Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Oh yeah, like tetanus?
Can you think of a more convenient way to require (or even promote) vaccination?
What about the point raised earlier - that this guarantees insurance coverage for the vaccination?
Your fears of a "nanny state" really have to keep in mind pragmatism and effectiveness, don't you think?
|
Yep, I think Merck could advertise directly to the parents and sell it the way anything else gets sold.
A gov't could require insurers to cover it without making it mandatory for school.
I agree that tetanus is debatable, but I think the idea is that if a kid got injured at recess. . . etc. Hepatitis does seem to be a precedent for requiring something you're not likely to be exposed to at school, but I guess you could be with little kids and injuries.
Pragmatic in the sense that it would cost less to immunize than to treat the disease: yes, the gov't has an interest in trying to get people to get the shots. Connecting it with school attendance? Again, I don't think so.