The answer to the question is this:
A)If the person can't afford it and comes down with cancer, then there's a good chance taxpayers will end up paying for the very expensive cancer treatment, anyway.
B)By eliminating the virus in a significant portion of the population, you slow the spread, so fewer people are likely to come down with this particular type of cancer --
This is basic public health policy. If you believe there should be no such thing as "public health policy," then that's a different debate.
WHAT PERRY DID WAS WRONG!
DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?!
Maybe reading a statement from a state legistlator will make it more understandable? Dan Patrick used to be host of KSEV and ran for state representative this past election and WON.
The research I have come across indicates there are at least 100 strains of the Human Papillomavirus and the vaccination, Gardasil, only treats four of them. The American Cancer Society reports most women do not get cervical cancer from HPV and the National Institutes of Health report more than 90% of all HPV cases are harmless and go away without treatment. Currently, some parents opt to have their daughters vaccinated without a state mandate. At this point, I believe the optional vaccination alternative is the correct approach.
Now...go take a civics course before posting on Free Republic again. Maybe then it will make sense why so many Texans are pissed off.
Then you provide it for free.
But tell me why should my daughter who isn't having sex get the vaccine? She certainly isn't spreading it to anyone, so why should she get it.
Before she has sex she may want it, but hopefully I'll raise her to be an adult before she has sex, and she can make up her own mind what to do with her own body.