Should parents who refuse to vaccinate their children be forced to pay higher health care costs because they are putting their children at unnecessary risk?

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/index.html?iref=allsearch

What do you think, should parents who refuse to vaccinate their children have to pay higher premiums?

I had to reread the title because I thought it said no vacations! LOL


But we were one that opted not to vaccinate, and unnecessary risk is in the eye of the beholder because for us the vaccinations themselves are the real problem and then STILL don't work on the people we know who DO get them so what is the point of that and what is the point in paying more money for the same results?

It's a good question, and I'd have to think this one through some more. I don't think the premium difference should be an exhorbitant amount. But I still get vaccines to prevent getting sick, and next year I'm going to get one for shingles, because I figure I have more than enough health problems and don't need more to contend with. I think my insurance will love me for it.

I'll say no, but if they did do it....I wouldn't mind. Not vaccinating your kids is stupid.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I'll say no, but if they did do it....I wouldn't mind. Not vaccinating your kids is stupid.

That is a matter of opinion because not everyone has the same 'normal' reaction to vaccinations.

It makes sense, and I like the analogy that was used. I'm on the fence about agreeing with it, though. Are they referring to each and every vaccine available? Or just the pertinant, more reliable ones? I remember having reactions to vaccines, so I can understand why one would want to forgo that option.

Whether or not a parent wants to get their kids vaccinated, that's their business. They need to base that decision on facts, though, and consider what impact that will have on their children. I know a few school systems around here that refused to let students start the school year without being vaccinated.

My son is allergic to most vaccines, a smallpox vaccination could kill him. Should I have had to pay more because he couldn't be vaccinated?

I agree that you shouldnt have to pay more---especially if your kid is allergic. My nephew died from a DPT shot cause he was allergic to the "P". He was revived by paramedics after flat lining and having violent seizures. He is now 21, but all thru school, my sister had to insist that he not get that shot.

The question on whether or not to vaccinate is an interesting one tho. An episode of law and order charged a parent for wreckless endangerment when her unvaccinated son passed german measles onto someone else and the child died. I dont remember the full circumstances, but i think the dead child was too young to vaccinate or something like that. Will have to look into it now that im thinking about it.

wants2laugh wrote:

I agree that you shouldnt have to pay more---especially if your kid is allergic. My nephew died from a DPT shot cause he was allergic to the "P". He was revived by paramedics after flat lining and having violent seizures. He is now 21, but all thru school, my sister had to insist that he not get that shot.

The question on whether or not to vaccinate is an interesting one tho. An episode of law and order charged a parent for wreckless endangerment when her unvaccinated son passed german measles onto someone else and the child died. I dont remember the full circumstances, but i think the dead child was too young to vaccinate or something like that. Will have to look into it now that im thinking about it.

It was LAO: SVU, the kid had regular measles, and it was a baby that caught it but her mother covered it up and buried her, ala Casey Anthony. AND, we find out that the mother of the 5 year old TOOK CARE of her son when he started showing symptoms. But the baby's mother couldn't be bothered with a sick kid, so she spanked the girl for crying when she knew she had a rash, and went to sleep and let the baby die in the night. No calls to a doctor, no trips to the hospital, absolutely NOTHING done to care for the sick baby. She admits this, which could be taken as criminally negligent homicide, and they let her walk free but they prosecute the mother who actually took care of her son when he started showing symptoms. One of my LEAST favorite episodes, they were SO ass backwards on that one. They even admitted it wasn't illegal to not vaccinate and they arrested her for it anyway.


AND, the only thing that could piss me off MORE than that is people's response to the episode. Apparently a mother is supposed to know when her child is sick even if he's not showing symptoms because if the kid is sick at all you have no right taking him outside to infect other kids. Well you know what the problem with that is? 2 tings: ONE, if they're not showing symptoms you can't know they're sick and are you going to take them to a doctor every single day to make sure they don't have a cold? And SECOND OF ALL, if you want to arrest this mother because her son gave measles to the baby, THEN you would have to find out WHO gave the measles to her son and arrest them too and the person who gave it that one and so far so back so on until you go back to when measles was first discovered. It doesn't work like that.

Suzi wrote:

My son is allergic to most vaccines, a smallpox vaccination could kill him. Should I have had to pay more because he couldn't be vaccinated?

In a situation like yours I wouldnt say that someone should pay more but if there is no concrete medical reason that makes vaccinations a bad idea and it was more a case of parents having some weird personal objection then it wouldnt bother me if they were charged more.

RobbieFTW wrote:

In a situation like yours I wouldnt say that someone should pay more but if there is no concrete medical reason that makes vaccinations a bad idea and it was more a case of parents having some weird personal objection then it wouldnt bother me if they were charged more.

Oh I wouldn't be too sure about that. It would depend on the vaccination, like the HPV vaccination, they wanted to make it mandatory to stick all girls in the country 9 and up with it so they won't get cervical cancer when they have sex, but they couldn't be bothered to test it for the full amount of time, instead they decide 1/2 or 1/3 of the time is enough and already they wanted to make it a law to get it.

Well our son is now 50, but every shot he had as a kid made him very sick, we had been told to never allow him to have another small pox vaccination. When he went into the army there was a raft of shots, all of which made him sick, enough that they would keep him in the hospital for a while. But when it came to the small pox vaccine he plead allergic so they tested him. Told him he might as well put cyanide in his veins as have a small pox vaccine. So later in Germany a hot shot young doctor thought he could give our son the vaccine, they checked in into the hospital, gave him 1/3 of the vaccine. 5 days later he woke up in the ICU with monitors on chest and head. Then the Dr discusses giving him another 1/3 a dose, our son just said "please don't do that". The Dr then decided that it was best to not give him more. He has avoided any vaccines since. Says he would rather take his chances with the flu that get the flu shots because the shots make him sicker than the actual disease. Thankfully here in BC we have UHC.

well i think that the autism rates of 1 in 167 kids becomes autistic is an absolutely alarming rate. I really honestly believe that has something to do with either the food we are eating (has more chemicals and preservatives than the foods of decades ago) or the vaccinations.

IMO the govt should be trying to figure out what is making these kids autistic.

wants2laugh wrote:

well i think that the autism rates of 1 in 167 kids becomes autistic is an absolutely alarming rate. I really honestly believe that has something to do with either the food we are eating (has more chemicals and preservatives than the foods of decades ago) or the vaccinations.

IMO the govt should be trying to figure out what is making these kids autistic.

My mother has a friend who has worked with autistic children and the ONLY connecting factor she could find to all the children was that all of their parents, specifically the mothers, smoked and did drugs...now maybe that's just a coincidence but I believe coincidence is only coincidence for so long, and no more, and that's the only thing all these families she knows have in common that when the mothers were younger and possibly when pregnant they did all these unhealthy things, but are not willing to admit to it now.

well... I am friends with a married couple (since high school), and they are both born again christens who never smoked, drank, or did drugs--not even when we were in school. They have 2 autistic kids, and when pregnant she did everything that she thought she was supposed to do: she exercised, ate right, quit work to alleviate physical stress.

So i do not believe that one HAS to smoke, drink, or do drugs in order to have autistic kids.

wants2laugh wrote:

well... I am friends with a married couple (since high school), and they are both born again christens who never smoked, drank, or did drugs--not even when we were in school. They have 2 autistic kids, and when pregnant she did everything that she thought she was supposed to do: she exercised, ate right, quit work to alleviate physical stress.

So i do not believe that one HAS to smoke, drink, or do drugs in order to have autistic kids.

This is true but the problem is we don't KNOW what DOES cause it, NOBODY seems to know and if they do they are not telling us so what is the answer and why won't anybody say anything? Of all the things they CAN find out I find it a little odd that this one is such a mystery still.

Supernova wrote:

My mother has a friend who has worked with autistic children and the ONLY connecting factor she could find to all the children was that all of their parents, specifically the mothers, smoked and did drugs...now maybe that's just a coincidence but I believe coincidence is only coincidence for so long, and no more, and that's the only thing all these families she knows have in common that when the mothers were younger and possibly when pregnant they did all these unhealthy things, but are not willing to admit to it now.

With all due respect, that connection is insulting.

Chris wrote:

Should parents who refuse to vaccinate their children be forced to pay higher health care costs because they are putting their children at unnecessary risk?

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/parikh.childhood.immunizations/index.html?iref=allsearch

What do you think, should parents who refuse to vaccinate their children have to pay higher premiums?

Such parents should not pay a higher premium but should be asked to pay more toward the medical bill should their child contract an illness they could have been safeguarded against.

RedBedroom wrote:

Such parents should not pay a higher premium but should be asked to pay more toward the medical bill should their child contract an illness they could have been safeguarded against.

I agree. When something happens, and the kids get sick, I wouldn't blame their insurance companies if they insisted on them paying more out of pocket to cover the medical costs. Vaccinating kids is imperative. If a parent is too lazy or superstitious to tend to the preventative needs of their children, then when the shit hits the fan it's on them.

I firmly believe that insurance providers bet on people dying rather than surviving. So if an unvaccinated child catches a reawakened disease like small pox, then that child's contagion will likely kill another life or two as well as his own. Of course, modern medicine might keep it in better check than in past history. So, since small pox might kill a life quickly then that is of no concern to the insurance provider. Cold fact but that's how it is. And in that case, premiums should not go up.