Um.... HPV=human papillomavirus, not cancer. There are many types of HPV and the vaccines prevent only the ones that it was created to prevent. Some HPV types do increase risk factors for cancer, but that is not always the case (although one of the reasons why vaccines like Gardasil are promoted).
That aside, the HPV vaccine is a very cost-effective and worthwhile vaccine for woman of that age. HPV spreads extremely quickly and from an epidemiology point-of-view, it can be a great investment. But there is always the moral question of whether women should be FORCED to get it. At that I say no.
That aside, the HPV vaccine is a very cost-effective and worthwhile vaccine for woman of that age. HPV spreads extremely quickly and from an epidemiology point-of-view, it can be a great investment. But there is always the moral question of whether women should be FORCED to get it. At that I say no.
There is a risk of cancer, but it does not always form. HPV is a virus. It can potentially trigger cancer. The vaccine prevents the virus which increases the likelihood of cancer, but it does not directly prevent cancer.
Either way, the reason they don't like it is ethical issues. The other thing being that the state pays for it with taxpayer money and hands it to big pharma who makes the vaccines.
I think that would probably hurt SS in the long run. SS needs more people to be paying in at any given time than taking out to work, especially when people are living longer and the age limit not going up (generational obligations going up). Despite population growth, the money coming in still won't be enough to fulfill obligations within decades. Allowing young people to opt out right now only reduces the money coming in.
I personally think one of two things needs to be done: 1) accept that SS will be ended in the long-run and come up with some sort of phase out plan for it (although logistically that is a hard task, but no one said it'd be easy) or 2) try to save SS and reform it to be more sustainable over the long run (this includes increasing the payout age - preferably to a value determined against the latest average American age data as well as structural reforms).
Maybe but lets say people get to chose weather or not they want to join SS when starting their 1st job. If they say no then they won't be paying in but they won't be taking out ether. And for anyone who ops-out, it should come with the understanding that they're forfeiting any rights to SS payments later regardless of what they put in (not really as bad as it sounds considering they can always not op-out and SS pays out more then a person contributes [thus the claims of it being a ponzi scheme]). Such an arrangement would make SS voluntary without compromising it's ability to pay.
That won't work. As it currently is, the only reason SS is even projected to last as long as is (which isn't an awfully long time) is because population growth. My generation is bigger and almost certainly will have more people paying in than say my parent's generation. Effectively cutting the number in my generation that pay in (even if you don't pay out to those cut out), only worsens outlook.
If you only pay people who op-in, then you're getting off the hook for everyone that we can't pay now. This is only a problem if you continue to pay more then people contribute and even then you can always set up a program that allows them to access their SS money, penalty free, if they use it to invest. If that investment goes bad then whatever money they used is simply deducted from what they would have gotten, the gov't wouldn't be on the hook. If the investment turned a profit, then they'd end up getting interest on the contributions same as they do now.
What do you mean the people we can't pay now? What is happening right now is that generation 1 pays in $10, grows old and needs to be paid $17in obligations. Generation 2 is paying in $12 since it is larger. Extrapolate this over the long run and yes it fails, but the fact that gen2 was bigger than gen1 helps. Now change Gen 2's numbers based on "opt-outs"- say it only pays in $10 since the rest of the people opt out. Even if you have to pay out to only those people who paid in, the system doesn't last as long this way. Growing population is helping keep social security alive.
The arguably inherent problem with social security is that it relies on just what you say you can't do- paying people more than they paid in. That is why it is an entitlement.
What interest rates are you referring to?
You realize that social security offers entitlements til death right? So how are you saying your system works unless you get rid of that? (is that what you are suggesting?)
No, by interest I mean it pays more then what people contribute. I'm suggesting that SS only pay back what's contributed unless they use the money to wisely invest in which case the dividends (held in the SS account until retirement) would also be payed out thus allowing a payout greater then the contribution as is the case today.
Why not just privatize it then (especially if you are offering opt-outs)?
Social security right now is an entitlement. You are proposing to make it not an entitlement (which might be a legitimate thing to do, but then you aren't really trying to save SS either).
Similar threads
