- Sep 12, 2008
- 14,201
- 3,567
- 185
There is a bit of fermentation on the right about Rick Perry and the favors he does for campaign donors, one of the largest of whom is the pharm Merk, makers of Gardisil.
Perry seems to have a long and successful record making end runs around the legislative process. Which despite its slow and sometimes cumbersome process is supposed to make sure all options are explored. His insistance that Gardisil be a mandatory inoculation seems a good idea at first blush. It is supposed to make sure that a very dangerous virus does not run rampant in the population. All well and good. But it requires multiple doses at an early age, it makes many of those who take it very ill, and other brilliant inoculations at Merk have also had problems as well. Making a mandate without legislative input is a sketchy idea at best, but combining it with a very real conflict of interest should raise enough red flags that the whole issue should look like a Buddhist prayer festival.
there is not only the issue of Merk. there is also other crony capitalistic ventures Perry has involved himself in. Most of these have been successful. However, it is not the business of the government to interfere in the economy this way. This is the main complaint against Obama. It seems most of Obama's partnerships of this type end in bankruptcy for the firm and huge losses for the taxpayers, with consultants and promoters becoming very rich. That the Perry scams are better run and are actually profitable for the state does not mean they are a good thing.
That Perry is willing to run over constitutional safeguards to mandate a dangerous product so that his campaign contributors can make a nice profit should make folks ask a few questions.
Is mandatory inoculation by means of a safe product against HPV a good idea? I would argue that it is. Should the governor have the right to legislature on this? I don't think so. There should be a thorough discussion of the science before the mandate happens to make sure the persons getting the inoculation are not made sicker by the cure than they would be by the disease. And the who process should be clear of the stench of special interest funds controlling the debate.
Perry seems to have a long and successful record making end runs around the legislative process. Which despite its slow and sometimes cumbersome process is supposed to make sure all options are explored. His insistance that Gardisil be a mandatory inoculation seems a good idea at first blush. It is supposed to make sure that a very dangerous virus does not run rampant in the population. All well and good. But it requires multiple doses at an early age, it makes many of those who take it very ill, and other brilliant inoculations at Merk have also had problems as well. Making a mandate without legislative input is a sketchy idea at best, but combining it with a very real conflict of interest should raise enough red flags that the whole issue should look like a Buddhist prayer festival.
there is not only the issue of Merk. there is also other crony capitalistic ventures Perry has involved himself in. Most of these have been successful. However, it is not the business of the government to interfere in the economy this way. This is the main complaint against Obama. It seems most of Obama's partnerships of this type end in bankruptcy for the firm and huge losses for the taxpayers, with consultants and promoters becoming very rich. That the Perry scams are better run and are actually profitable for the state does not mean they are a good thing.
That Perry is willing to run over constitutional safeguards to mandate a dangerous product so that his campaign contributors can make a nice profit should make folks ask a few questions.
Is mandatory inoculation by means of a safe product against HPV a good idea? I would argue that it is. Should the governor have the right to legislature on this? I don't think so. There should be a thorough discussion of the science before the mandate happens to make sure the persons getting the inoculation are not made sicker by the cure than they would be by the disease. And the who process should be clear of the stench of special interest funds controlling the debate.
