Since you all know I like switching things up for debate I have thought of another faux Bill to be enacted. Please keep in mind that I wrote this in word and copy and pasted it over to AG so sorry if the text get's a little scrambled in some areas.
The Pandemic Health Legislation Enforcing Germ Management Act
Section 1: In case of an imminent pandemic of an infectious disease that spreads through human populations of a large region; such as a continent or even worldwide the P.H.L.E.G.M. Act will be enacted mandating that high risk citizens will be required to receive preventative vaccinations.
SECTION 2. High Risk citizens are defined as: A. citizens under the age of 21 B. citizens above the age of 65
SECTION 3. A fine of $1,000 will be charged if said citizens do not receive the vaccination after 3 weeks prior to the date that the P.H.L.E.G.M. Act is triggered by section 4.
SECTION 4. The Act will be triggered at dates in which a pandemic arises and vacination becomes available to the public.
SECTION 5. All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void.
A fine of $1,000 will be charged if said citizens do not receive the vaccination after 3 weeks prior to the date that the P.H.L.E.G.M. Act is triggered by section 4.
So you're forcing people to get vaccinated. Yet if it was so important to them, they'd do it themselves. Why is there a need to coerce people into doing something in their best interest, and suppose it wasn't in their best interest. You're forcing them to do something NOT in their best interest, which is even worse!
So you're forcing people to get vaccinated. Yet if it was so important to them, they'd do it themselves. Why is there a need to coerce people into doing something in their best interest, and suppose it wasn't in their best interest. You're forcing them to do something NOT in their best interest, which is even worse!
My point is that if it's in their best interest, it's redundant. If it's not in their best interest, it is counterproductive.
So you're forcing people to get vaccinated. Yet if it was so important to them, they'd do it themselves.
A lot of people fear getting vaccinations because they think they will have health issues. If it's mandated the government won't have to worry about their fears because a fear of catching a disease and a fear of having to pay a $1000 will be outweighed.
Why is there a need to coerce people into doing something in their best interest, and suppose it wasn't in their best interest. You're forcing them to do something NOT in their best interest, which is even worse!
I'm sorry let me clarify this. On this thread we will take the rolls of Representatives and Senators of the United States Congress. That being said it is the duty of the Congress to look at the interest of the public, especially when it comes to public safety, over the interest of the individual.
On this thread we will take the rolls of Representatives and Senators of the United States Congress
OK - I am Representative Einfach of the Libertarian party.
I say what I said above.
That being said it is the duty of the Congress to look at the interest of the public, especially when it comes to public safety, over the interest of the individual.
It is the duty of the Congress to act in the best interest of the public. And this bill is clearly opposed to the best interest of the public because there no need to coerce people into doing something in their best interest, and supposing it wasn't in their best interest, you're forcing them to do something NOT in their best interest, which is even worse!
My point is that if it's in their best interest, it's redundant. If it's not in their best interest, it is counterproductive.
A lot of people fear getting vaccinations because they think they will have health issues. If it's mandated the government won't have to worry about their fears because a fear of catching a disease and a fear of having to pay a $1000 will be outweighed.
But it is not the Government's job to make decisions FOR people, in doing so saying that they know what people should do better than the people themselves. People automatically act in what they believe is their best interest. If it is indeed their best interest to get vaccinated, and they recognize that, then they will. There is absolutely no need for coercion.
Alright Representative Einfach. Your main argument is that it's not in the best interest of an individual it's counterproductive. But your clearly misinterpreting my argument. I'll give you two points to clarify the matter.
Let's first look at mathematical statistics:We all remember the latest pandemic. In April of 09 the swine flu hit and the total numbers of confirmed cases who have contracted the A-H1N1 Virus and the deaths related to those are 55 million cases worldwide, 246,000 Americans hospitalized, 11,160 American deaths according to the CDC. Symptoms mimiced the regular flu but more severe. The 2009 outbreak has shown an increased percentage of patients reporting diarrhea and vomiting. However, hospitalizations and deaths from infection with this virus have occurred, particularly among the high-risk groups.
61 million Americans were vaccinated against swine flu and that's only about 20% of the U.S. population. Meaning only 1 out of 5 got vaccinations. Whereas studies by the CDC and FDA show vaccinations prove 75-80% effectiveness and they lower the mortality rate of children under 21 by 85%. This will save lives.
Nationally there are 311,036,842 people, there were 35.9 million people age 65 and over; and 53.3 million children ages 5 to 17 as of July 1, 2003, according to estimates released by the USA Census Bureau. (since the 2010 census has not fully been processed and data has not been fully released)
So mathematically that means 89.2 million people are classified as high risk citizens and that's roughly one third of the US population. If this bill were mandated during the swine flu season approximately 82,000 people would have potentially saved from hospitalization, and that would have saved roughly 3,700 from dying. This is CLEARLY productive.
Now secondly this will make sure public safety is upheld. Currently 48 states allow waivers for children whose parents object to vaccines. These parents of unimmunized kids know that as long as nearly all the other children get their shots, there should not be enough pathogen around to sicken anyone. But pockets of intentionally unvaccinated children provide a perfect place for a disease to squat, leading to outbreaks that spread to other unprotected kids, infants and the elderly and other high risk groups. An example of this is an outbreak of measles that originated with an unimmunized boy from San Diego who contracted the virus while traveling in Europeâ"where the bug was thriving among intentionally unimmunized people in Switzerland.
It would be nice to be able to look at the interest of the individual over the safety of the public but that idea is just like a penguin: it looks cool but it just don't fly.
Whereas studies by the CDC and FDA show vaccinations prove 75-80% effectiveness and they lower the mortality rate of children under 21 by 85%. This will save lives.
The resources that people use to get vaccinated can be used in a wide variety of ways. By enforcing mandatory vaccination, you ignore all the other things - you ignore all the things that have not resulted because of vaccination - things that people would have chosen to do instead of vaccination. The proponents of this bill have an enormous psychological advantage because the observed "benefits" will arrive immediately and can't be ignored - what has not occurred as a result is ignored.
Thus, this bill, even if it does save lives compared to the government taking money and doing nothing with it, is not an absolute good in itself because it ignores what people would have done with the money otherwise, had they the choice.
allow waivers for children whose parents object to vaccines. These parents of unimmunized kids know that as long as nearly all the other children get their shots, there should not be enough pathogen around to sicken anyone. But pockets of intentionally unvaccinated children provide a perfect place for a disease to squat, leading to outbreaks that spread to other unprotected kids, infants and the elderly and other high risk groups.
It is a risk that people take when not getting vaccinated - but remember that it is only mutually beneficial (beneficial to both parties, the person providing the vaccine and the person receiving) if they both consent. Here, both parties don't consent. By not consenting the non-consenting party does not believe it is in his/her best interest. Why must these people be forced to do it if they don't want to?
you ignore all the things that have not resulted because of vaccination - things that people would have chosen to do instead of vaccination.
Such as?
It is a risk that people take when not getting vaccinated - but remember that it is only mutually beneficial (beneficial to both parties, the person providing the vaccine and the person receiving) if they both consent. Here, both parties don't consent. By not consenting the non-consenting party does not believe it is in his/her best interest. Why must these people be forced to do it if they don't want to?
Do you have any sources that you can cite to prove that the $1,000 fine won't be an incentive to our constituents? As that's impossible to prove the point still stands. I'm not saying EVERY single person in the US is going to want to get the shot but this incentive will be a great motivator.
Just throwing this one out there, but have you even considered the cost to enact and enforce something like this? It would be a ridiculously expensive measure to comply with and enforce, far more expensive than the alternative.
Also, look again at your numbers from the H1N1 example. 80% of the population was unprotected by vaccine against a virus with pandemic potential, yet only less than 1% of the population was even hospitalized in connection with it.
Looking at this from the perspective of a politician concerned more with the 'big picture', this is not anything nearly serious enough to begin mandanting vaccines, especially among non-critical groups, and groups so numerous as to make this both financially and logistically unreasonable.
Whereas, we live an a Democratic Republic in which the Government does not have Authoritarian Powers, and
Whereas, the Government must respect the Individual Rights of its constituents, and
Whereas, the Constitution prohibits excessive punishment in which the offending party may be unable to commit to the punishment,
Therefore be it resolved by this Convention that this Act does not reflect the constitutinality of this country. (Yes, I realize that some of you may not be from the US)
I'd first like to point out that the preamble to the Bill of Rights isn't law, but states what all amendments should try to achieve.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Upheld by the Second Amendment, Congress cannot pass legislation that inhibits one's ability to practice ones religion. Those religios sects who believe that they should not revieve vaccinations would have their Second Amendment rights violated by this legislation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Upheld by the Eighth Amendment, the 'Prohibition of Excessive Bail' is in conflict with this Act. Given our current economical situation, a 1000$ fine is in the excess in that it puts unnessasariy stress on the individual and our fragile economy as a whole.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Upheld by the Ninth Amendment, the 'Right to Privacy' conflicts with forced vaccination. Government would be violating my privacy and other rights in attempting to force me to recieve vaccinations. Same reason why Universal Healthcare was declared Unconstitutional.
Just throwing this one out there, but have you even considered the cost to enact and enforce something like this? It would be a ridiculously expensive measure to comply with and enforce, far more expensive than the alternative
Not necessarily. According to Kalorama Information the Makers of H1N1 vaccines reported sales of $3.3 billion in 2009, according to company reports reviewed for its title, "H1N1 'Swine Flu' Vaccine Market Review." Kalorama believes the contracting, production and distribution of this vaccine will be a model for future pandemic vaccines.
The 5 pharmatheutical companies that developed and produced the vaccinations are Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, CSL Biotherapies, and MedImmune. It cost us roughly 4.2 billion overall since 2009 for 883 million tons of vaccination. That money is made back when we enforce this bill. We send the shipments of vaccinations to medical centers. People come to the medical centers and spend roughly $20 to $30 per vaccination. Now multiply that by the 89,000,000 people in the high risk groups and the money is made back into the government. That's under perfect conditions that everyone DOES get the vaccinations. Not taking in account of those who don't get the vaccination and have to pay the $1000 fine.
Also, look again at your numbers from the H1N1 example. 80% of the population was unprotected by vaccine against a virus with pandemic potential, yet only less than 1% of the population was even hospitalized in connection with it.
I was using the swine flu as an example because it was the most recent pandemic. Yes it only affected 1% of the population overall but this bill isn't directed towards the entire population, it is directed to the high risk groups. Since 80% of those hospitalized and killed were in the high risk group this is substantial enough to send a cause for alarm.
Second we can look at the Spanish Flu of 1918 which is said to be the most violent and virulent pandemic we have ever seen. When all was said and done over 1 billion people had contracted it world wide (half of the human population at the time) and 50 to 100 million people had been killed. More than had been killed in WWI itself. Specifically causing more casulties to our soldiers than fighting in the war. Swine Flu was easier to contain and we have more advancements in medicine but there is always a risk of more severe pandemics to arise and this bill will save our constituents from that risk.
Upheld by the Second Amendment, Congress cannot pass legislation that inhibits one's ability to practice ones religion. Those religios sects who believe that they should not revieve vaccinations would have their Second Amendment rights violated by this legislation.
That's simply dilatory. It doesn't breach the Second Amendment because if one so chooses for religious beliefs to not get the vaccination he is still allowed to. The law doesn't inhibit them from doing so it just gives them an incentive NOT to.
Upheld by the Eighth Amendment, the 'Prohibition of Excessive Bail' is in conflict with this Act. Given our current economical situation, a 1000$ fine is in the excess in that it puts unnessasariy stress on the individual and our fragile economy as a whole.
Go to a Government building in New York City and park in a handicap parking space without a permit. Fines from handicap violations can exceed the fine that this bill is imposing. It's more beneficial to a citizen to spend $20 then it would be to be forced to pay a $1000.
Upheld by the Ninth Amendment, the 'Right to Privacy' conflicts with forced vaccination. Government would be violating my privacy and other rights in attempting to force me to recieve vaccinations. Same reason why Universal Healthcare was declared Unconstitutional.
The Ninth Amendment is following rights denied not imposed. You are going outside the Framer's Intent.
I say if the person wants to not get a vaccine, but then contract the disease and want medical care that they cannot pay for, or are expecting someone else to pay for, they can go die on the street for refusing to comply with precautionary measures.
If they are somehow restricted by religion to get the vaccine, the church body should be responsible for footing a medical bill since they can be cited as cause for incompletion of preventative measures.
