State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified.

Introduction:I'm fine with my opponent attempting to argue that the private market protects people better than a government controlled market in vaccines.Analysis of the Resolution:Generally, public forum debates do not require plans. The resolution also doesn't seem to imply any sort of call to action.Defending the Affirmative ContentionsC1: Solvency My opponent conceded that vaccines improve people's lives, and that without vaccines lives will be lost. This is critical, because the government's responsibility is to maximize and improve public health and safety. There is a great, compelling state reason to require immunization, because of the countless lives that have been saved through it. Risking lives through a lost of mandate will be the last thing that the government will want to do - because it will cost lives.My opponent has been attempting to assert that people can handle themselves - and the only interference needed is education by the government. This is failing. The Wall Street Journal reported on how doctors are practically giving up on their patients and dismissing them, because of their stubborn belief that vaccines can hurt their children [1] [3].False claims that have been disproved by numerous studies, such as the claim that their is a link between autism and vaccines, continue to trick parents even today, even as doctors try to explain to the parents [1].In fact, around 39% of parents refused/delayed vaccines for their children back in '08, up from previous years [2].In a study published last year, some 30% of doctors claim that, at least once, they asked a family to leave because of their constant refusal of vaccines [1]. Another source provided a similar but lesser number - 21% of doctors have dismissed families because of vaccination issues [3].Attempting to "focus on education" has been tried by doctors - and failure is evident. Making the government leave vaccine mandates will reduce people's irrational worries, to some extent. Obviously, parents will become scared with the return of horrible diseases. Due to the fact that vaccinations now prevent diseases, many people have begun to forget the horrible impacts of some diseases [3]. Do you see why some parents no longer remember?C2: CommunityMy opponent doesn't gain the same benefits, because without mandates - the number of vaccinations will quickly reduce. Voluntary vaccinations are not likely to stay at high rates, but mandates keeps them high enough.The fact remains that there simply isn't only going to be that one crazy parent who doesn't vaccinate their children. A rising amount of people are choosing to exempt themselves or delay vaccinations [4] [5]. With this growing trend, we can expect the loss of herd immunity - which is usually around 90-95%.My opponent also claims that at different times, different vaccinations are needed. This is outrageous - a constant vaccination of children is vital to ensure the safety of the people from the disease returning. With people believing these false hopes, vaccination rates will start to lower, with people believing that the vaccine is no longer needed, and the disease will return. My example of how whooping cough worsened in Colorado because of lowering vaccination rates perfectly captures this scenario. More and more parents choosing to exempt or delay will harm the general public.C3: MoneyFor the maximization of gained money, mandates are needed. Without them, we cannot hope to save a similar amount, when considering the high exemptions.My opponent also claims that aid has to be given to the poor, in order to pay for the vaccines. I doubt that there is actually that many people who need aid, to actually amount to anything. My opponent's own evidence seems to imply large amounts of "voluntary vaccinations", whereas the overwhelming majority of people pay for themselves.Also, vaccine mandates generally aren't that hard to enforce. Currently, the main punishment for rejecting vaccination is that you cannot go to public schools (private schools also have similar vaccine requirements to enter), unless if you state allows some sort of religious/moral/philosophical exemptions (and most states do allow some exemptions).Also, Con's calculations are rather confusing. To be honest, I don't see how he got the $2 billion dollar savings figure and how the government needs to spend $5 on every person.C4: AuthorityI was expecting my opponent to throw a constitutionality/parental freedoms argument out there, but I guess I was wrong. Also, the constitution is generally seen as the document keeping power and freedoms in balance, both by the people and the government. I don't see any other way to find whether or not the government has the authority other than the legal process.Con ArgumentsC1: Economic CalculationGenerally mutation rates in bacteria are about one mutation per one hundred million genes per generation. Bacteria can produce billions of new bacteria daily, each with possibly thousands of genes. Within some forms of diseases, you can expect quick mutations and a rapidly worsening and harming sickness. Constant awareness is needed to fight this - a worthy use of the government's time and money considering the rising number of parents failing to protect their children. Quite frankly, you can't take a risk by letting parents have their own freedoms about this.Also, my opponent has conceded that vaccines have beneficial individual effects. Creating more vaccinations and enforcing mandates will lead to the general improvement of life.C2: BiopoliticsThis might be relevant if we were talking about vaccine mandates in general - concerning adults too. However, children simply do not have the same exact rights as adults.Also, my contention about "authority" is supposed to relate to this. The Constitution is the method by which the people and the government decide whether or not a new law is infringing too much on individual freedoms.There currently exists no alternative to mandates - "educating" parents on the safety and benefits of vaccines is ineffective in increasing numbers. As the government's duty is partially to protect public health and safety, they must take action to protect the lives of individuals. Without life, you cannot enjoy freedoms.Furthermore, I don't see any logical reason why a parent would have to refuse vaccines other than religious/moral/philosophical objections, which states usually give exemptions to. My opponent has agreed that vaccines have almost no risk at all, and provide much more advantages to people.This sort of bad parenting needs to be stopped.Individual rights cannot be respected if they harm the general public. People are free to do what they will until their actions begin harming others [6].Conclusion:Voluntary vaccination cannot accomplish as much as mandatory vaccinations. Voluntary vaccination leads to higher exemptions, delays, and ultimately will result in a tremendous loss of life. Not to mention that voluntary vaccination leads to the loss of benefits such as herd immunity and won't save as much money for society and the government. Compulsory vaccination protects these benefits and people.I await your response, Con ;)Sources:[1] http://online.wsj.com...[2] http://abcnews.go.com...[3] http://www.usatoday.com...[4] http://www.kdheks.gov...[5]http://www.usatoday.com...[6] Paul Offit, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia