I doubt that paying a higher premium would make a parent compromise his or her principles. If they believe it's introducing danger to their children, they'll pay whatever the cost is. In the end, they end up paying the highest cost of all, in the loss of a child. They believe they are doing the right thing for their children. I don't know if you have children, but if you do, wouldn't you pay a higher premium to protect them from something you perceived as being toxic? This motivation to protect their loved ones can be leveraged with a little information. What they need is for someone to explain to them the consequences of their actions. Ultimately, the decision is theirs. What they need is information.
When my son was an infant, I had learned through a report on Dateline NBC back around 2000 that there was a link between the hepatitis B vaccine and lupus, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, optic neuritis and other neurological disorders. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/07/cbsnews_investigates/main5369814.shtml
Keeping in mind that only hepatitis A is common in children, I delayed having my oldest son vaccinated for hepatitis B only. It is a mandatory vaccination, and I could not enter him in school until he had gotten it. In the end, I relented only because of the government's mandate. However, in the California whooping cough epidemic you referenced, this had nothing to do with hep B vaccines. At this point, the story had gotten away from itself. It was tribal knowledge.
While Dateline NBC is a trusted source of information, in this case they had bad data. The very study that turned out to be fraudulent is the one that they used for the basis of their story. It's CBS's website that carries the current version of the story in the link above. It's considered to be common knowledge at this point. Now Forbes is carrying the story refuting the original claims.
NBC broke this story thirteen years ago, and I would imagine at one point or another, all the networks would have covered some version of it. It doesn't appear that the particular preservative that was in the original offending vaccine is in much use anymore, probably due to public outcry.
So where are the networks now? Is it possible that this story isn't sensational enough to warrant a big story? We have something we didn't have thirteen years ago, though. Social networking websites. Those of us with facebook and twitter accounts should be recommending this article so that reasoning people who were making the decision they thought was safe for their children can be given more data to make better decisions.
Unfortunately, though, rumors are much tougher to kill then they are to create. Conspiracy theorists and alarmists will have a hard time adjusting to this new information.
Let's hope it's right this time.