The subject is people who REFUSE immunizations for whatever reasons, usually religious.
Are these people liable if they get infected with a disease that they refused immunization for and then exposed others to the disease by going out into public.
There is some guidance in the law regarding Aids. If you have Aids and you knowing infect another person you face criminal and civil liability.

I don't understand your inability to comprehend the meaning of words or phrases in the English language mendax, but your obstinance does not change the meaning of the words, and your statement uses the word free erroneously. It's that simple regardless of whether or not you see it or agree with it.

Tolystoy, if you know you have measles and you walk into a newborn nursery this law being debated in the California legislature would hold you criminally liable.
If you know you have Aids and you have unprotected sex with another person you are liable already in California.

During the SARS outbreak in China the authorities did take temperatures of travelers in airports and people with a fever were denied the right to board aircraft.

You know, I would honestly support something like this. Health is one of few arenas where I feel like the authorities have the right to make executive decisions.

At least, I would if the government didn't occasionally "volunteer" people for medical experiments.

BONUS: with syphilis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

Good Gosh, what a disturbing article that was.

Sorry for partying!

"Considering that the parent likely would've been charged with child abuse or manslaughter if he *hadn't* taken his kid immediately to the hospital in today's Amerika, I really don't think this is a reasonable question. "

A hospital nursery isn't an emergency room. That was a srupid statement, tolstoy. I expect better of you.

"But what's so special about baby nurseries? Why not charge sick people who walk into doctors' offices seeking treatment? "

I suppose the moron was seeking treatment in a fucking nursery? Still you amaze with your fucking stupidity. The difference is he can get treatment in one place but not in the other. He has a need to be in one place but no business being in the other. Are you that fucking stupid or just intentioanlly stubborn?

"During the SARS outbreak in China the authorities did take temperatures of travelers in airports and people with a fever were denied the right to board aircraft. "

The US Customs does the same as of last year. If you are showing signs of illness and try to board a US bound aircraft from a foreign country (even Canada) they can deny you passage.

"Obamacare outlawed co-pays for immunizations three years ago. This is one reason among many why medical insurance premiums increased 20-40% since the law was enacted."
This is questionable. Insurance premiums only went up by 4% this year which is quite good considering a decade ago they were rising about 10% a year. The fact is increase in insurance premiums since The affordable care act has been relatively low when compared to pre-legislation years. Most economists don't give credit to the affordable care act for this drop in health insurance inflation, however. They believe that this slowdown is due to the recession. But you suggest that "Obamacare" is the reason why health care premiums have risen, which kind of ignores the historical data. Right now most of the provisions for the ACA have not been put in place so it is quite difficult to know how it is going to effect rates. Though there are numerous articles willing to make predictions that, shockingly, hue the political line. There is so much misinformation about this bill it is insane, which is par for the course for DC.

Insurance premiums went up 4% through July of this year with an end of year rise of 6% minimum to 8% maximum. Add that onto average increases of 8-9% on the low range annually in 2010, 2011, and 2012, and you get a 28% increase since Obamacare outlawed for immunizations beginning with 2010. Prohibiting co-pays for numerous procedures and covering people with preexisting conditions accounted for much of the increase. Costs will explode next year. Health insurers in Missouri asked to increase 31 different plans by over 10% for 2014. The largest health insurance company in Maryland, Care First Blue Cross Blue Shield wants to increase its rates by 25% in 2014.

Does anyone actually know that this guy had no business in the nursery? Was he here with his own child for example?

The difficulty with passing any law like this is that above everything else the law has to treat people equally. Parents hold measles parties at the moment with the intention of giving there children measles. Doctors inject a low dose into healthy children. We also know that there is a law of unintended consquencies. How many people will now take more time off work or school for every sniffle in case there fear a lawsuit. Or just want to game the system?

It may be that this guy was completely irresponsible. Let's not start making laws for every idiot please, we'll be here a long, long time.

*their children

If he was there visiting his own baby then that is all the more reason for him to *stay out*. I'm not a father or a medical professional and even I know not to go into a hospital nursery when I am sick. It was reckless no matter what his reason amd he should be charged with reckless endangerment. Period.

but since we had even higher inflation of insurance premiums prior to the Affordable care act how is it that forbidding copays has caused an increase in premium cost? It seems at the current time their is no way to tell from the data we have in hand. As for future increases....there are a number of states where insurance rates are set to decrease. This particular aspect has become cherry picker heaven. I hope the Affordable care act works, I don't care whose administration it comes from as long as it works. Right now we don't know but it sure seems that a lot of people are sure savoring any sign of potential catastrophe. To say this is not really acting in good faith has merit.

The 'herd effect' of mass immunisation is one of the few times where I think there's an argument for forcing an individual to do something against their will, since if you don't immunize ~80% of the population you lose the benefit of the mass immunisation. Perhaps liability is one way to do it?

@TOgilvie, you still get an effective benefit for whatever percentage takes up the vaccine - you just lose population who were immuno-compromised (the very old, new born infants, and people with Aids or taking immuno-suppressive drugs - for things like preventing transplant rejection) and unable to choose a vaccine.

It seems that there is a public health benefit here, but very few governments have gone so far as to force individuals, (never mind the question of who pays) because they manage to get to ~80% by using scare tactics and smart advertising.

also: http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-texas-megachurch-measles-vaccination-082613

Greysoni, you seem to forget that we had higher premiums before the ACA in a "growing" economy. The ACA drove up premiums during a recession and an anemic recovery which renders the premise of your statement invalid.

The California legislation allows the individual freedom of conscience to refuse immunization based on religious or other valid grounds, but holding the individual financially liable for any exposure caused by negligence would prevent individuals from recklessly exposing the public at large. Maybe they should add a measure that if you choose not to immunize you must purchase a surety bond to insure you could cover some portion of future financial liability. This would still preserve religious and other freedoms.

If I am going to be held criminally liable for vccinating my child, then I should also be held criminally liable for feeding them a poor diet and endangering their health. Time to arrest parents of all the obese children....I mean, if we are going to play Big Government, let's do it right!

You'll be surprised how many people actually believe that.

And why not execute the people whose genes aren't desirable for our country while we're at it?

Fascist.

The saddest thing about you, Sbyvl, is that I am agreeing with you through satire and you're still unable to see it.

Commie.

krellin, the difference is that your fat won't kill me, except in the most depraved of sexual situations.

I like this idea (the liability for infecting people if you know you have an infectious disease), although I'm not crazy about the execution. It's akin to pollution; if people could meaningfully sue for damages for pollution, it would go away. The citizens of the Gulf Coast, for example, should have been able to seize the entirety of BP's assets.

@CKRoberts - what about other people smoking and drinking and riding horses or skate boarding or baking cakes that may contain nuts? We all make individual choices that impact on others are we to be criminally liable for everything we do?

ckroberts...neither will my kids measles or small pox if YOU are vaccinated. The only one my un-vaccinated kid can harm is other un-vaccinated people. Duhhh...Your argument fails completely.