How does eliminating state funding for vaccine programs save money?

[TechBear_Seattle]

This year, the state of Washington is facing a $6 billion shortfall. The budget now under consideration by the Legislature would eliminate more than $1 billion -- yes, with a 'b' -- in state funding for children. One of the reductions would eliminate funding for a program that provides free immunizations.

A news report this morning said that, without state money, doctors would be forced to pay for vaccines up-front, shelling out upwards of $200,000 a month out of their own pocket. Most pediatricians would be unable to keep the vaccines on hand, greatly reducing the number of doctors able to offer immunizations. Parents would be required to cover the costs, which can run from $30 to upwards of $150 per shot. Given the number of people in this state without medical insurance (and seeing as the budget cuts would remove thousands of children from the state's "last resort" insurance program), a great many children will not get the immunizations they need, increasing the chance of their death from preventable causes and increasing the likelihood of an outbreak that could kill a lot of adults as well, whose immunity has weakened over time.

Can anyone explain to me how this is cost effective?

[xchrom]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[MountainLaurel]

2. Well, if the kids all die off

I guess we can cut school funding too?

:shrug:

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Already being done

The 2009 budget would suspend teacher pay increases, eliminate a state program to reduce classroom size and deeply cut a state program that helps poorer school districts hire teachers and staff. In addition, tuition at state universities and community colleges would be increased.

Thank goodness the Democrats are in the Governor's Mansion and control both houses of the Legislature, isn't it.

[MountainLaurel]

4. Well then, you got me

And very sad that you're surrounded by Vichy Dems.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. You begin to understand my general bitterness towards the party n/t

[MountainLaurel]

8. Oh, I'm right there with you n/t

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

7. Not to mention Medicare and social services. nt

[Still Sensible]

6. It's all about who is paying the money

taking this action gets it off the state's books. They seem to think that the private sector will pick up that slack--I'll bet that is an argument being made. It seems to me though that if they do this less children will get vaccinated and more children will contract measles, mumps, etc., which will drive up treatment costs. And some significant portion will be low income on the state's medicaid dime. So it might make their current budget look better, but in the end it will probably cost the state money IMO.