucks that would make that kind of decision can't afford to pay 9 figure damage awards...

I think folks that refuse vaccines for their kids are misguided; however, Rand is off the mark here. This is still a free country, sort ot.

(02-03-2015 08:40 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 01:06 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 12:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  # 3 doesn't fly. That isn't how tort law operates. I take it that is what you mean for it to be.

I realize it is difficult in practice unless the contagion is something rare. I'd like to hear a legal explanation though for why that doesn't work. It seems to me if you willingly opt out of, say, a polio vaccine ... then you get polio and give it to others at some daycare who couldn't have the vaccine yet because they were sick ... you should be culpable for the damages your negligence has caused.

... Because most schmucks that would make that kind of decision can't afford to pay 9 figure damage awards...

Can a vaccinated/immune person still carry these viruses even if the disease doesn't infect them?

(02-03-2015 08:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I think folks that refuse vaccines for their kids are misguided; however, Rand is off the mark here. This is still a free country, sort ot.

Agree, this falls under the 9th Amendment, IMO. Clear parental right.

Uhm... what did he say that was wrong?


"Vaccines are good. But it's not up to the govt. to decide if you want to get a vaccine. The government doesn't own your kids...."

I heard the clip on the radio this morning.. So maybe there was something more than what got played.

So I'm confused, if you ask me, GTS.. he went right down the Libertarian line for his comment?

Quote:Can a vaccinated/immune person still carry these viruses even if the disease doesn't infect them?

And Yes, Ever.. a vaccine doesn't necessarily "kill" a virus... it just sort of makes it inert in your own body until it dies out on it's own, or moves to a new host.

Why do you think adults get shingles? Because the chicken pox virus is still in your body.

(02-03-2015 08:46 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Can a vaccinated/immune person still carry these viruses even if the disease doesn't infect them?

Good question. A better question would be whether they can be infectious, but I think the answer would be no, viral load and all that...

(02-03-2015 09:30 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Uhm... what did he say that was wrong?


"Vaccines are good. But it's not up to the govt. to decide if you want to get a vaccine. The government doesn't own your kids...."

I heard the clip on the radio this morning.. So maybe there was something more than what got played.

So I'm confused, if you ask me, GTS.. he went right down the Libertarian line for his comment?

Quote:Can a vaccinated/immune person still carry these viruses even if the disease doesn't infect them?

And Yes, Ever.. a vaccine doesn't necessarily "kill" a virus... it just sort of makes it inert in your own body until it dies out on it's own, or moves to a new host.

Why do you think adults get shingles? Because the chicken pox virus is still in your body.

Adults get shingles because once you have chicken pox you will always carry the virus titers in you. However you can only transmit chicken pox while you have an active case of chicken pox or an active case of shingles. Someone who has never had chicken pox can get chicken pox from someone with an active case of shingles or an active case of chicken pox. Note the emphasis on ACTIVE CASE. You can not get chicken pox from someone who had chicken pox or shingles sometime in the past just because they carry the titers. They must have an active case to spread it.

A small percentage of those vaccinated for measles will still develop measles. Their bodies likely did not develop the titers needed for immunity after they were vaccinated so yes someone who has been vaccinated can develop a case of the measles and spread it. However if you do not have an active case of the measles you can not spread the measles.

One of the biggest problems with the spreading of the measles is that someone might have an active case of the measles (early stages of the disease), not know it and unknowingly spread it.

My take on this is that "forcing" parents to vaccinate their kids is probably going too far. I don't want vaccination police going door to door.

However, if you want your kid to go to public school, then show proof of vaccination. Intend to play in a sports league? likewise.

I think there is a compelling public interest in vaccinations and coercive means should be used, but I don't think you can either force them to be vaccinated or take custody of someone's kids if they don't.

Whether true or not, I can't respect Rand Paul for what he said about mental problems and vaccines. The way that he presented it was using anecdotal evidence to shape policy, and that shows a blatant disregard for scientific process and basic sound decision-making for medical policy. When presented with new evidence for something - anecdotal or not - it makes sense to back off of a policy until there is time to research it. But, none of this is new, and if there is evidence by now, it has to be substantiated, quantified, and the positive weighed against negative side effects. What he did shows a blatant disregard for any kind of rational decision-making.