[bvw]

Here is what I understand: Perry chose it as a mandatory, opt out vaccination because .. if a vaccine is considered mandatory, it is covered by insurance companies. An opt out made it available without the $150.00 to $160.00 cost per child. If a parent wanted it, it was covered by insurance. If not, they could opt out.

THERE'S a conflict of interest. Making it opt-in really made the BIG DRUG COMPANY some easy gold extracted from the BIG INSURANCE COMPANY mine. If Perry was so all-gang-out set on protecting the Texas schoolgirls from cancer, why didn't he ask the legislature to subsidize a Public Health "need"? No. Instead he went the Obama-style route. EO money from my political enemies to my political friends.

[Gabrial]

The Texas legislature passed a bill negating Perry's EO. Perry signed the bill, and said he had made a mistake.

It never went into effect.

The reporting on this issue is atrocious.

[casinva]

If Perry was so all-gang-out set on protecting the Texas schoolgirls from cancer, why didn't he ask the legislature to subsidize a Public Health "need"?

Government subsidies don't go over well in Texas. If we had the government pay for everything, we wouldn't be very conservative then, would we?

Conflict of interest? It will probably be a source of talking points, but let's get this vetted by the American public and see. For a measly $5,000 of campaign donation (measly for a big business donating to a major politician's campaign funds) and everything done in public for all to scrutinize and investigate at the time, I think you'll not see this talking point gaining much steam. It just doesn't make sense other than it was what it was. But like I said, let's get this vetted and go on.