If they pass this, I don't want to hear another thing about paying for vaccinations.
As you might have noted, I've taken a little bit of poking from a few of my conservative friends over my support of the Governor's proposal for the HPV vaccinations. I've gotten it privately, and I also see that in the Yankton paper that others have come out against it.
Some are going after it on the basis of the abstinence argument (which is utterly ridiculous), and others are doing so on basis of a spending argument. Although I might not agree with the latter argument, at least I can respect that.
And funny, as KELO is reporting, at the same time some people are grumbling about the propriety of the state paying for vaccinations, others have put a bill in the hopper to pay for something "vitally more important":
Now, I don't want to give the bill's sponsors too hard of a time. I'm sure they mean well. I've known a couple of them for years, and I consider them top notch guys. But I'm not seeing the broad public good that's being served by pumping up the South Dakota Hall of Fame.
Yes, they inducted one of the legislature's own last year. But at the end of the day, it's a tourist attraction, isn't it? Much like the Murdo Auto Museum, the Corn Palace, or Wild Water West. Imagine the outcry if the state kicked in $100,000 for a new dinosaur at Wall.
Just because SDCL 1-6-1.6 says "The South Dakota Hall of Fame in Chamberlain is the official Hall of Fame of South Dakota," I don't see how that imparts a responsibility from the public to fund it. If it's to expand the Hall of Fame operation, why don't they go to a bank and get a loan? Or they might impose upon a regional or state loan authority.
So, at the same time people are complaining about paying for a public good, we're faced with legislation to help a private organization.
Next time I advocate for something like vaccinating kids, I just don't want to hear about it.
Some are going after it on the basis of the abstinence argument (which is utterly ridiculous), and others are doing so on basis of a spending argument. Although I might not agree with the latter argument, at least I can respect that.
And funny, as KELO is reporting, at the same time some people are grumbling about the propriety of the state paying for vaccinations, others have put a bill in the hopper to pay for something "vitally more important":
A bill has been introduced that would provide $100,000 in state funds to the hall.Read it all here, and pinch me after you've done so. They're kidding, right? If you look at the bill, the specific language is "one hundred thousand dollars ($ 100,000), or so much thereof as may be necessary..." So it could be more?
The Hall of Fame was established in 1974 at Fort Pierre, but a fund-raising drive was started in 1993 for a central location at Chamberlain.
Now, I don't want to give the bill's sponsors too hard of a time. I'm sure they mean well. I've known a couple of them for years, and I consider them top notch guys. But I'm not seeing the broad public good that's being served by pumping up the South Dakota Hall of Fame.
Yes, they inducted one of the legislature's own last year. But at the end of the day, it's a tourist attraction, isn't it? Much like the Murdo Auto Museum, the Corn Palace, or Wild Water West. Imagine the outcry if the state kicked in $100,000 for a new dinosaur at Wall.
Just because SDCL 1-6-1.6 says "The South Dakota Hall of Fame in Chamberlain is the official Hall of Fame of South Dakota," I don't see how that imparts a responsibility from the public to fund it. If it's to expand the Hall of Fame operation, why don't they go to a bank and get a loan? Or they might impose upon a regional or state loan authority.
So, at the same time people are complaining about paying for a public good, we're faced with legislation to help a private organization.
Next time I advocate for something like vaccinating kids, I just don't want to hear about it.
Comments
No, so it could be less. "So much thereof" means of the $100K.
Nice to see at least one conservative in the state renounce the crony capitalism that is rampant in our state. And I agree, your conservative buddies shouldn't give you crap if they support this idea.
I think the Hall of Fame is a good thing. I love South Dakota history and the fact the Hall tells the stories of many wonderful South Dakotans. But it has decided to be a private enterprise. I could only see funding them if the Hall is moved to Pierre to the Cultural Heritage Center or turned into a state museum.
And in the guns or butter realm, publc health wins out over history when the state is spending money.
Best regards,
Todd Epp
Senior Fiscal Matters Editor
S.D. Watch
http://thunewatch.squarespace.com
Nice to see at least one conservative in the state renounce the crony capitalism that is rampant in our state. And I agree, your conservative buddies shouldn't give you crap if they support this idea.
I think the Hall of Fame is a good thing. I love South Dakota history and the fact the Hall tells the stories of many wonderful South Dakotans. But it has decided to be a private enterprise. I could only see funding them if the Hall is moved to Pierre to the Cultural Heritage Center or turned into a state museum.
And in the guns or butter realm, publc health wins out over history when the state is spending money.
Best regards,
Todd Epp
Senior Fiscal Matters Editor
S.D. Watch
http://thunewatch.squarespace.com
How is giving money to the SD Hall of Fame different than funding The Abstinence Clearinghouse?
They need more jackelopes and animated T-rex.
In contrast, HPV vaccine addresses a health issue that affects all women, and potentially will save the state money years from now by preventing cervical cancer in potential Medicaid recipients.
I am a conservative and appreciate the value of "small government." But if the government is going to be in the business of paying for health care (and I don't see that changing), it should take steps to promote preventative health care to mitigate costs down the road. That is what the state is doing.
And by the way, the HPV vaccine is VOLUNTARY - no one is being forced to take it. It is simply a subsidy to make it more widely available.
After all, South Dakota is supposed to be the land of infinite variety. :-))))
When polio vaccine first came out it was a wonderful thing but a certain amount of people got the disease FROM the vaccine. At first your chances of avoiding the disease were better with vaccination but within a decade or two the vaccine was actually causing more death and disability than the "wild" disease!
This was when we changed from the live--inexpensive and oral--vaccine, to the killed--expensive and injectable vaccine.
Personally, I would not use the HPV vaccine on my children until it has been in use for at least ten years. There is SO MUCH that we just don't know about new vaccines until they have been in use for a while.
For our government to PAY for something that have not been on the market long enough for us to know the short term risks--let alone the long term ones is silly and stupid.
The standard joke in forums about "Anonymous" posters is that they are all brain surgeons, astronauts, and movie stars.
Unfortunately, they did not see the wisdom of that idea.
Let them fundraise like the rest.
By the way when the money orchard is found could you please let me know as I need some more $$$$$ in my wallet too.
I see someone had to reach all the way back to the polio vaccine to argue against this.
How about all those other vaccines they give to babies when they are born?
Hall of Fame vs vaccination.
hummmm.....