Public Health by Financial Pressure?

Well, if there's one thing middle and upper middle class parents love to obsess about, it's vaccinating our kids. And if there's another, it's the cost of insurance today. Thankfully, Dr. Rahul Parikh has found a simple solution to combine the two: charge the parents who choose not to vaccinate their kids higher insurance premiums. They're putting their kids, and anyone else who cannot or has not been vaccinated at risk, so they should be punished. Maybe if they weren't so stupid to worship at the altar of Jenny McCarthy and her boobs, they wouldn't have to be charged extra. But, since they are clearly unable to trust when the FDA says a vaccine is safe (oh, and yes, it IS the same FDA that brought you Thalidomide, DEA and Phen Phen--thanks for asking!), let's hit 'em where it really hurts: their middle class pocketbooks.

I really appreciate Dr. Parikh's proposal. But I'm a little concerned that it doesn't go quite far enough. Last year, a study found that not exclusively breastfeeding a baby for the recommended six months costs an estimated $13 billion and almost a thousand deaths annually (which, for you math nuts, is about 12 billion, eight hundred seventy-five more dollars and 911 more deaths than what Dr. Parikh claims were incurred by these non-vaccinating assholes who caused the measles outbreak in 2008 in San Diego). Jack Newman, Katherine Dettwyler and countless others assert that most, if not quite all, women should be able to breastfeed their babies. So, why not start making women who choose not to breastfeed pay higher premiums? We can adjust them if they tried and failed, or if their doctors say the baby needs formula. We'll be flexible here.

Really, though, why stop there? Let's start at birth! How about higher premiums for women who opt to get epidurals? I had a natural birth, and so did a lot of other women I know. Why should we have to pay the same premium a woman who opted to get one does just because she "doesn't like pain"? Or what about women who choose to have elective c-sections? I stayed in the hospital less than 24 hours when my 18 month old was born. I bet my insurance company loved the fact that I saved them money on the private room and the food, and then some other woman decides to have a c-section and stays in the hospital for four days and I'm expected to offset that cost? Oh, hell no.

And what about extended rear facing? The fact is, a child who is forward facing before age 2 is five times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than one who is still rear-facing. If someone decides to turn their child before age 2 and the child gets hurt and has to spend time in the hospital, my insurance premium could go up due to their choice! Why don't insurance companies just send out little surveys to parents when they're children turn one asking them if they're still rear-facing? If not, then I'm sure someone could calculate the average cost of a hospital stay for a child with a neck injury, divide it by 12 and then apply it to their parents' premium for that whole year. Just as a precaution, you know.

Now, this could get controversial, but we have to talk about working parents. Because, let's face it, everyone knows that kids whose parents work and have to go to daycare get sick and incur more healthcare costs than kids who have a parent who stays home. So, if you are selfish enough to decide to...work, then, well, it's a good thing you're rolling in the dough, because get ready for that premium to go up! But then other studies have shown that kids who go to daycare develop faster and greater immunity than kids who don't. Which means that the kids who don't get around other kids until they're closer to school-age are going to be getting sick then. So how about this: we'll charge the working parents more until their kids turn 5, and then we'll charge the families with a stay-at-home parent more from ages 5-10? Hope you kept up those resumes, because you're going to need a job now!

Or, there's this: being a parent is the scariest fucking thing ever. We are constantly making decisions that could and do affect our children for the rest of their lives, and most of us do it with our fingers crossed and a prayer falling from our lips. We get nowhere in discussions about public health and public good when one group is singled out to be vilified and punished. Any number of choices we make can affect others just as much as it affects us and our families and hopefully, every parent makes a decision that works best for them and their children So maybe, instead of proposing that parents of children who are only partially or not at all vaccinated pay for their choices (or any of the other above choices), we rather encourage responsible and thoughtful decision making across the board. Because, "to whom much is given, much is required."

Oh, and Paul Offit writing a book about how awful parents are who don't vaccinate would be like me writing a book about how awful people who live in my city and are members of my denomination yet don't go to the church where my husband works are. Except with a lot more zeros at stake.