Key Differences Between RomneyCare and ObamaCare

*Got questions about RomneyCare and ObamaCare? Visit our newly updated page on RomneyCare – The Truth about Massachusetts Health Care to find articles like this and other questions you may be wondering.

It is often asserted that RomneyCare is the same thing as ObamaCare, but this is simply not true. It is important to note that Massachusetts, the state where Romneycare was founded, opposed Obamacare. In fact, Massachusetts opposed Obamacare so much that they elected Senator Scott Brown (R) in 2010 to be the deciding vote against Obamacare after Senator Ted Kennedy’s death. Why would the state where Romneycare was founded be opposed to Obamacare if the two laws were really the same? The answer is, of course, that they are not the same. While there are similarities between the two laws, there are also key differences. Below is a table of differences between the Romney plan and the Obama plan.


RomneyCare
ObamaCare
Overall Size and Scope
-Whole bill was 70 pages
-Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance
-Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate
-Romney favored no mandated benefits for health care coverage, catastrophic only
-No federal gov. insurance option
-Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare
-Whole bill was 2,074 pages
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no “opt out” provision
-Establishes a 15 member board of unelected bureaucrats with great control over health care benefits and risks rationing health care
-Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future
-Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
Costs
-No new taxes!
-Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
-No cuts to Medicare benefits
-Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)
-Increased taxes by $500 billion and taxes people who don’t buy insurance
-Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare
-Cuts Medicare by $500 billion
-Overall costs unknown!
Popularity
-Very strong bipartisan support
-Strong special interest support
-Very popular among the public in Massachusetts
-Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate
-Absolutely no bipartisan support
-Very controversial and divided special interest groups
-Unpopular in nation overall
-No consensus was built to support a mandate
Does Constitution Define it as a “Tax” or “Penalty/Fee”?
-Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts ruled state mandates are “penalties” because states have different authority and powers than the fed. gov.
-Mass. constitution never considered this a tax
-Supreme Court ruled that federal gov. only has the authority to enact this law by its ability “tax,” and does not meet the required standards to be considered a “penalty.”
-This tax breaks Obama’s promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class
Federalism
-A state solution to a state problem
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law
-Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
1)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
2)Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
3)Conservative states will reject implementation of federal gov. plan.


As the above table illustrates, the plan Romney proposed was a much more conservative, business friendly law than what the Democrats passed under President Obama.

The Boston Globe editorial board recently published an article defending RomneyCare on conservative grounds. The editorial board states “the role Romney played on the state level was skillful, creative, and business friendly. Romney was a governor sensitive to business concerns and worried about the state’s business climate.”

A crucial difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare is that the two healthcare plans, while similar in some ways, present vast differences in the essential origins and motives that separate Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. One author summarized it this way:
 

We know what Romney’s goal was when he passed his health care plan. His goal was to involve the private sector of Massachusetts in insuring a small percentage of the Massachusetts’ residents [who didn't have health insurance and who were receiving free health care from the government.]

Obama’s goal prior to signing Obamacare into law was much, much bigger.
In 2003, he said, ”I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.”

The fact is, Obamacare was originally going to be single payer. It was going to be European — as close to it as Congress would allow. But that was curbed. What they got, instead — what we got, instead — was the first step. Obamacare. The first step toward single-payer, universal healthcare coverage.

And that is the crucial difference. Romney never said, never touted, never promised that “we may not get [single-payer] immediately” or even a little later than immediately. Romneycare is not Obamacare because Obamacare is just getting started. One was an end in and of itself. The other is (still) a means to an end.

In 2006 when RomneyCare was passed, most conservatives praised Romney’s plan. The Bush administration sent a letter praising the passage of the new law. An often overlooked fact is that without the support of the Bush administration, Romney’s health care law never would have become a reality.

One of Romney’s main goals in passing healthcare legislation was to counter many much more liberal attempts within Massachusetts to take over the healthcare system. The Boston Globe newspaper discusses in detail one plan that Romney feared would become law if action was not taken. That plan was the imposition of a payroll tax of up to $1,700 per employee on all businesses that did not offer health insurance to their employees. It was a serious threat. The plan had been voted on in the year 2000 and the law barely failed by 3%. In 2006 the employer mandate coupled with a heavy payroll tax was to be voted on again.

In regard to ObamaCare, Romney firmly believes that each state should have the right to craft its own health care program. Health care has traditionally been a state issue, not a federal issue, and Romney wants to keep it that way. In his book, No Apology, Romney states:

“My own preference is to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state ‘laboratories of democracy,’ could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others.”

In keeping with the belief that states should be able to craft their own programs, Romney has said that on his first day as president, he would issue a waiver to all 50 states allowing them to opt out of ObamaCare. This waiver would allow states to postpone the implementation of ObamaCare while Romney works with congress to formally repeal the bill.

In conclusion, a recent article in The New Yorker magazine states that “Romney had accomplished a longstanding Democratic goal – universal health insurance – by combining three conservative policies.” In other words, Romney had beaten Democrats at their own goal of providing universal health insurance – but Romney’s novel approach accomplished this goal not with a government takeover, but with conservative principles. The success of Romney’s healthcare law led many Democrats to consider adopting a similar approach to achieving universal health insurance. However, the end result from the Democrats under President Obama was a plan with a much larger government, much greater spending, increased taxes, and less power to the states and individuals to determine their own health care goals.

Obamacare Ruling by The Supreme Court – A Preview of the Impact

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare any day now, although most expect that ruling to happen sometime in the end of June.

Since the ruling could happen so soon, I wanted to explore what impact the court’s ruling might have on Obama’s (or Romney’s) support. Luckily, there are really only 3 general ways that the court will rule, so we don’t have to get too complicated here.

#1) If the Supreme Court strikes down ALL of Obamacare as unconstitutional . . . .

Republicans will rejoice and Obama will suffer a major defeat. That is it, plain and simple. One commentator summarized the effect this would have on Obama by saying: 

“There is undeniable danger in the optics of an election-year health care defeat, just as there was in early 2010 when the bill teetered. Obama simply can’t allow health care to be a Jimmy Carter-in-the-desert moment, proof that he recklessly, fecklessly pushed through a doomed law at the expense of focusing on the economy and jobs.

If the entire bill is struck down, the credibility of Obama to deliver on his promise of “hope and change” will disintegrate. The American people will ask themselves “How can I trust Obama to improve my situation if his biggest domestic accomplishment turns out to be unconstitutional? How could a former professor of constitutional law err so badly by passing a huge unconstitutional law?” Needless to say, if the Supreme Court struck down the whole bill, this would be a disaster for the president. Obama’s credibility to bring about real change in America will be severely crippled.

Of course Obama could try to pick up the pieces of the disaster by decrying a “purely partisan Supreme Court,” and how he is the only candidate to attempt bold, sweeping change in health care reform, but it wouldn’t be enough. His brand would be too badly damaged.

#2) If Obamacare is upheld in its entirety . . . . 

This ruling would be a mixed bag for the president. He could claim success in reforming healthcare, something no president has done for almost 50 years. He could claim that bold, sweeping innovations was what his presidency was all about and now he is fulfilling that promise. 

However, despite the advantages of such a ruling, Obama would then be forced to defend a deeply unpopular mandate that requires all Americans purchase health insurance. A ruling that upheld Obamacare would rally conservatives and opponents of the mandate like never before in a last ditch attempt to overturn the mandate by electing Republican Mitt Romney who has vowed to repeal it. In my opinion, even if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, the issue will be overall negative for the president simply because it will rally the opponents so powerfully.

#3) If part of the law is struck down . . . . 

Republicans will cheer but vow to repeal the rest. Obama will sustain a heavy blow but will claim a partial victory for fixing a broken health care system. Neither side will have a clear win on the issue but I believe the Republicans will have the advantage. Republicans will claim that they fought and partially dismantled major components of the unpopular law. Obama will still be too hesitant to tout the law for fear of siding with an overall unpopular bill. 

So all-in-all, there is a good chance that no matter what the outcome, the bill is a loser for Obama. 

Interestingly, during the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare, Romney was vindicated in his assertion that an individual mandate is unconstitutional when passed by the federal government, but it is constitutional when passed by a state government. Paul Clement, the main lawyer who worked to get rid of Obamacare’s mandate, said the following about Romney’s statewide mandate:

Clement told the court, just as Romney has told Republican primary voters, that states have the power to enact individual mandates wheras the federal government has no such authority.

“I do think the States could pass this mandate,” Clement said today in response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “[T]he States can do it because they have a police power, and that is a fundamental difference between the States on the one hand and the limited, enumerated Federal Government on the other.”

If the Supreme Court agrees that states can enact mandates, but rules that Obama’s mandate is an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty, then Romney will have a solid rebuttal.

Because the federal government is granted limited/”enumerated” powers by the  constitution, it has no authority to pass an individual mandate. However, nobody is arguing that states don’t have the right to institute an individual mandate because states are granted much broader “policing” and regulating powers. 

Santorum & Dems Continue Claim that Romney Supported National HC Mandate, FactCheckers: Not So

This issue has been hashed over time and again. Yet Rick Santorum and the Democrats continue to state that Romney supported a health care mandate for the whole country. Rick Santorum has even gone so far as to say that “there is no difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney,” and that “if the choice was between Mitt Romney or President Obama, we might as well stay with President Obama.”

These claims about Romney’s stance on health care by Rick Santorum and the Democrats are demonstrably false. Many independent and non-partisan groups called “fact-checkers” have recently researched the truthfulness of these claims and found that Rick Santorum and the Democrats are knowingly repeating falsehoods.

Lets first talk about what the FactCheckers at the Washington Post have written recently about Santorum’s claim that “Romney supported a health care mandate for the whole country.”

The Washington Post’s main fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, concludes

In other words, it is ridiculous to claim that Romney ever supported a national mandate when he ran for president in 2008.

Mr. Kessler gave the statement “four pinocchios” which the worst rating a statement can get, a true “whopper” of a lie.

Josh Hicks of the Washington Post comes to the same conclusion when analyzing Rick Santorum’s frequent statements that Romney “supported a mandate for the whole country” saying:

There does not appear to be a single example of Romney saying “we need to force the nation to buy insurance” or anything along that line. In fact, he has said as far back as 2007 that states should decide for themselves what types of health-care policies to implement.

In addition, a 2007 New York Times article explaining Romney’s health-care plan used the headline “Romney to Pitch a State-by-State Health Insurance Plan,” noting that his approach “departs significantly from the universal health care measure that he helped forge as governor of Massachusetts.” And his campaign literature from 2008 made clear that he wanted a “federalist” approach to universal health care.

Rick Santorum needs to recognize the truth that is so obviously before him and stop repeating what is known to be untrue. Even though Santorum is in a tough spot these days by being so far behind in the delegate count, he needs to exemplify some of that “strong moral character” that he talks about so frequently and admit when he’s wrong.

[Editor's Note: Here would be a good place to plug our RomneyCare info page. Ben (author of this post) poured many weeks of research, writing and editing into the extremely informative page. Since Santorum and others continue to (incorrectly) fault Romney for various aspects of RomneyCare we urge you to review the facts and become informed on the details.
Find it ---> HERE]

A Response to the Current Buzz Over Romney’s 2009 Op-ed on Health Care – A Liberal Buzzkill

Liberal websites like Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post have been buzzing recently about a 2009 op-ed written by Romney in USA Today. In the USA Today op-ed, Romney’s detractors allege that “Romney advocated a federal/nationwide mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance.”

This claim has been brought up again and again by Romney’s opponents, and while we here at Mitt Romney Central are certainly grateful for the increased traffic these websites and bloggers have brought to our site, we certainly feel it necessary to set the record straight.

For those interested in reading the op-ed in question, be my guest, but before you do, you may want to read the op-ed Romney wrote for Newsweek magazine just two months prior where Romney explains much more clearly his proposals on health care.

In the Newsweek op-ed, Romney provides a much more detailed explanation about his health care plans as well as what he meant when he said “penalties” would help people purchase health insurance. The Newsweek op-ed, aptly entitled Health Care: The Answer is Unleashing Markets – Not Government, states:

The right answer for health care is to apply more market force, not less. Here’s how:

1. Get everyone insured. Help low-income households retain or purchase private insurance with a tax credit, voucher or coinsurance. Use the tens of billions we now give hospitals for free care to instead help people buy and keep their own private insurance. For the uninsured who can afford insurance but expect to be given free care at the hospital, require them to either pay for their own care or buy insurance; if they do neither, they would forgo the tax credit or lose a deduction. No more “free riders.”

Notice that Romney states quite directly what he means by “using penalties to encourage people to buy health insurance.” What Romney is saying is that those who don’t purchase health insurance lose the opportunity to gain a “tax credit” or “deduction.” In much the same way, homeowners get a tax deduction for the interest paid on their house payments, or how students can get a tax credit on certain student loans. Romney is not advocating a “mandate” of the type Obama used where people are fined for not purchasing insurance, and Romney is certainly not advocating a FEDERAL mandate of any kind if you read the next paragraph of the Newsweek op-ed which states:

6. Center reforms at the state level. Open the door to state plans designed to meet the various needs of their citizens. Before imposing a one-size-fits-all federal program, let the states serve as “the laboratories of democracy.”

How much clearer can Romney be? This op-ed, written just two months before the op-ed in question, shows that Romney wanted health care reform to be at the state level, and for states to enact tax deductions or credits as incentives for people to purchase health insurance. (Just for the record, this is exactly the same plan Ronald Reagan was looking into).

Fact-Checkers Also Support Romney

(more…)

Career Politician Perry PRAISED Hillarycare – Critical of Romney Health Ins. in MA


FACT CHECK: PERRY AND HILLARYCARE

During An Interview On Sean Hannity’s Radio Show On August 30, Perry Said He Signed A Letter Praising Hillary Clinton’s Health Reform Efforts Before The Full Scope Of Her Plan Was Known:

In A Letter To Hillary Clinton In 1993, Then-Texas Agriculture Commissioner Perry Praised The Then-First Lady’s Efforts On Health Care Reform. “Texas Governor Rick Perry has been among the most vocal critics of President Obama’s health care reform initiative, and of Mitt Romney’s preceding health care program in Massachusetts. But in 1993, while serving as Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Perry praised the efforts of then-first lady Hillary Clinton to reform health care, a precursor to Obama’s health care reform efforts.” (Alexis Levinson And Caroline May, “Rick Perry’s Camp Defends 1993 HillaryCare Praise,” The Daily Caller, 8/30/11)

Perry To Hillary: “I Think Your Efforts In Trying To Reform The Nation’s Health Care System Are Most Commendable.” (Alexis Levinson And Caroline May, “Rick Perry’s Camp Defends 1993 HillaryCare Praise,” The Daily Caller, 8/30/11)

Perry’s Letter Was Dated April 6, 1993:

During An Interview On Sean Hannity’s Radio Show On August 30, Perry Said That He Had No Idea Of The “Monstrosity” That The Clinton Health Care Reform Bill Would Become At The Time He The Letter. “And, [Perry] said, at the time he wrote the letter, he did not know what a ‘monstrosity’ Clinton’s final proposal would be. ‘I had no idea that was going to be the end product. What I thought they were truly going to work towards was trying to reform health care, and we had no idea.‘ he said.” (Caroline May, “Perry Hits Back: Obama’s Policies Are ‘Dumb’,” The Daily Caller, 8/30/11)

Listen To The Interview Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUc7JpPqEFc

However, An Article That Was Published Before He Signed The Letter Said Aspects Such As An Employer Mandate Were Already Known Parts Of The Clinton Health Plan:

Los Angeles Times On April 5, 1993: The Clinton Plan Would Mandate That Employers Provide Their Workers With Health Insurance. “Barring unexpected hitches, the Clinton plan also will: (…) Phase in a requirement for employers to provide workers with health insurance, with government subsidies to help the smaller businesses.” (Edwin Chen, “Shape Of New Health Plan Is Emerging,” Los Angeles Times, 4/5/93)

Los Angeles Times On April 5, 1993: The Key To The Hillary Clinton Health Care Plan Would Have Been The Creation Of Regional Health Insurance Cooperatives. “The key to making this concept work nationally is the creation of government-certified regional health insurance purchasing cooperatives. Most Americans would be grouped into the large cooperatives, with consumers able to choose from a variety of insurance networks — ranging from HMOs to traditional fee-for-service plans that allow the patient to choose any physician.” (Edwin Chen, “Shape Of New Health Plan Is Emerging,” Los Angeles Times, 4/5/93)

Los Angeles Times On April 5, 1993: While The States Were To Be Given Latitude, Some Smaller And More Rural States Would Be Allowed To Set Up Single-Payer Systems. “Within the federal system, states will be given considerable latitude. In small states and rural states, where size rules out the existence of more than one provider network, states may be empowered to set statewide rates in an arrangement known as a single-payer system.” (Edwin Chen, “Shape Of New Health Plan Is Emerging,” Los Angeles Times, 4/5/93)

Los Angeles Times On April 5, 1993: Clinton’s Plan Would Guarantee A Basic Set Of Benefits For Everyone Including Mental Health Care And Prescription Drug Coverage. “Barring unexpected hitches, the Clinton plan also will: Guarantee that a uniform package of basic benefits will be available to everyone, although not all the uninsured will get this coverage right away. Among the basic benefits would be hospital and doctor services, including mental health care, and some prescription drug coverage.” (Edwin Chen, “Shape Of New Health Plan Is Emerging,” Los Angeles Times, 4/5/93)

Los Angeles Times On April 5, 1993: The Clinton Plan Would Bar Insurers From Refusing To Cover People With Pre-Existing Conditions. “Barring unexpected hitches, the Clinton plan also will: (…) Create a standardized insurance form and bar insurers from refusing to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions, in order to enable people to change jobs — and insurers — without fear of losing coverage.” (Edwin Chen, “Shape Of New Health Plan Is Emerging,” Los Angeles Times, 4/5/93)

Believe in America ★ Believe in Romney



To see enlarged letter, click here.


► Jayde Wyatt

Rick Perry’s ‘Total Debacle’ Comment Re Romney, Ignores ‘Total Debacle’ of His Own

Governor Gardasil (R-Merck)


Rick Perry.

There’s only so much one can hear from him regarding Mitt Romney.

Following the example of Governor Romney, we’ve made allowances for Perry here at MRC the last couple of weeks. Today, my Perry measuring cup reached ‘full’ so let’s be clear, this is a Jayde Wyatt article.

I’m responding to a conversation the Texas Governor had yesterday with Laura Ingraham on her radio program about Mitt Romney and the private-market health insurance program in Massachusetts:

Perry told Ingraham the law was a “total debacle” and would be a “huge problem” for Romney.

“I think Mitt is finally recognizing that the Massachusetts healthcare plan he passed is a huge problem for him,” Perry said. “It was not almost perfect.”

Perry then went on to offer a curious statement:

[T]he answer to our healthcare problems can be found in our states.”

Really?

I know Governor Romney will address Rick Perry’s criticisms on the debate stage; I look forward to it. Extensive articles on the private-market health care insurance program in Massachusetts have been posted here at MRC, so I won’t rehash the details today. Although there is MUCH to be discussed about Rick Perry’s background and record, let’s learn a little about one glaring, alarming stain on the Texas Governor’s record – his very own health care “debacle”:

Perry’s Gardasil Problem

[...]
Why in early 2007 did he [Governor Rick Perry] sign an executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?

Gardasil was developed to prevent the human papillomavirus (HPV), the most commonly transmitted sexual disease in the United States. In June 2006, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug, which is made by the pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. The treatment was initially hailed as a breakthrough in protecting against four strains of HPV that are responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and 90 percent of genital warts.

In January 2007, Gardasil was put on the “recommended” immunization schedule issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control. Merck immediately mounted a massive lobbying effort of state legislatures around the country to get Gardasil added to their respective lists of state-mandated vaccines.

But in Texas, Gov. Perry chose to

    bypass the legislature

and on Feb. 2, 2007, he issued an

    executive order

making Texas the first state in the country requiring all sixth-grade girls to receive the three-shot vaccination series (which cost about $120 per shot). The move generated a fierce public debate. Conservatives slammed Perry for promoting what they saw as an intrusion by the state into private health decisions of parents and their children. Some also complained that the mandate would encourage promiscuity among teenagers.

Many doctors, including Bill Hinchey, the president of the Texas Medical Association at the time, questioned the wisdom of rushing to mandate a drug that had been on the market for less than a year.

“We support physicians being able to provide the vaccine, but we don’t support a state mandate at this time,” Hinchey told the Houston Chronicle. “There are issues, such as liability and cost that need to be vetted first.”

The controversy over Perry’s decision deepened as it came to light that his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck and that his chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Rep. Dianne White Delisi, was the state director of an advocacy group bankrolled by Merck to push legislatures across the country to put forward bills mandating the Gardasil vaccine for preteen girls.

Surprise! Perry received a $6,000 donation from Merck lobbyists just days before the executive order was issued.

When the New York Times praised Perry’s actions, he figured he needed to do some fancy PR work. He quickly penned an op-ed to paint his actions as being ‘pro-life’. USA Today published it.

Perry’s attempt to frame his action as both an urgent public health necessity and the work of a “pro-life” politician failed to dissuade those who felt he had shoved this vaccine down the throats of the public without a full airing of the potential benefits, costs and long-term health implications of the drug.

Roughly 60 state lawmakers called on Perry to rescind the order. He refused. Just six weeks after Perry put pen to paper, the Texas House rebuked him on March 14, 2007, passing HB 1098, overturning his executive order by a vote of 119-21. The Senate followed suit the following month by a vote of 30-1.

(emphasis added) Read more here.

Now, that’s what I call a total debacle.

  • More on gardasil (article includes footnotes):

    Governor Rick Perry’s Gardasil ‘Mistake’ Cost Girls their Lives

    PRLog (Press Release) – Aug 22, 2011 – According to VAERS analyst and SANE Vax team member Janny Stokvis, Governor Rick Perry should have been aware and taken action on the mounting injuries from Gardasil in Texas before an attempt to mandate the vaccine. VAERS reports one girl died post-Gardasil vaccination, there were 14 life-threatening situations and 31 girls became disabled after Perry’s attempt to issue an executive order. The effort to introduce the drug into Texas schools turned into one of Perry’s greatest defeats. His admission of a ‘mistake’ five years later is reprehensible.

    Perry’s order would have become effective in 2008 and girls would be involuntarily immunized unless they ‘opted out’ upon entry to the 6th grade. Texas was the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against a multi-strain virus to prevent ‘cervical cancer.’ Unfortunately, the National Cancer Institute has not directly linked the virus to cervical cancer.1

    Is this poor judgment from a man running for president?

    During a 16 month investigation of Gardasil, side effects were documented in a disturbing number of cases to VAERS including 3,589 during a 16 month period.2 Even though thousands of girls reported adverse reactions to the vaccine, Perry found no reason to modify or withdraw his executive order. Those numbers have now risen to over 22,000 and yet, it took political posturing for Perry to admit his ‘mistake.’
    [...]
    According to VAERS, Texas has had its fair share of reports of adverse reactions:
    As of July 12, 2011 the total number HPV vaccine adverse events reported to VAERS is 22,619 – with an estimated 1 to 10% of the HPV vaccine injured population reporting.4

    19,170 reports are from the U.S. – 3,127 of those events are from unknown locations.
    914 reports out of the 19,170 reports are from Texas. But considering the fact that 3,127 reports have an unknown location, this number could be higher.5

    Gardasil Adverse Events in Texas:

    • One death report of a 26 year old woman who died Nov 20076
    • 67 reports are listed as serious7
    • 14 reports of Life threatening situations8
    • 433 reports of emergency room visits9
    • 45 reports of hospitalization10
    • 10 reports extended hospital stay11
    • 174 reports where the girls did not recover from their injuries12
    • 31 reports of girls now disabled13

    Rick Perry: Merck Shill


    ► Jayde Wyatt