Rick Perry - Monster or Savior?

Perry issued an "executive order" mandating HPV vaccinations for girls by age 12. I don't believe there was an "opt out option". It definitely undermined parental control. Conservative groups were shocked and pissed. He now admits he should have gone to the legislature.

The vaccination more or less addresses a behavioural disease. It's not like polio or smallpox mandated for the general good. The Supreme Court has ruled that "there has to be little practical alternative to avoid contracting a dangerous disease or from being a disease risk for a vaccination to be required."

Merck received approval for Gardasil in 2006. The next year Perry issued an executive order mandating all girls to be vaccinated by age 12. At the time Gardasil was the only drug on the market.They stood to make a buttload if this order had become law. Mike Toomey, Perry's former Chief of Staff, was a lobbyist for Merck.

Merck had donated $380,000 to the Republicans Governor's Association since 2006. Perry has chaired this group twice. This group is one of Perry's biggest donors. Although Perry conceiveably meant well, I think a large part of his decision was based on years of donations from Merck.

In my opinion...don't play politics with my kids. Originally Posted by cookie man

Apart from the corrupt way in which I agree it was managed with Merck, I think it's a numbers game. If enough lives are going to be saved, it's an action worth considering.

If an AIDS vaccine become available, I hope it would be mandated with an executive order so that the politics would be avoided. Sometimes the problem with parental control is that parents (especially on the evangelical Right) are out of touch with what's going on with their kids generation. Look at all the teenage pregnancies that resulted from the 'abstinence pacts with God'. For goodness sakes, kids will be kids. I'm sure many parents would object to an AIDS vaccine for their kids because of their ignorance. Sometimes it is governments role to protect people from themselves, which is why we have mandated seat belts, speed limits, etc., etc.. Sometimes kids need to be protected from the views of their parents.

Cheers,

L4L

Cookie Man, there was an opt out.

"And you also want the government to run health care??????"

The military health care system is government run. Most retirees in this country don't have anything close to it! Originally Posted by slowmover

Actually, I'd like government just to finance the health care system. Mediare is government financed health care and it works great.

It has a bit of a demographic problem at the moment. We currently have 3.4 Medicare beneficiaries per worker now. When it started, the number was well over 4. In 2028, it will be about 2.5. This is not because of any fundamental lack of soundness in government financing of health care, but is simply a case of the Baby Boom retiring and a case of needing to temporarily raise revenue from either a higher payroll tax or sources other than a payroll tax.

But you could easily fund a "Medicare for All" type plan where ALL employers pay a modest payroll tax on their employees in lieu of health insurance premiums. These premiums go to the Federal government. In exchange, all Americans get health care with relatively modest co-pays for basic care and more generous benefits for hospitalization and serious illness, just like seniors get Medicare now.

For employers like me, who already provide their employees with good health insurance, I'd just pay the tax instead of an insurance premium. (And probably less tax than insurance premium because Medicare is very efficient, with only 2% going to administrative costs and other non-medical payments whereas up to 35 or 40 cents of every insurance premium dollar goes to administrative costs or profit.)

Employers who have not been paying premiums for their employees would be adversely effected relative to those businesses that do, but heretofore, they have been competing at an economic advantage to businesses like mine (and not providing their employees with needed benefits).

Very simple actually. As a private business owner who takes care of his employees, I'd love for the government to do this. It would save me money.

This vaccination more or less addresses a behavioural disease. It's not like polio or smallpox mandated for the general good. Originally Posted by cookie man

You'll never get me to say anything good about Rick Perry. And I'm sure he signed the Executive Order for all the wrong reasons. I'd bet a hundred dollars to a nickle that it was purely to reward Merck.

But how in the hell do you figure that cervical cancer is a "behavioral disease". Unless you figure that having sex isn't part of the human behavior, it's a human disease just like any other. Maybe you'd label TB a behavioral disease because you have to breathe to get it?

People have sex. Sex is what transmits HPV virus. How does that make it a poor candidate for a vaccination, mandatory or otherwise?

Rick Perry has said himself that the way he went about it was wrong. Having unprotected sex is a choice. Breathing is not.

Let parents take their daughters or sons (it can be used on boys) to the doctor when they are of age. Let the debates begin on how to handle the ones that can't afford it.

I didn't realize that HPV related deaths were so prevalent in our society as to require a mandate. Most women who do acquire HPV don't have complications from the virus. Also Gardasil doesn't prevent all high risk HPVs. I think it's a good idea for young teens to get this shot, but on their own volition.

Rick Perry has said himself that the way he went about it was wrong. Having unprotected sex is a choice. Breathing is not.

Let parents take their daughters or sons (it can be used on boys) to the doctor when they are of age. Let the debates begin on how to handle the ones that can't afford it.

I didn't realize that HPV related deaths were so prevalent in our society as to require a mandate. Most women who do acquire HPV don't have complications from the virus. Also Gardasil doesn't prevent all high risk HPVs. I think it's a good idea for young teens to get this shot, but on their own volition. Originally Posted by cookie man

Rick Perry is a political flag who is simply trying to deal with the backwards opinions of his constituents. What he's saying now is just a script given to him by his campaign handlers. We have no idea what Rick Perry really thinks. The medical term is HUAS (Head-Up-Ass-Syndrome).

We agree to disagree. When it comes to anything that has a sexual connotation, there are far too many shit-for-brains parents that can't be trusted to make sound decisions for their kids. These parents expose their kids to HPV, AIDS, and teen pregnancies rather than acknowledge that their kids might be sexually active. Segments of this country are surprisingly repressed when it comes to anything sexual.

These same parents would let their kids drink and drive rather than acknowledge that they're using alcohol if we let them.

The tea baggers also are not aware of all the new toll roads. Some of us now have to pay tolls to get home.

Rick Perry has said himself that the way he went about it was wrong. Having unprotected sex is a choice. Breathing is not.

Let parents take their daughters or sons (it can be used on boys) to the doctor when they are of age. Let the debates begin on how to handle the ones that can't afford it.

I didn't realize that HPV related deaths were so prevalent in our society as to require a mandate. Most women who do acquire HPV don't have complications from the virus. Also Gardasil doesn't prevent all high risk HPVs. I think it's a good idea for young teens to get this shot, but on their own volition. Originally Posted by cookie man

So if there is an HIV vaccine, it should be optional?? That's just fuckin' nuts.

Actually, I'd like government just to finance the health care system. Mediare is government financed health care and it works great.

Unless you're a doctor or hospital.

Bottom line, Government run health care is not sustainable without significant sacrifices in the quality of services and sacrifices in innovation of new products/cures.

What made this country great is rugged individualism and self interest. It is why our middle class owns homes, new cars, computers, cable and internet...etc while other countries do not.

The consequences of an entitlement society is that too few must pay for too many. It is human nature to produce only when you have to produce.

As for Perry, he's got flaws just like the other GOP candidates. All of them are better than the guy that shoved Obamacare down our throats against the will of the people.

I too saw the debate Michell bakmen was too critical and ignorant about the HPV vaccine... Rick perry should have said so you would rather have warts and cervical cancer than have the vaccine???

I don't know timothe, Perry shoved an income tax down the throats of Texas businesses without any regard for the state Constitution. A Republican that raises taxes? We'll be damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I don't know timothe, Perry shoved an income tax down the throats of Texas businesses without any regard for the state Constitution. A Republican that raises taxes? We'll be damned if we do and damned if we don't. Originally Posted by 7th is Heaven

I don't know anything about that as I am a recent transplant to Texas. But I'd like to think Perry is less likely to increase the size of the Federal Government and to raise taxes than the current occupant. Am I wrong?

The best description of Perry I've seen came from Republican strategist Mike Murphy's tweet during the last debate:

"Listening to Rick Perry putting a complicated policy sentence together is like watching a chimp playing with a locked suitcase."

He is where he is because he's a good-looking guy (great hair) who keeps the message simple and he stays on the message. Not very smart. Deserves very little credit for whatever you think is happening in Texas economically (we could argue about the health of the Texas economy, but it's become one of those things that illustrates the "if you say it enough, people believe it" concept.)

That having been said, I think that there is very good chance he'll be the Republican nominee or at least Romney's VP choice, in order to assuage the Tea-Baggers.

As for the general election: it's the economy stupid. Obama has got to do something to turn the economy around or the crazies are going to be running the country (again).

But I'd like to think Perry is less likely to increase the size of the Federal Government and to raise taxes than the current occupant. Am I wrong?

It depends on what is politically expedient. Perry has no political ideology.

The best description of Perry I've seen came from Republican strategist Mike Murphy's tweet during the last debate:

"Listening to Rick Perry putting a complicated policy sentence together is like watching a chimp playing with a locked suitcase."

He is where he is because he's a good-looking guy (great hair) who keeps the message simple and he stays on the message. Not very smart. Deserves very little credit for whatever you think is happening in Texas economically (we could argue about the health of the Texas economy, but it's become one of those things that illustrates the "if you say it enough, people believe it" concept.)

That having been said, I think that there is very good chance he'll be the Republican nominee or at least Romney's VP choice, in order to assuage the Tea-Baggers.

As for the general election: it's the economy stupid. Obama has got to do something to turn the economy around or the crazies are going to be running the country (again). Originally Posted by timpage

Agree completely.