What Do The Risk Experts Think?                                                          2/2/15

President Obama told NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie, “You should get your kids vaccinated.”

“I understand that there are families that, in some cases, are concerned about the effect of vaccinations,” Obama said. “The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We’ve looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren’t reasons to not.”

The President gets a bit tongue tied when he tries to imply that there is no risk involved with immunization.

The U.S. Govt. has paid out over three billion dollars for vaccine related injuries through the VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM (VICP) of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

“On October 1, 1988, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP was established to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines. The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. The U. S. Court of Federal Claims decides who will be paid. Three Federal government offices have a role in the VICP:”   http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

The above paragraph tells us that the U.S. Govt. must change all the rules of product liability in order for the vaccine makers to produce “an adequate supply of vaccines. Then the govt. must release them from all responsibilities for their actions. “We The People” are now underwriting the risk of damages from vaccines.

This begs the question of where the experts on risk stand on this issue. Professional underwriters, (aka…. The Insurance Companies…) have a several hundred year old tradition of looking at the risks in an endeavor and applying their actuarial skills to place a monetary value on assuming that risk. These experts put their money where their mouth is and they are well compensated. The Insurance industry has assets in the hundreds of billions of dollars because the underwriters are good at assessing risk.

When the Insurance Industry allowed the U.S. Govt. to assume the risk for vaccine injury we can assume that one of two things happened. Either the risk was so great that the price of the premiums was more than the pharmaceutical companies were willing to spend.                                                                                                                              Or the risk was too great at any price.

In the first case you would think that the underwriters would present their price for liability coverage and the pharmaceutical companies would add it to the price of their vaccine just like they do for liability with all their other drugs.                                         The Insurance Industry gets its cut of the action. It’s the American way.                     This case of the federal government taking away the opportunity for an American insurance company to sell premiums is pure socialism. If the Insurance Industry had seen any way to make a profit underwriting the risks of vaccines you can be sure that the U.S. Govt. would not have taken their business.

That leaves case number two…… The risk was too great at any price.

I can’t see a rich and powerful industry like the American Insurance Industry allowing the government to take away their chance to make a profit.                                        This does not compute.                                                                                             Unless you consider that the risk was too great to profitably underwrite. Period.

The most believable case is that the risk experts wanted no part of vaccines at any price. So we have the President and all the medical spokesmen telling us that we should subject our children to a risk that the risk experts have refused to accept.     What does that mean? How can the powers-that-be tell us to accept a risk that the risk experts consider unacceptable? Who’s interest is being served by this blatant misrepresentation of the facts? It is obviously not in the interest of your child.

There is no reason for the government to engage in the insurance business accept when it is the only alternative. Businesses cannot undertake unprofitable operations. Only the Govt. can do that.

Whenever it is brought up that “for profit health care” is not a particularly moral or efficient practice for a society, there is a big uproar about socialized medicine. The insurance industry spends millions “lobbying” to defeat any plan to create a publicly funded health care system that is health driven instead of profit driven. But they have shown to be perfectly willing to pass up the premiums that they could be charging for underwriting the risk of vaccines.

How can you explain that?