Re: Hospital fires 8 workers for refusing to get a flu shot

[W.T.S.]

In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
>
> Is this going to far? Just because a person refuses to get a flu shot,
> he or she loses their job at a hospital in Indiana?
No, the hospital did the right thing to protect the patients from the
flu virus.
>
> Hospital administration claims this is to protect the patients. But
> think about something, they are ordering that their workers be
> injected with a flu vaccine, and these people don't want that
> injection. It's their bodies.
Then they should find another job that doesn't endanger people.
>
> Personally I think the Hospital is over stepping it's boundaries now.
> I understand flu vaccine, I don't get it myself. I have never
> received it since I left the Air Force. I believe our bodies have the
> capability to develop its own immune system, plus I eat right and I
> get plenty of vitamins. And I have not been sick in years. When I do,
> I take a common sense approach, eat a lot of oranges and get plenty of
> fluids.
You are a total idiot. A lucky idiot, but an idiot still.
>
> But never mind that, back to the important issue. A person has a
> right to what goes inside his or her body, right?
Nope, not and be around patients as well as people with weakened immune
systems. The vaccine prevents the spreading of the flu, end of story.
>
> This isn't much different than the abortion issue, when the argument
> is a woman has a right to control her own body. Well, don't all of us
> have that right..even when it includes what goes into our bodies?
No. The issues are not related.
How would you like a surgeon who wouldn't wash his hands?
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/01/indiana-hospital-fires-8-workers-who-refused-flu-shot/

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4

[J]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Getting a flu shot makes good sense but mandatory inoculation is
wrong. Some people may fear an adverse re-action; however unreasonable
that may seem to you. Besides, since when did you start caring about
hospital patients? You're usually the first one screaming to kill the
sick and infirm.





J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[W.T.S.]

In article <t46ae81cetvo50b8h...@4ax.com>, jdyoung1
@ymail.com says...

No, it's exactly right. For members of the military for a dozen
reasons.

> Some people may fear an adverse re-action; however unreasonable
> that may seem to you.

It's not just unreasonable, it's just plain stupid.

> Besides, since when did you start caring about
> hospital patients? You're usually the first one screaming to kill the
> sick and infirm.

Ah, there's your real complaint. You're proof there's no "God", "J", if
there was, some hospital worker would infect you with some nice illness
that'd make you want to die. Did you know pregnant females that get
viral infections can give birth to stillborn or crippled babies (should
they decide to try to give birth and not abort the damaged fetus, and in
many cases abortion would be the right thing to do). "J", you have now
endorsed infecting pregnant women. Thanks.
>
> Jerk Young
> Jerk...@Liar.com

[MarkA]

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, W.T.S. wrote:

> In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
> @f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
>>
>> Is this going to far? Just because a person refuses to get a flu shot,
>> he or she loses their job at a hospital in Indiana?
> No, the hospital did the right thing to protect the patients from the flu
> virus.
>>
>> Hospital administration claims this is to protect the patients. But
>> think about something, they are ordering that their workers be injected
>> with a flu vaccine, and these people don't want that injection. It's
>> their bodies.
> Then they should find another job that doesn't endanger people.
>>
>> Personally I think the Hospital is over stepping it's boundaries now. I
>> understand flu vaccine, I don't get it myself. I have never received it
>> since I left the Air Force. I believe our bodies have the capability to
>> develop its own immune system, plus I eat right and I get plenty of
>> vitamins. And I have not been sick in years. When I do, I take a common
>> sense approach, eat a lot of oranges and get plenty of fluids.
> You are a total idiot. A lucky idiot, but an idiot still.

(piggybacking)

Indeed. One of the remarkable things about flu is that it kills otherwise
young, healthy people. Sometimes, a lot of them. The flu pandemic of
1918 killed 50 million people worldwide.

A hospital has a duty to insure that patients receive the best care
possible. Requiring care givers to get a flu shot is part of that duty.
Here in the USA, flu shots are mandatory for hospital workers in many
states.

>>
>> But never mind that, back to the important issue. A person has a right
>> to what goes inside his or her body, right?

True enough, but a hospital employee also has an obligation to protect
patients from avoidable exposure to the flu virus.

> Nope, not and be around patients as well as people with weakened immune
> systems. The vaccine prevents the spreading of the flu, end of story.
>>
>> This isn't much different than the abortion issue, when the argument is
>> a woman has a right to control her own body. Well, don't all of us
>> have that right..even when it includes what goes into our bodies?
> No. The issues are not related.
> How would you like a surgeon who wouldn't wash his hands?

A better example would be a doctor with active tuberculosis, who refused
to take his antibiotics.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Robert H]

On Jan 3, 12:40 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
> >@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, craz...@comcast.net says...

> >>http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/01/indiana-hospital-fires-8-wor...

>
> >Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
> >women and men alike!
>
> >http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
> >http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
> >http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
> >http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
> >Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
> >Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
> >complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
> >have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
> >abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
> >expense.
>
> >http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
> >http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
> Getting a flu shot makes good sense but mandatory inoculation  is
> wrong. Some people may fear an adverse re-action; however unreasonable
> that may seem to you. Besides, since when did you start caring about
> hospital patients? You're usually the first one screaming to kill the
> sick and infirm.

For some, getting the flu shot is good. My own doctor even told me,
our bodies have the capability to develop it's own immunity and as
long as a person is healthy, it's not necessarily a good thing.

Mandatory inoculation?
Hmm, does anyone see a big picture?

Does it protect the patient? Not necessarily. So that's a bunch of
nonsense.

Forcing inoculation, what's next? What else is going to be forced.
Join a union if you want to keep your job? Oh wait, yea they do that
already in many states.

It's amazing when you listen to the liberals and their double talk.

A liberal will tell you a persons sex life is private, that's it is no
ones business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

But yet, they seem to be able to tell us what we have to drive, what
we have to eat, what we have to do in order to keep a job.

They tell you that abortion is an issue between a woman and her body.
It's her body, no one has any right to tell her what to do with her
body.

But yet, now many agree it's ok to force inoculations.

Wow...no one sees the big picture.

[Robert H]

On Jan 3, 8:25 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, W.T.S. wrote:
> > In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795

> > @f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, craz...@comcast.net says...

And you think getting the flu shot does just that?

[Lady Veteran]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
>@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
>>
>> Is this going to far? Just because a person refuses to get a flu shot,
>> he or she loses their job at a hospital in Indiana?
>No, the hospital did the right thing to protect the patients from the
>flu virus.

They did not. Not every non vaccinated person gets or carries the flu.
I cannot take flu shots and I defy anyone to fire me for it. I have
not had the flu since age 16.

>>
>> Hospital administration claims this is to protect the patients. But
>> think about something, they are ordering that their workers be
>> injected with a flu vaccine, and these people don't want that
>> injection. It's their bodies.
>Then they should find another job that doesn't endanger people.

If that is a concern, they can wear a mask.

>>
>> Personally I think the Hospital is over stepping it's boundaries now.
>> I understand flu vaccine, I don't get it myself. I have never
>> received it since I left the Air Force. I believe our bodies have the
>> capability to develop its own immune system, plus I eat right and I
>> get plenty of vitamins. And I have not been sick in years. When I do,
>> I take a common sense approach, eat a lot of oranges and get plenty of
>> fluids.
>You are a total idiot. A lucky idiot, but an idiot still.

And you are an imbecile with no understanding of how immunity works.

>>
>> But never mind that, back to the important issue. A person has a
>> right to what goes inside his or her body, right?
>Nope, not and be around patients as well as people with weakened immune
>systems. The vaccine prevents the spreading of the flu, end of story.

How far are you going to take it? How many shots would you pump into
your body to turn yourself into an immunity factory?

>>
>> This isn't much different than the abortion issue, when the argument
>> is a woman has a right to control her own body. Well, don't all of us
>> have that right..even when it includes what goes into our bodies?
>No. The issues are not related.
>How would you like a surgeon who wouldn't wash his hands?
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/01/indiana-hospital-fires-8-workers-who-refused-flu-shot/
>

That is how they used to operate and that is an extreme unrelated
example.

LV

--

"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------

"Only a male compensating for his impotence
would accuse a strong woman of being a lesbian."

---Unknown
----------------------------------------------

"It's a sign of your own worth sometimes if you are
hated by the right people."

---Miles Franklin
----------------------------------------------

See the latest idiot featured on my blog!

My Blog http://ladyveteranslog.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------
"Do you have enemies? Good. That means that you have
stood up for something,sometime in your life."

---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
Remember that today's oak tree is yesterday's nut that
stood it's ground.

---Unknown
----------------------------------------------
"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living
someone else's life."

---Steve Jobs
----------------------------------------------
Ten years ago the USA had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and
Johnny Cash .... Now they have no Jobs, no Hope and
no Cash.

---Unknown
----------------------------------------------
"No Gentleman will insult me and no one not a gentleman
can insult me."

---Frederick Douglas

[Lady Veteran]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 06:22:15 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>

Soldiers are an exception. They can be called any time to go anywhere.
They HAVE to be vaccinated but there are exceptions there too. One
only needs a doctor's permission. I took my basic training
vaccinations but was exempted from all others.

>> Some people may fear an adverse re-action; however unreasonable
>> that may seem to you.
>It's not just unreasonable, it's just plain stupid.

NO. It is a real situation. Walk a mile in our shoes before
complaining.

>> Besides, since when did you start caring about
>> hospital patients? You're usually the first one screaming to kill the
>> sick and infirm.
>Ah, there's your real complaint. You're proof there's no "God", "J", if
>there was, some hospital worker would infect you with some nice illness
>that'd make you want to die. Did you know pregnant females that get
>viral infections can give birth to stillborn or crippled babies (should
>they decide to try to give birth and not abort the damaged fetus, and in
>many cases abortion would be the right thing to do). "J", you have now
>endorsed infecting pregnant women. Thanks.
>>

Yes they can. They may have all their shots, too.

[Lady Veteran]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:25:26 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

That is different. Someone with an active disease would not be allowed
to be around patients.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

No, rightard.

It very definitely protects the patient.

They may still get the flu, but the scientific consensus is that the
odds of catching the flu from someone who's been inoculated are
-greatly- reduced.

As WTS pointed out... How about hand washing?

There have been studies linking antiseptic soap to the development of
allergies.

What if they don't want to risk getting allergies by putting
antiseptic soap on their bodies?

Do you still think their jobs should be protected, even though poor
hand washing is responsible for most hospital staff infections?

>Forcing inoculation, what's next? What else is going to be forced.
>Join a union if you want to keep your job? Oh wait, yea they do that
>already in many states.

So, you think it's fair that someone can get the wage/benefit packages
negotiated by a union that other workers support, but not have to pay
union dues themselves.

Yea... That's about right.

You rightards always want stuff, but you never want to pay for it.

>It's amazing when you listen to the liberals and their double talk.
>
>A liberal will tell you a persons sex life is private, that's it is no
>ones business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

So it is.

>But yet, they seem to be able to tell us what we have to drive, what
>we have to eat, what we have to do in order to keep a job.

We liberals are only interested in what others do when their
activities effect us.

That we live in a highly interconnected community and things that one
person does are likely to adversely effect others is just one of those
things.

But, hey...

If you don't want to effect others, go live on a desert island
somewhere.

I wouldn't mind a bit.

>They tell you that abortion is an issue between a woman and her body.
>It's her body, no one has any right to tell her what to do with her
>body.

Correct.

>But yet, now many agree it's ok to force inoculations.

Whether a woman is pregnant or not will not make -me- sick.

Ever.

You're not too bright, are you, rightard?

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

The scientific consensus is that it does just that.

Hmmmmm...

What should I accept...

The scientific consensus or the opinion of a rightard...

Boy, that's a tough one!

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.


>

[MarkA]

It is not different. Someone can spread the flu virus without being aware
of it, just as one can spread the TB bacillus. The only difference is the
biology of the infecting organism.

[MarkA]

Given our current level of technology, it is the best we can do for now.

[harry k]

So you jump from a hospital requiring it to blanket forced
innoculation. Shows your depth of understanding the subject.

Harry K

[harry k]

And when push comes to shove, an employer has the right set conditions
that have to observed if yu want to work there. That, of course can
be restricted somewhat by union contract and other laws of course.

The people who got fired got a wakeup call that holding a stupid
belief can have serious consequences.

Harry K

[harry k]

Since real life and scientific evidence shows it does...

Unfortunately you should be learning again that reality has very
little respect for stupid "beliefs".

Harry K

[MarkA]

Fallacy. Just because flu shots are not 100% effective, it doesn't follow
that they have no value whatsoever. As said before, hospital workers
have an obligation to avoid infecting their patients. Flu shots are one
way of achieving that goal.

>
> Forcing inoculation, what's next? What else is going to be forced. Join
> a union if you want to keep your job? Oh wait, yea they do that already
> in many states.

With good reasons.

>
> It's amazing when you listen to the liberals and their double talk.
>
> A liberal will tell you a persons sex life is private, that's it is no
> ones business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.
>
> But yet, they seem to be able to tell us what we have to drive, what we
> have to eat, what we have to do in order to keep a job.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing an activity that threatens the
health and well being of others versus one that does not. Ironically,
conservatives want to remove restrictions on activities that DO impact
others, like removing controls on pollution, etc, and regulate activities
that don't impact others, like allowing gays to marry each other.

>
> They tell you that abortion is an issue between a woman and her body.
> It's her body, no one has any right to tell her what to do with her
> body.
>
> But yet, now many agree it's ok to force inoculations.
>
> Wow...no one sees the big picture.

Not true. Nobody is being forced to be inoculated. You are only required
to be inoculated if you want to keep your job, working around patients who
might likely die if they contract the flu. The choice is entirely up to
the worker.

Is that "big picture" enough for you?

[Robert H]

Shows yours...forced inoculations is a entirely different matter.
You fail to see the bigger picture.
But then again, I've not met any socialist who don't believe in
forcing others to do what they want.
Why should you be any different?


>
> Harry K

[Robert H]

You are failing to see a big picture.

>
>
>
> > Forcing inoculation, what's next?  What else is going to be forced. Join
> > a union if you want to keep your job? Oh wait, yea they do that already
> > in many states.
>
> With good reasons.

Ah, so we can start forcing people to do things, as long as we have

"good" reasons.


>
>
>
> > It's amazing when you listen to the liberals and their double talk.
>
> > A liberal will tell you a persons sex life is private, that's it is no
> > ones business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.
>
> > But yet, they seem to be able to tell us what we have to drive, what we
> > have to eat, what we have to do in order to keep a job.
>
> You seem to have trouble distinguishing an activity that threatens the
> health and well being of others versus one that does not.  Ironically,
> conservatives want to remove restrictions on activities that DO impact
> others, like removing controls on pollution, etc, and regulate activities
> that don't impact others, like allowing gays to marry each other.

No, I see very clearly what you support.

>
>
>
> > They tell you that abortion is an issue between a woman and her body.
> > It's her body, no one has any right to tell her what to do with her
> > body.
>
> > But yet, now many agree it's ok to force inoculations.
>
> > Wow...no one sees the big picture.
>
> Not true.  Nobody is being forced to be inoculated.

Bull, you're requiring something be inoculated into their bodies as a
condition of employment.
Now, they don't this foreign object placed in their bodies, so you
want to take away their means of survival.

You are only required
> to be inoculated if you want to keep your job, working around patients who
> might likely die if they contract the flu.  The choice is entirely up to
> the worker.

Right, cause we know these inoculations is going to prevent the spread
of a viral infection.

> Is that "big picture" enough for you?

I see a much bigger picture than you do.
One in which we live in a society where we can force people to have a
foreign object injected into their bodies, so they can
have the means to survive.

[Robert H]

What other forced inoculations do you think we should start pushing?

[Robert H]

Oh, puh-lease show where forced inoculations is going to prevent the
spread of this virus.
Show the evidence that says forced inoculations will protect the
patients.

[Robert H]

Prove it.

Prove the scientific consensus that forced inoculations protects the
patients from exposure to the flu.

What's next socialist? What do you propose we force people to do next?

[Moses]

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:40:55 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> mandatory inoculation is
> wrong.

Government mandated inoculation is wrong. But when you agree to an
employment contract to get immunized then you are required to honor that
contract or be fired. That is all that happened to these workers.

[MarkA]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:22:39 -0600, Lady Veteran wrote:


>>>
>>> Getting a flu shot makes good sense but mandatory inoculation is
>>> wrong.
>>No, it's exactly right. For members of the military for a dozen reasons.
>
> Soldiers are an exception. They can be called any time to go anywhere.
> They HAVE to be vaccinated but there are exceptions there too. One only
> needs a doctor's permission. I took my basic training vaccinations but was
> exempted from all others.
>
>>> Some people may fear an adverse re-action; however unreasonable that
>>> may seem to you.
>>It's not just unreasonable, it's just plain stupid.
>
> NO. It is a real situation. Walk a mile in our shoes before complaining.
>

Allergic and other adverse reactions to vaccinations are real, and can be
deadly, but are very rare. People are famously bad at assessing risk; we
focus on the unusual and spectacular, while ignoring common (and
unglamorous) causes of death and injury. A mother will refuse to
vaccinate her child because of unfounded fears that her child will be
somehow harmed, yet think nothing of putting the child in a car without a
car seat for the drive home. People at the beach worry about being
attacked by a shark. They SHOULD worry about drowning, or contracting
malignant melanoma later in life from excessive sun exposure.

Recently, the country was shocked when 20 children were shot to death in
an elementary school. Every day, about 30 children die of various causes
that don't make the news. We all know they occur, but they don't excite
our imagination like the occasional shooting rampage does.

What is "just plain stupid" is failing to consider the data before making
a decision, and letting your "gut instinct" do the job that your brain is
far better suited for.

[Robert H]

On Jan 3, 12:50 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:40:55 -0800, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > mandatory inoculation  is
> > wrong.
>
> Government mandated inoculation is wrong. But when you agree to an
> employment contract to get immunized then you are required to honor that
> contract or be fired. That is all that happened to these workers.

I think even that can be challenged. As it should be.
We are talking about the requirement to place a foreign object into a
persons body, as a means of keeping employment.

[Robert H]

You're right, on that note. Every single day we have kids and adults
killed
in all areas of this country, and it never makes the news.

Just like with the war in Iraq, many liberals were counting the
bodies.
"4,000" killed.

Yet, the average GI could be killed in a training exercise in Germany
and
no one notices or cares. They simply choose to use those numbers at
that
time to push forward their agenda.
And I'm afraid you're going to see many use these 20 innocent
children, for the same
thing. To push forward gun control laws.
But like you said, on any given day at any place we have kids and
adults being killed
all of the time...and no one blinks an eye.

>
> What is "just plain stupid" is failing to consider the data before making
> a decision, and letting your "gut instinct" do the job that your brain is
> far better suited for.

What I'm looking at here is a bigger picture. It's not just the matter
that
the flu shots will "reduce" some exposure. We can all agree on that.
But hell, a person can carry a virus, touch a door knob, and transfer
it to that door knob for someone else to pick up.
Are we going to start going around demanding everyone get inoculated
for everything?

The problem lies in we are making it a condition of employment now.
Just like with the union stuff, where in some states they make it a
condition of employment.

What happened to people just having the freedom to do the job they
want to do without being forced or having it made a condition to get a
foreign object injected into their body or be forced to pay into a
union that they may want nothing to do?

Look, I'm all for protecting patients. But we both know that these flu
shots are not going to protect the patients. What about other
patients coming in with the flu?
What about visitors?

Come on Mark, you're smarter than this. I'm sure you can see the
bigger picture. I can understand some of the others like silentotto,
WTS, or Keegan not getting it. But you're smart, and I respect a lot
of your opinions.

There is a bigger picture here that I think many are failing to see.

What do we start forcing next or making it a employment condition?

[Moses]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:11:58 -0800 (PST), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> I think even that can be challenged. As it should be.
> We are talking about the requirement to place a foreign object into a
> persons body, as a means of keeping employment.

No, The worker agrees to the immunization requirement prior to obtaining
the job. It is all in black and white when they sign the contract. If they
fail to honor an employment contract then they will be fired.

[Robert H]

On Jan 3, 1:18 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:11:58 -0800 (PST), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

> wrote:
>
> > I think even that can be challenged. As it should be.
> > We are talking about the requirement to place a foreign object into a
> > persons body, as a means of keeping employment.
>
> No, The worker agrees to the immunization requirement prior to obtaining
> the job. It is all in black and white when they sign the contract. If they
> fail to honor an employment contract then they will be fired.

And hopefully people will be intelligent enough to stand up and say
the right thing.
No forcing foreign objects into my body.

What are you going to do about visitors and other patients?

Screen them and force them into seclusion?

Wow, it's really sad that you don't actually see the bigger picture
involved in this issue.

I suppose you are in agreement with closed shop states too, forcing
people to
join unions as a condition of employment.

I'm curious as to what else you think we should make people do.

I'll find out as we go along.

[MarkA]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:18:29 -0600, Lady Veteran wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
>>@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
>>>
>>> Is this going to far? Just because a person refuses to get a flu shot,
>>> he or she loses their job at a hospital in Indiana?
>>No, the hospital did the right thing to protect the patients from the flu
>>virus.
>
> They did not. Not every non vaccinated person gets or carries the flu. I
> cannot take flu shots and I defy anyone to fire me for it. I have not had
> the flu since age 16.

If you have a medical reason that you cannot be vaccinated, that would be
a special case. They might, however, restrict the kind of patient contact
you can have.

>>>
>>> Hospital administration claims this is to protect the patients. But
>>> think about something, they are ordering that their workers be
>>> injected with a flu vaccine, and these people don't want that
>>> injection. It's their bodies.
>>Then they should find another job that doesn't endanger people.
>
> If that is a concern, they can wear a mask.

Mask wearing is protocol for certain kinds of isolation. In Japan, about
1 of 3 people on the street are wearing a surgical mask, usually as a
courtesy to others when one has a viral illness. However, wearing a mask
does not eliminate the need for vaccination.

>
>
>>> Personally I think the Hospital is over stepping it's boundaries now.
>>> I understand flu vaccine, I don't get it myself. I have never
>>> received it since I left the Air Force. I believe our bodies have the
>>> capability to develop its own immune system, plus I eat right and I
>>> get plenty of vitamins. And I have not been sick in years. When I do,
>>> I take a common sense approach, eat a lot of oranges and get plenty of
>>> fluids.
>>You are a total idiot. A lucky idiot, but an idiot still.
>
> And you are an imbecile with no understanding of how immunity works.
>
>
>>> But never mind that, back to the important issue. A person has a
>>> right to what goes inside his or her body, right?
>>Nope, not and be around patients as well as people with weakened immune
>>systems. The vaccine prevents the spreading of the flu, end of story.
>
> How far are you going to take it? How many shots would you pump into
> your body to turn yourself into an immunity factory?

Your body is already an "immunity factory". If there is a greater than
zero chance that you will be exposed to the flu virus, it makes way more
sense to expose yourself FIRST to a weakened version. The immune system,
like many systems, needs periodic exercise to stay in shape. That is
exactly what vaccines do.

[Moses]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:21:23 -0800 (PST), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> And hopefully people will be intelligent enough to stand up and say
> the right thing.
> No forcing foreign objects into my body.

They are free to agree to the contract or not. If you don't want to be
immunized and refuse to sign a contract that is fine by me. But don't tell
me I shouldn't elect to be immunized if that is what I want. Immunization
works to save billions of people from major diseases and death.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Proofs are for mathematics, rightard.

Everything else operates on the balance of evidence.

>Prove the scientific consensus that forced inoculations protects the
>patients from exposure to the flu.

You don't get to demand cites from me, rightard.

You abused the privilege, you were warned, you persisted.

Now, suffer the consequences.

>What's next socialist? What do you propose we force people to do next?

Do something that I don't like that effects me or endangers me, and
I'll let you know, rightard.

[Alex W.]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:19:07 -0800 (PST), Robert H wrote:

> On Jan 3, 12:57 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:


>> What is "just plain stupid" is failing to consider the data before making
>> a decision, and letting your "gut instinct" do the job that your brain is
>> far better suited for.
>
> What I'm looking at here is a bigger picture. It's not just the matter
> that
> the flu shots will "reduce" some exposure. We can all agree on that.
> But hell, a person can carry a virus, touch a door knob, and transfer
> it to that door knob for someone else to pick up.
> Are we going to start going around demanding everyone get inoculated
> for everything?

To stick with your example and your logic, we might as well tell
all staff and visitors that washing their hands is entirely
optional. After all, clean hands won't stop someone spreading a
virus all over the ward by coughing, right?

>
> The problem lies in we are making it a condition of employment now.
> Just like with the union stuff, where in some states they make it a
> condition of employment.
>
> What happened to people just having the freedom to do the job they
> want to do without being forced or having it made a condition to get a
> foreign object injected into their body or be forced to pay into a
> union that they may want nothing to do?

Unions are debatable, and they are not directly related to
healthcare measures. Clinical measures to protect patients and
reduce disease are not. Put simply, if you are a risk factor you
are not fit to be near people with compromised immune systems ...
as lie around in hospitals in their thousands.

Inoculation is one measure among many to protect vulnerable
people from infectious diseases that in 2011 killed almost 54,000
Americans. In terms of deaths caused, that's 5,000 more than are
alleged to be caused by exposure to second-hand smoke.

>
> Look, I'm all for protecting patients. But we both know that these flu
> shots are not going to protect the patients. What about other
> patients coming in with the flu?
> What about visitors?

Actually, they should also be made to take hygienic measures
(face mask, washing of hands) and if visiting wards with
particularly vulnerable patients should offer proof of
inoculation.

>
> Come on Mark, you're smarter than this. I'm sure you can see the
> bigger picture. I can understand some of the others like silentotto,
> WTS, or Keegan not getting it. But you're smart, and I respect a lot
> of your opinions.
>
> There is a bigger picture here that I think many are failing to see.
>
> What do we start forcing next or making it a employment condition?

It's a matter of being fit for the job.

If the work demands a certain level of physical ability, then
that is a job requirement that cannot and should not simply be
ditched regardless of how badly someone wants to work in that
capacity.

If the work demands a certain mindset, innate ability, training
or other physical attribute, then that is what is required; if
you do not fulfil these requirements, hard cheese and consider
suing your careers advisor. For example, I myself am fully
anosmic and would therefore not be able to work in a hospital
because a sense of smell is considered essential to discharge my
duties. Should I still be able to work on the wards and endanger
patients?

[Alex W.]

Here's a useful concept to consider in this discussion: "herd
immunity". In short, not everybody needs to be inoculated in
order to reap the benefits of immunity. We still get the
nationwide/societywide protective effects if only 80-90 percent
of the population are vaccinated. This is definitely a
big-picture point.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Getting a flu shot makes good sense but mandatory inoculation is
> wrong.

It's not mandatory. I'm assuming the fired workers still haven't had a flu
shot? They have a RIGHT not to have the flu shot. They do NOT have a right to
continue employment at a place that deals with critically ill people who will
be killed if given the flu.

> Some people may fear an adverse re-action;

Then they should resign, and find employment doing something that does not
require them to get a flu shot.

> however unreasonable
> that may seem to you.

Not unreasonable at all; I 100% sympathize with them that it's their right to
dictate what gets injected into their bodies. But the last time I checked,
employment isn't a right. Work sets the rules, and if you're wanting to assert
your rights against company policy, then work has the grounds to dismiss you.

Tell me, if your mother was in the hospital, critically ill, and ended up
catching the flu from someone who had the opportunity to get the flu shot, and
refused, wouldn't you hold the hospital culpable for failing to provide
adequate care?

> Besides, since when did you start caring about
> hospital patients? You're usually the first one screaming to kill the
> sick and infirm.

Straw man. Nothing to do with the point.

The nurses have a right not to inject their bodies with anything they don't
want. The Hospital has a responsibility to it's patients to provide them with
the best medical care it can.

All rights were respected, all responsibilities were fulfilled. Eight nurses
are out of a job. Lets hope they move on to something where they won't feel
their rights trump those of their charges.

--
__ _ | Books are lighthouses erected in the great sea of time.
(_ |_) | -- Edwin P. Whipple
__)|_) |

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Robert H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 12:40 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net>

>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
>> >@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, craz...@comcast.net says...
>>
>> >> Is this going to far? Just because a person refuses to get a flu shot,
>> >> he or she loses their job at a hospital in Indiana?
>> >No, the hospital did the right thing to protect the patients from the
>> >flu virus.
>>
>> >> Hospital administration claims this is to protect the patients.  But
>> >> think about something, they are ordering that their workers be
>> >> injected with a flu vaccine, and these people don't want that
>> >> injection. It's their bodies.
>> >Then they should find another job that doesn't endanger people.
>>
>> >> Personally I think the Hospital is over stepping it's boundaries now.
>> >> I understand flu vaccine, I don't get it myself.  I have never
>> >> received it since I left the Air Force. I believe our bodies have the
>> >> capability to develop its own immune system, plus I eat right and I
>> >> get plenty of vitamins. And I have not been sick in years. When I do,
>> >> I take a common sense approach, eat a lot of oranges and get plenty of
>> >> fluids.
>> >You are a total idiot.  A lucky idiot, but an idiot still.
>>

>> >> But never mind that, back to the important issue.  A person has a
>> >> right to what goes inside his or her body, right?

>> >Nope, not and be around patients as well as people with weakened immune
>> >systems.  The vaccine prevents the spreading of the flu, end of story.
>>

>> Getting a flu shot makes good sense but mandatory inoculation  is

>> wrong. Some people may fear an adverse re-action; however unreasonable
>> that may seem to you. Besides, since when did you start caring about

>> hospital patients? You're usually the first one screaming to kill the
>> sick and infirm.
>

> For some, getting the flu shot is good. My own doctor even told me,
> our bodies have the capability to develop it's own immunity and as
> long as a person is healthy, it's not necessarily a good thing.
>
> Mandatory inoculation?
> Hmm, does anyone see a big picture?

Yes. Hospitals have a responsibility to provide the best care they can.

> Does it protect the patient? Not necessarily. So that's a bunch of
> nonsense.

This is patently false.

> Forcing inoculation, what's next? What else is going to be forced.
> Join a union if you want to keep your job? Oh wait, yea they do that
> already in many states.

I'm personally fine with right-to-work legislation, so long as the people who
opt out of the union have to negotiate their contracts themselves, and don't
get to piggy-back on the back of whatever the union people have negotiated.

> It's amazing when you listen to the liberals and their double talk.
>
> A liberal will tell you a persons sex life is private, that's it is no
> ones business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

If you're having sex at work, I think yes, work DOES have the right to can your
butt for that. Work also has the right to fire you if you're putting patients
at risk. As W.T.S pointed out, if I decide that my natural germ and virus
killing system is OK, and I don't need to wash my hands, and I'm a surgeon,
isn't that a problem?

> But yet, they seem to be able to tell us what we have to drive, what
> we have to eat, what we have to do in order to keep a job.

If you're driving for the post office, yeah, you have to drive a post office
truck. If you're in the millitary, yeah, you get meals ready-to-eat. If
you're doing clerical work, and won't file the papers in alphabetical order
like we tell you to, yeah, you lose your job.

Please show me where it says in the US constitution that you have a RIGHT to
work, comrade.

> They tell you that abortion is an issue between a woman and her body.
> It's her body, no one has any right to tell her what to do with her
> body.

No one told these nurses what to do either; they were not held at gunpoint,
were they? Have they still not taken the flu shot? Then their RIGHTS have
been upheld; working ain't a right.

> But yet, now many agree it's ok to force inoculations.

If I go in to a hospital, I expect certain things: one of them is that the
staff will do their utmost to provide me with the best possible health care
they can. If they're all running around with the fucking flu while I'm in for
a heart transplant, are they providing me with the best possible health care?

> Wow...no one sees the big picture.

You're a moron.

--
__ _ | All this worldly wisdom was once the unamiable heresy of
(_ |_) | some wise man.
__)|_) | -- Henry David Thoreau

[W.T.S.]

In article <5f751a7b-9a28-4d88-8839-a08aea5c0133
@n9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...

If your Doctor actually said that, he's a quack. People die from the
flu, even the very most healthy ones. The uninnoculated spread the
virus as well.

>
> Mandatory inoculation?
> Hmm, does anyone see a big picture?

Yes, fewer deaths.

>
> Does it protect the patient? Not necessarily. So that's a bunch of
> nonsense.

Pure, lying bull shit. It protects the patient. Stop being such a liar
and inventor of disinformation!

>
> Forcing inoculation, what's next? What else is going to be forced.
> Join a union if you want to keep your job? Oh wait, yea they do that
> already in many states.

Unions save lives too. Ask a coal miner. So do seat belts and other
things. I wish all you conservative nut cases would unbuckle your seat
belts and drive into a solid wall at five MPH. There's lots of other
things I'd like to see you do. Oddly enough, they don't.
>
> It's amazing when you listen to the conservatives and their double
> talk. They'll actually endanger themselves to advance an agenda.

>
> A liberal will tell you a persons sex life is private, that's it is no

> ones business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. A
> conservative will want to regulate your sex life all they can get away
> with.

>
> But yet, they seem to be able to tell us what we have to drive, what
> we have to eat, what we have to do in order to keep a job.

Feel free to drive without your seat belt into a brick wall at five
MPH. I wish all conservatives would.

>
> They tell you that abortion is an issue between a woman and her body.
> It's her body, no one has any right to tell her what to do with her
> body.
>

> But yet, now many agree it's ok to force inoculations.

Ever raised a child damaged by a virus in the womb?

>
> Wow...no one sees the big picture.

Actually, we do, and that drives conservatives crazy.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Robert H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote:

I'll say it slow, so that even a moron like you can understand:

Not having things put in your body against your will is a right.
Having gainful employment is NOT a right.

If you think it is, might I suggest moving to China or Cuba or North Korea or
one of the other communist countries, Comrade Robert?

--
__ _ | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
(_ |_) | -- Motto of the Royal Society
__)|_) |

[W.T.S.]

In article <813b8c80-a336-4c89-af15-
88a70e...@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
> On Jan 3, 8:25 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> > On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, W.T.S. wrote:
> > > In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
> > > @f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, craz...@comcast.net says...
> >
> > >> Is this going to far? Just because a person refuses to get a flu shot,
> > >> he or she loses their job at a hospital in Indiana?
> > > No, the hospital did the right thing to protect the patients from the flu
> > > virus.
> >
> > >> Hospital administration claims this is to protect the patients.  But
> > >> think about something, they are ordering that their workers be injected
> > >> with a flu vaccine, and these people don't want that injection. It's
> > >> their bodies.
> > > Then they should find another job that doesn't endanger people.
> >
> > >> Personally I think the Hospital is over stepping it's boundaries now. I
> > >> understand flu vaccine, I don't get it myself.  I have never received it
> > >> since I left the Air Force. I believe our bodies have the capability to
> > >> develop its own immune system, plus I eat right and I get plenty of
> > >> vitamins. And I have not been sick in years. When I do, I take a common
> > >> sense approach, eat a lot of oranges and get plenty of fluids.
> > > You are a total idiot.  A lucky idiot, but an idiot still.
> >

> > (piggybacking)
> >
> > Indeed.  One of the remarkable things about flu is that it kills otherwise
> > young, healthy people.  Sometimes, a lot of them.  The flu pandemic of
> > 1918 killed 50 million people worldwide.
> >
> > A hospital has a duty to insure that patients receive the best care
> > possible.  Requiring care givers to get a flu shot is part of that duty.
> > Here in the USA, flu shots are mandatory for hospital workers in many
> > states.
> >

> > >> But never mind that, back to the important issue.  A person has a right
> > >> to what goes inside his or her body, right?
> >

> > True enough, but a hospital employee also has an obligation to protect
> > patients from avoidable exposure to the flu virus.
>
> And you think getting the flu shot does just that?

Yes, it does. It's called, "herd immunity". Look it up.

>
> > > Nope, not and be around patients as well as people with weakened immune
> > > systems.  The vaccine prevents the spreading of the flu, end of story.
> >
> > >> This isn't much different than the abortion issue, when the argument is
> > >> a woman has a right to control her own body.  Well, don't all of us
> > >> have that right..even when it includes what goes into our bodies?
> > > No.  The issues are not related.
> > > How would you like a surgeon who wouldn't wash his hands?
> >

> > A better example would be a doctor with active tuberculosis, who refused
> > to take his antibiotics.

> >
> > --
> > MarkA
> > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
> > About eight o'clock

[W.T.S.]

In article <0e1634bb-00e9-4b89-8cd9-a79c1893ba22
@c28g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...

Ok. Let's start with the fact no one gets smallpox anymore, where it
was once wide spread. Same with a number of other viruses.

[W.T.S.]

In article <7c442b3c-3ebf-44f1-95eb-3cbc35bb2162
@r14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...

While I'm at it, would you like me to prove the moon isn't made of green
cheese and that the Earth goes around the Sun?

>
> Prove the scientific consensus that forced inoculations protects the
> patients from exposure to the flu.

The breaking of many an epidemic for starts, and the absence of smallpox
outbreaks. Do you know anything about a virus and how they're spread,
especially airborne viruses?

>
> What's next socialist? What do you propose we force people to do next?

How about stopping the spread of certain cancers? We can now do that,
in both males and females.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Robert H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=efficacy+of+flu+vaccines+in+preventing+spread&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=QeHlUOPfD87_rAH93YGoDQ&ved=0CDoQgQMwAA

> What's next socialist? What do you propose we force people to do next?

Why do you assume people have a right to work. You some kind of commie?

--
__ _ | Freedom means learning to deal with being offended.
(_ |_) | -- Andrew Sullivan
__)|_) |

[W.T.S.]

In article <87a8f646-388b-44a9-8199-c243e0e6a357@
17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...

The HPV virus inoculation would certainly be nice for all entering
school, male and females alike. The Shingles vaccine would be nice too.

>
> > MarkA
> > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
> > About eight o'clock

[W.T.S.]

In article <bdc28075-9561-4a82-a3de-6c0affda39e0
@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...

And I'm sure you wouldn't mind all the stop signs and red lights
removed.
>
> > Harry K

[W.T.S.]

In article <bhbbe852vi2sfutsm...@4ax.com>,
arm...@bigfoot.com says...
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
> >@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...

> >>
> >> Is this going to far? Just because a person refuses to get a flu shot,
> >> he or she loses their job at a hospital in Indiana?
> >No, the hospital did the right thing to protect the patients from the
> >flu virus.
>

> They did not.
Yes, they did. Vaccinated people are far, far less likely to get or
carry the flu than an unvaccinated person.

> Not every non vaccinated person gets or carries the flu.
> I cannot take flu shots and I defy anyone to fire me for it. I have
> not had the flu since age 16.

You have a crystal ball that will tell you who will get or carry the
flu? If you can't take one type of flu shot, there are other types that
you can take. We're working on a once in a lifetime flu shot.
Perhaps, but you can get the flu tomorrow, even if you've never been
sick. It's called, "playing the best odds".
Try joining the Army and telling them they can't vaccinate you.

> >>
> >> Hospital administration claims this is to protect the patients. But
> >> think about something, they are ordering that their workers be
> >> injected with a flu vaccine, and these people don't want that
> >> injection. It's their bodies.
> >Then they should find another job that doesn't endanger people.
>

> If that is a concern, they can wear a mask.

Which often won't, and can't, protect. During an epidemic, why not do
both, vaccinate and mask? Most places will do "belt and suspenders"
prevention.

> >>
> >> Personally I think the Hospital is over stepping it's boundaries now.
> >> I understand flu vaccine, I don't get it myself. I have never
> >> received it since I left the Air Force. I believe our bodies have the
> >> capability to develop its own immune system, plus I eat right and I
> >> get plenty of vitamins. And I have not been sick in years. When I do,
> >> I take a common sense approach, eat a lot of oranges and get plenty of
> >> fluids.
> >You are a total idiot. A lucky idiot, but an idiot still.
>

> And you are an imbecile with no understanding of how immunity works.

And it works a lot better with vaccination.

>
> >> But never mind that, back to the important issue. A person has a
> >> right to what goes inside his or her body, right?
> >Nope, not and be around patients as well as people with weakened immune
> >systems. The vaccine prevents the spreading of the flu, end of story.
>

> How far are you going to take it? How many shots would you pump into
> your body to turn yourself into an immunity factory?

However many it takes.

> >>
> >> This isn't much different than the abortion issue, when the argument
> >> is a woman has a right to control her own body. Well, don't all of us
> >> have that right..even when it includes what goes into our bodies?
> >No. The issues are not related.
> >How would you like a surgeon who wouldn't wash his hands?
> >>

> >> http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/01/indiana-hospital-fires-8-workers-who-refused-flu-shot/
> >
> That is how they used to operate and that is an extreme unrelated
> example.
Perhaps you'd like to be around TB carriers that don't take their
antibiotics?
>
> LV

[W.T.S.]

In article <7rbbe85pnjl10l43k...@4ax.com>,
arm...@bigfoot.com says...
>
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 06:22:15 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <t46ae81cetvo50b8h...@4ax.com>, jdyoung1
> >@ymail.com says...

> >> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
> >> >@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
> >> >>
> >> >> Is this going to far? Just because a person refuses to get a flu shot,
> >> >> he or she loses their job at a hospital in Indiana?
> >> >No, the hospital did the right thing to protect the patients from the
> >> >flu virus.
> >> >>

> >> >> Hospital administration claims this is to protect the patients. But
> >> >> think about something, they are ordering that their workers be
> >> >> injected with a flu vaccine, and these people don't want that
> >> >> injection. It's their bodies.
> >> >Then they should find another job that doesn't endanger people.
> >> >>

> >> >> Personally I think the Hospital is over stepping it's boundaries now.
> >> >> I understand flu vaccine, I don't get it myself. I have never
> >> >> received it since I left the Air Force. I believe our bodies have the
> >> >> capability to develop its own immune system, plus I eat right and I
> >> >> get plenty of vitamins. And I have not been sick in years. When I do,
> >> >> I take a common sense approach, eat a lot of oranges and get plenty of
> >> >> fluids.
> >> >You are a total idiot. A lucky idiot, but an idiot still.
> >> >>

> >> >> But never mind that, back to the important issue. A person has a
> >> >> right to what goes inside his or her body, right?
> >> >Nope, not and be around patients as well as people with weakened immune
> >> >systems. The vaccine prevents the spreading of the flu, end of story.
> >> >>

> >> >> This isn't much different than the abortion issue, when the argument
> >> >> is a woman has a right to control her own body. Well, don't all of us
> >> >> have that right..even when it includes what goes into our bodies?
> >> >No. The issues are not related.
> >> >How would you like a surgeon who wouldn't wash his hands?
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/01/indiana-hospital-fires-8-workers-who-refused-flu-shot/
> >> >

> >> >Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
> >> >women and men alike!
> >> >>
> >> >http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
> >> >>
> >> >http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
> >> >>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
> >> >>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
> >> >>
> >> >http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
> >> >>
> >> >http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
> >> >>
> >> >Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
> >> >>
> >> >Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
> >> >complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
> >> >have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
> >> >abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
> >> >expense.
> >> >>
> >> >http://www.imnotsorry.net
> >> >>
> >> >http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
> >> >>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
> >> >>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
> >> >>
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
> >>

> >> Getting a flu shot makes good sense but mandatory inoculation is
> >> wrong.

> >No, it's exactly right. For members of the military for a dozen
> >reasons.
>
> Soldiers are an exception. They can be called any time to go anywhere.
> They HAVE to be vaccinated but there are exceptions there too. One
> only needs a doctor's permission. I took my basic training
> vaccinations but was exempted from all others.
>

> >> Some people may fear an adverse re-action; however unreasonable
> >> that may seem to you.

> >It's not just unreasonable, it's just plain stupid.
>
> NO. It is a real situation. Walk a mile in our shoes before
> complaining.

There's more than one kind of flu vaccination. Look them up. They were
developed for people who have adverse reactions.

>
> >> Besides, since when did you start caring about
> >> hospital patients? You're usually the first one screaming to kill the
> >> sick and infirm.

> >Ah, there's your real complaint. You're proof there's no "God", "J", if
> >there was, some hospital worker would infect you with some nice illness
> >that'd make you want to die. Did you know pregnant females that get
> >viral infections can give birth to stillborn or crippled babies (should
> >they decide to try to give birth and not abort the damaged fetus, and in
> >many cases abortion would be the right thing to do). "J", you have now
> >endorsed infecting pregnant women. Thanks.
> >>
> Yes they can. They may have all their shots, too.
So anyone they're exposed to should have their shots, "belt and
suspenders".

[MarkA]

Lancet. 2000 Jan 8;355(9198):93-7.
Effects of influenza vaccination of health-care workers on mortality of
elderly people in long-term care: a randomised controlled trial. Carman
WF, Elder AG, Wallace LA, McAulay K, Walker A, Murray GD, Stott DJ.

MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006 Feb 24;55(RR-2):1-16. Influenza vaccination of
health-care personnel: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control
Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) and the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices (ACIP). Pearson ML, Bridges CB, Harper SA;
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC);
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

>
> What's next socialist? What do you propose we force people to do next?

Oh, I don't know. How about forcing you to pay for sluts to get abortions?

--

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<a306613d-0a56-45fe...@x10g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,

No.

We're talking about 8 people willing to endanger the lives of the
patients they were hired to take care of.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[MarkA]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:43:00 -0800, Robert H wrote:

> On Jan 3, 12:33 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:03:29 -0800, Robert H wrote:
>> > On Jan 3, 12:40 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

>> >> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net>

>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
>> >> >@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, craz...@comcast.net says...
>>
>> >> >> Is this going to far? Just because a person refuses to get a flu
>> >> >> shot, he or she loses their job at a hospital in Indiana?
>> >> >No, the hospital did the right thing to protect the patients from
>> >> >the flu virus.
>>
>> >> >> Hospital administration claims this is to protect the patients.
>> >> >>  But think about something, they are ordering that their workers
>> >> >> be injected with a flu vaccine, and these people don't want that
>> >> >> injection. It's their bodies.
>> >> >Then they should find another job that doesn't endanger people.
>>
>> >> >> Personally I think the Hospital is over stepping it's boundaries
>> >> >> now. I understand flu vaccine, I don't get it myself.  I have
>> >> >> never received it since I left the Air Force. I believe our bodies
>> >> >> have the capability to develop its own immune system, plus I eat
>> >> >> right and I get plenty of vitamins. And I have not been sick in
>> >> >> years. When I do, I take a common sense approach, eat a lot of
>> >> >> oranges and get plenty of fluids.
>> >> >You are a total idiot.  A lucky idiot, but an idiot still.
>>

>> >> >> But never mind that, back to the important issue.  A person has a
>> >> >> right to what goes inside his or her body, right?

>> >> >Nope, not and be around patients as well as people with weakened
>> >> >immune systems.  The vaccine prevents the spreading of the flu, end
>> >> >of story.
>>
>> >> >> This isn't much different than the abortion issue, when the
>> >> >> argument is a woman has a right to control her own body.  Well,
>> >> >> don't all of us have that right..even when it includes what goes
>> >> >> into our bodies?
>> >> >No.  The issues are not related.
>> >> >How would you like a surgeon who wouldn't wash his hands?
>>

>> >> >>http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/01/indiana-hospital-fires-8-wor...

>>
>> >> >Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures
>> >> >of women and men alike!
>>
>> >> >http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>>
>> >> >http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>>
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>>
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>>
>> >> >http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>>
>> >> >http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>>
>> >> >Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>>
>> >> >Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from complaining
>> >> >about "welfare mothers popping out babies we have to feed" to
>> >> >complain about welfare mothers getting abortions that PREVENT more
>> >> >babies to be raised at public expense.
>>
>> >> >http://www.imnotsorry.net
>>
>> >> >http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>>
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>>
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>>
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>>
>> >> Getting a flu shot makes good sense but mandatory inoculation  is

>> >> wrong. Some people may fear an adverse re-action; however
>> >> unreasonable that may seem to you. Besides, since when did you start

>> >> caring about hospital patients? You're usually the first one
>> >> screaming to kill the sick and infirm.
>>

>> > For some, getting the flu shot is good.  My own doctor even told me,
>> > our bodies have the capability to develop it's own immunity and as
>> > long as a person is healthy, it's not necessarily a good thing.
>>
>> > Mandatory inoculation?
>> > Hmm, does anyone see a big picture?
>>
>> > Does it protect the patient?  Not necessarily.  So that's a bunch of
>> > nonsense.
>>

>> Fallacy.  Just because flu shots are not 100% effective, it doesn't
>> follow that they have no value whatsoever.  As said before, hospital
>> workers have an obligation to avoid infecting their patients.  Flu
>> shots are one way of achieving that goal.
>
> You are failing to see a big picture.

>
>
>>
>>
>> > Forcing inoculation, what's next?  What else is going to be forced.
>> > Join a union if you want to keep your job? Oh wait, yea they do that
>> > already in many states.
>>

>> With good reasons.
>
> Ah, so we can start forcing people to do things, as long as we have "good"
> reasons.

Now, you're getting it. Part of living in a society means that you give
up some personal liberty for the benefit of the group. If the concept is
difficult for you, you might want to watch a documentary on how wolves and
bees survive. If you don't like that arrangement, you can become an
outcast, and live by yourself in an isolated area.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>> > It's amazing when you listen to the liberals and their double talk.
>>
>> > A liberal will tell you a persons sex life is private, that's it is no
>> > ones business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.
>>
>> > But yet, they seem to be able to tell us what we have to drive, what
>> > we have to eat, what we have to do in order to keep a job.
>>

>> You seem to have trouble distinguishing an activity that threatens the
>> health and well being of others versus one that does not.  Ironically,
>> conservatives want to remove restrictions on activities that DO impact
>> others, like removing controls on pollution, etc, and regulate
>> activities that don't impact others, like allowing gays to marry each
>> other.
>
>
> No, I see very clearly what you support.

>
>
>>
>>
>> > They tell you that abortion is an issue between a woman and her body.
>> > It's her body, no one has any right to tell her what to do with her
>> > body.
>>
>> > But yet, now many agree it's ok to force inoculations.
>>
>> > Wow...no one sees the big picture.
>>

>> Not true.  Nobody is being forced to be inoculated.
>

> Bull, you're requiring something be inoculated into their bodies as a
> condition of employment.

One of the privileges of an employer is placing reasonable requirements on
your employees as a condition of their employment. For a health care
worker, being immunized against a common, easily transmitted, potentially
fatal virus is a reasonable requirement. If the employee doesn't want to
be immunized, he can look for an employer who does not place that
restriction on him.

From some of your comments, I suspect that you are a conservative. It is
doubly ironic that the conservatives in the USA are all about not having
the government interfere with business, and opposing worker's rights.
However, this employer exercising his rights seems to be rubbing you the
wrong way. Funny, that.

> Now, they don't this foreign object placed in their bodies, so you want
> to take away their means of survival.

>
>
> You are only required
>> to be inoculated if you want to keep your job, working around patients
>> who might likely die if they contract the flu.  The choice is entirely
>> up to the worker.
>

> Right, cause we know these inoculations is going to prevent the spread
> of a viral infection.

Exactly. You're not as dumb as you let on.

>
>
>
>> Is that "big picture" enough for you?
>

> I see a much bigger picture than you do. One in which we live in a
> society where we can force people to have a foreign object injected into
> their bodies, so they can have the means to survive.
>

You could also view it as a society where the vast majority are protected
from the folly of a minority of idiots. I suppose that, being one of the
idiots, it looks different to you. Oh, well.

[elizabeth]

On Jan 3, 9:40 am, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 12:16 pm, harry k <turn...@q.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > > Forcing inoculation, what's next?  What else is going to be forced.
> > > Join a union if you want to keep your job? Oh wait, yea they do that
> > > already in many states.
>

> > > It's amazing when you listen to the liberals and their double talk.
>
> > > A liberal will tell you a persons sex life is private, that's it is no
> > > ones business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.
>
> > > But yet, they seem to be able to tell us what we have to drive, what
> > > we have to eat, what we have to do in order to keep a job.
>

> > > They tell you that abortion is an issue between a woman and her body.
> > > It's her body, no one has any right to tell her what to do with her
> > > body.
>
> > > But yet, now many agree it's ok to force inoculations.
>
> > > Wow...no one sees the big picture.
>

> > So you jump from a hospital requiring it to blanket forced
> > innoculation.  Shows your depth of understanding the subject.

You really are so desperate for any attention . .. that you post
bollocks to get negative attention.

> Shows yours...forced inoculations is a entirely different matter.

There is no forcing, if you don't want the shot, find another job.

> You fail to see the bigger picture.
> But then again, I've not met any socialist who don't believe in
> forcing others to do what they want.
> Why should you be any different?

Kill yourself, Heishman.

[elizabeth]

On Jan 3, 10:21 am, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 1:18 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
> wrote:

So, you feel that the military has no right to "forcibly" inject
recruits?

Wow, you lefty pinky commie symp!

[MarkA]

What you are pointing out is that it is a complex problem with no perfect
solutions. That's the way life is. However, that doesn't mean you can't
do anything to make the situation better.

A hospital or nursing home is a unique environment, where patients are
prone to getting infections, and workers are known to be common vectors of
infection. Studies have shown that a) immunizing health care providers
(HCPs) is effective at reducing infections and death among patients, and
b) HCPs generally won't get immunized unless you twist their arms.

There is an on-going debate amongst health-care policy wonks about whether
it is ethical to require HCPs to be immunized, and there are valid
arguments on both sides of the issue.

It seems to me that the hospital/nursing home can require immunization as
a condition of employment, and if the employee does not want to comply,
they are free to go work elsewhere.

Consider the medico-legal aspect. Your dear Auntie Em has just died of
influenza in a nursing home, and you find out that the people caring for
her were not immunized, despite a policy recommending that all workers get
an annual vaccine. That would be a personal injury lawyer's dream case.
And, if the nursing home administrator can't fire the employees for not
being vaccinated, what recourse does he have? Get sued by the employee,
or sued by the family of the deceased? Take your pick.

Also, I recognize that it is not a perfect solution, either. The vaccine
is not always effective, and you can't control for other vectors, like
visitors. I was on a hospital infection control committee at one time,
and we spent a LOT of time discussing how we could prevent the spread of
nasty bugs from patient to patient, staff to patient, patient to staff,
etc, WITHOUT putting restrictions on visitors, over whom we have little
authority. There just are no good answers, but that doesn't mean that
nothing should be done.

> Come on Mark, you're smarter than this. I'm sure you can see the bigger
> picture. I can understand some of the others like silentotto, WTS, or
> Keegan not getting it. But you're smart, and I respect a lot of your
> opinions.
>
> There is a bigger picture here that I think many are failing to see.
>
> What do we start forcing next or making it a employment condition?
>

Again, it is an on-going friction between the rights of the individual and
the welfare of the group. There is no right answer, and some people, like
you, are more toward the "individual rights" end of the spectrum, while I
am more toward the "welfare of the group" end of the spectrum.

Although I am no fan of big government, every day I meet plenty of people
that make me glad there is a government to prevent them from having undue
power over me. To me, the big picture is that we have different
priorities, and the solution will likely be a compromise that neither of
us is completely happy with, but we both can live with. Now, if we could
just get the assholes in Congress to learn that lesson, we would be better
off.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:06:23 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>

That's a valid point for vaccination in general.

But, it's worth pointing out that no where near 80-90 percent of the
population gets immunized against influenza, and since a new vaccine
is generally required every year, we're not likely achieve such a
percentage.

That's part of the big picture too.

[Patrick]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote

> We're talking about 8 people willing to endanger the lives of the
> patients they were hired to take care of.

Thank you again.

[Alex W.]

That is true, alas.

[m...@privacy.net]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:01:13 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

Well when I was 15 I caught the flu and ended up in the hospital with IV
to re hydrate me. I was so sick I couldn't walk. Ever year since then I
have had the flu vaccine and have been vaccinated for every disease
possible. I haven't had the flu in 30+ years or other diseases. One
episode with the flu convinced me to get immunized every year.
I'm a believer!

[W.T.S.]

In article <kc5ds...@news4.newsguy.com>, m...@privacy.net says...

I wish more were. Immunization have saved me on more than one occasion.
And, I nearly died before some vaccines were developed.

[Patrick]

"W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > In article
<kc5ds...@news4.newsguy.com>, m...@privacy.net says...
>> >

>> Well when I was 15 I caught the flu and ended up in the hospital with IV
>> to re hydrate me. I was so sick I couldn't walk. Ever year since then I
>> have had the flu vaccine and have been vaccinated for every disease
>> possible. I haven't had the flu in 30+ years or other diseases. One
>> episode with the flu convinced me to get immunized every year.
>> I'm a believer!
> I wish more were. Immunization have saved me on more than one occasion.
> And, I nearly died before some vaccines were developed.

The US military gives mandatory flu shots every year.
It doesn't always work. But it is an effort to save lives.

[harry k]

On Jan 3, 9:47 am, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 12:25 pm, harry k <turn...@q.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 8:04 am, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 3, 8:25 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>

> > > > On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:57:15 -0600, W.T.S. wrote:
> > > > > In article <9c12754e-b59b-4e6b-93ac-8ddf50310795
> > > > > @f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, craz...@comcast.net says...
>
> > > > >> Is this going to far? Just because a person refuses to get a flu shot,
> > > > >> he or she loses their job at a hospital in Indiana?
> > > > > No, the hospital did the right thing to protect the patients from the flu
> > > > > virus.
>
> > > > >> Hospital administration claims this is to protect the patients.  But
> > > > >> think about something, they are ordering that their workers be injected
> > > > >> with a flu vaccine, and these people don't want that injection. It's
> > > > >> their bodies.
> > > > > Then they should find another job that doesn't endanger people.
>
> > > > >> Personally I think the Hospital is over stepping it's boundaries now. I
> > > > >> understand flu vaccine, I don't get it myself.  I have never received it
> > > > >> since I left the Air Force. I believe our bodies have the capability to
> > > > >> develop its own immune system, plus I eat right and I get plenty of
> > > > >> vitamins. And I have not been sick in years. When I do, I take a common
> > > > >> sense approach, eat a lot of oranges and get plenty of fluids.
> > > > > You are a total idiot.  A lucky idiot, but an idiot still.
>

> > > > (piggybacking)
>
> > > > Indeed.  One of the remarkable things about flu is that it kills otherwise
> > > > young, healthy people.  Sometimes, a lot of them.  The flu pandemic of
> > > > 1918 killed 50 million people worldwide.
>
> > > > A hospital has a duty to insure that patients receive the best care
> > > > possible.  Requiring care givers to get a flu shot is part of that duty.
> > > > Here in the USA, flu shots are mandatory for hospital workers in many
> > > > states.
>

> > > > >> But never mind that, back to the important issue.  A person has a right
> > > > >> to what goes inside his or her body, right?
>

> > > > True enough, but a hospital employee also has an obligation to protect
> > > > patients from avoidable exposure to the flu virus.
>
> > > And you think getting the flu shot does just that?
>

> > Since real life and scientific evidence shows it does...
>
> Oh, puh-lease show where forced inoculations is going to prevent the
> spread of this virus.
> Show the evidence that says forced inoculations will protect the
> patients.

Do some research. Note that research does not allow you to stuff your
fingers in theears and keep repeating "tis NOT" after every paragraph
you read.

Harry K

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Oh, puh-lease, yourself, rightard.

You're the one going against well studied and long established
scientific consensus on this matter, rightard, not us.

We -do- know that vaccinating health care workers against influenza
-does- reduce the transmission of influenza to hospital patients, and
for you to try and pretend otherwise is just another symptom of your
rightardedness.

I know you rightards have little use for facts when facts are in
opposition to your ideology, and you can oppose forced influenza
vaccinations on ideological grounds if you wish to do so.

But, don't pretend that your opposition is based on anything other
than ideology, because it's not.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Robert H]

What 'your not seeing is the intrusion Mark. More and more government
intrusion.

So, why don't we order the inoculation on visitors and all patients?

No visits, because they could be transferring the flu.
All vendors, and other service workers in the hospitals.

Don't stop at the nurses.

Oh, and if you're a patient and you have not received the flu vaccine,
you must be quarantined.

After all, we must think about the protection of the patients right?

Did anyone ever think about the protection of the workers who might
get exposed?

[Robert H]

On Jan 4, 11:53 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:47:30 -0800 (PST), Robert H
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Oh,...

You were asked to prove your statement and you refuse to do so.

[Robert H]

> Do some research. ...

So you can't support your statement.
I didn't think you could.

That's two down...next!!!

[Robert H]

On Jan 4, 8:06 am, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > In article
>
> <kc5dsh02...@news4.newsguy.com>, m...@privacy.net says...

True, but unlike the nurses, in the military you raise your right hand
and you sign a contract becoming government "issued". You belong to
the government in that case.

[Robert H]

On Jan 3, 4:06 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <a306613d-0a56-45fe-9af5-d0fafb33d...@x10g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,

>  Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 12:50 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:40:55 -0800, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > mandatory inoculation  is
> > > > wrong.
>
> > > Government mandated inoculation is wrong. But when you agree to an
> > > employment contract to get immunized then you are required to honor that
> > > contract or be fired. That is all that happened to these workers.
>
> > I think even that can be challenged. As it should be.
> > We are talking about the requirement to place a foreign object into a
> > persons body, as a means of keeping employment.
>
> No.
>
> We're talking about 8 people willing to endanger the lives of the
> patients they were hired to take care of.

So order the inoculation of every single person who walks through the
doors.

Including visitors.

Why not? You don't want to endanger the lives of the
patients...right?

[Lady Veteran]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:13:31 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>

Yes there are-for various strains of the flu. The allergic reactions
are never taken into consideration and no vaccination station seems to
have THAT vaccine. Why?

LV

--

"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------

"Only a male compensating for his impotence
would accuse a strong woman of being a lesbian."

---Unknown
----------------------------------------------

"It's a sign of your own worth sometimes if you are
hated by the right people."

---Miles Franklin
----------------------------------------------

See the latest idiot featured on my blog!

My Blog http://ladyveteranslog.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------
"Do you have enemies? Good. That means that you have
stood up for something,sometime in your life."

---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
Remember that today's oak tree is yesterday's nut that
stood it's ground.

---Unknown
----------------------------------------------
"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living
someone else's life."

---Steve Jobs
----------------------------------------------
Ten years ago the USA had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and
Johnny Cash .... Now they have no Jobs, no Hope and
no Cash.

---Unknown
----------------------------------------------
"No Gentleman will insult me and no one not a gentleman
can insult me."

---Frederick Douglas

[Patrick]

"Robert H" <cra...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:85a9db6b-5005-4948...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

+ You are absolutely clueless.
+ A member of the armed forces is still a citizen of the USA.

[Patrick]

"Robert H" <cra...@comcast.net> wrote

You were asked to prove your statement and you refuse to do so.

+ Go away, little boy.

[Robert H]

On Jan 4, 12:20 pm, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "Robert H" <craz...@comcast.net> wrote in message

Lets make everyone get inoculated then.
Patients, visitors, anyone who enters those doors.

After all, you do care about the patients right?

[Robert H]

On Jan 4, 12:21 pm, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "Robert H" <craz...@comcast.net> wrote

> You were asked to prove your statement and you refuse to do so.
>
> + Go away, little boy.

Aww...your feelings are hurt.
Look, you made a statement I asked you to back it up.
You couldn't.

[Robert H]

On Jan 4, 12:38 pm, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 01:47:16 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Hospitals are full of sick people. Peop;e with other illnesses are more
> likely to catch the flu. So flu shots are a damn good idea for health care
> workers. Don't want to take shots, don't work as a health care worker.

Lets make everyone get them then, anyone who enters those doors.
Including visitors.

After all, they can transport the flu virus and we do care about the
patients.

[Alex W.]

Do bear in mind that the annual 'flu vaccination programme is one
of the larger logistical exercises undertaken by government.
They have to develop a basic vaccine, mass-manufacture it,
package and distribute it, deliver it to individual surgeries and
hospitals, organise leaflets, advertising and other
awareness/information material, produce pre-packaged indivudal
shots. On top of that, they have to develop, manufacture and
distribute vaccine delivery systems for special at-risk groups.

IOW, it is a bit optimistic to expect them to cater to
everybody's needs on the spot and without fail or delay.

[SkyEyes]

As someone who has had many *very* sick relatives in the hospital over
the years...it works for me.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Alex W.]

Agreed.
They should do that.
At the very least, they should insist on general precautionary
measures for ALL hospital staff and visitors, and implement
restricted access for special at-risk wards. As desirable as it
might be, demanding proof of vaccination for the ER or lower-risk
areas such as the imaging suites, dentistry or opthalmologic
department might be unfeasible, but there is every medical reason
to ensure that potential carriers of the virus do not spread it
around high-risk areas needlessly.

[MarkA]

The hospital has limited authority over visitors, compared to their own
employees. It *might* be possible for the hospital to ban visitors who
have not been vaccinated, but it would probably be a bad idea from a
business standpoint. Also, many states have "patient rights" laws, that
might prevent the hospital from barring visitors who haven't been
vaccinated. It would also be hugely impractical to require documentation
of vaccination from every visitor. OTOH, visitors are not going to have
direct contact with multiple patients, either.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Yes, I did refuse to do so, and I will continue to refuse to provide
you with cites in the future.

But, we both know I'm right.

And, as Mark A. was kind enough to do your research for you in his
response to your demand for a cite, your complaint has already been
addressed.

Thanks, Mark!

[MarkA]

You seriously don't have a problem with mandatory inoculations for the
military, but you do for health-care workers? Do the two sides of your
brain ever talk to each other?

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

That might be a good idea.

Start lobbying hospitals with your idea.

I may even support you.

[MarkA]

You think you are being facetious, but you are not. It is, in some
states, *required* that the hospital offer flu shots to all patients,
unless they have a medical contra-indication. Just as they are required
to offer smoking cessation, and to investigate any possibility of domestic
abuse at home. Before too much longer, the parents of obese children will
be targeted for education, as well.

Take a stroll through most any hospital ward these days, and about half
the rooms will be on some sort of isolation: contact, wound, inhaled
droplet, etc. Preventing the spread of infections *within* the hospital
has become a big priority in just the last few years.

Regarding visitors, the CDC would LOVE it if every eligible person got the
flu vaccine every year, whether they go to visit people in the hospital or
not. The hospital cannot legally require visitors to be vaccinated, nor
can they legally prevent them from visiting if they haven't been, nor is
there any way that they could verify if a visitor has been vaccinated or
not.

However, you voiced your REAL concern in your first paragraph. What
bothers you is "government intrusion", and I agree, it is a real concern.
However, it is far more productive to monitor and control "government
intrusion" than it is to reflexively rebel against it. In this
circumstance, however, it is not the government that is intruding, but the
hospital, presumably a private employer.

It is a real fact that people now travel all over the world, and can wind
up in a contained space, like a hospital, in close contact with other sick
people. In such circumstances, the spread of infectious organisms is
inevitable, and people will die as a result. In that situation, the
hospital has a moral and legal duty to do all in its power to prevent the
spread of infections. If vaccinating the workers is an effective measure,
and studies have shown that it is, then the hospital is obliged to make
sure that all its workers are vaccinated.

Again, the hospital employees are not slaves, but they do have to meet the
requirements of their employer. If they don't want to get vaccinated,
they can go work for someone else.

[Robert H]

Good for you.

[elizabeth]

On Jan 3, 2:53 pm, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:06:23 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 12:33:06 -0500, MarkA wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:03:29 -0800, Robert H wrote:
>
> >>> They tell you that abortion is an issue between a woman and her body.
> >>> It's her body, no one has any right to tell her what to do with her
> >>> body.
>
> >>> But yet, now many agree it's ok to force inoculations.
>
> >>> Wow...no one sees the big picture.
>
> >> Not true.  Nobody is being forced to be inoculated.  You are only required
> >> to be inoculated if you want to keep your job, working around patients who
> >> might likely die if they contract the flu.  The choice is entirely up to
> >> the worker.
>
> >> Is that "big picture" enough for you?
>
> >Here's a useful concept to consider in this discussion: "herd
> >immunity".  In short, not everybody needs to be inoculated in
> >order to reap the benefits of immunity.  We still get the
> >nationwide/societywide protective effects if only 80-90 percent
> >of the population are vaccinated.  This is definitely a
> >big-picture point.
>

> Another thing to consider, when people get sick, they go to the hospital.
> So hospital workers will exposed to people with the flu. And then spread
> the flu all over the hospital. The Idiots should be fired for stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or perhaps they really do want to kill patients?
Some health care providers hate their jobs.

[elizabeth]

> Harry K- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That's all Rober "J" Heishman has .. .. lies and denial.

[Robert H]

We either care about protecting the patients or we don't.

That's the bottom line. That's the whole argument, right?
Protect the patients?
So if that's it..lets do it. Inoculate ANYONE who can expose
the patients to the flue virus.
Because really, just inoculating the nurses...come on, we both know
that's like trying to spit on a forest fire.

 It *might* be possible for the hospital to ban visitors who
> have not been vaccinated, but it would probably be a bad idea from a
> business standpoint.

Then ban them. I mean come on, it's about the patient, right?

 Also, many states have "patient rights" laws, that
> might prevent the hospital from barring visitors who haven't been
> vaccinated.

But the patients are being exposed.

It would also be hugely impractical to require documentation
> of vaccination from every visitor.  OTOH, visitors are not going to have
> direct contact with multiple patients, either.

Oh puh-lease, you know they are.
You know how these viruses are spread.

[Robert H]

> Yes, I did refuse to do so, ...

Because you can't.
Now, run along until you can provide something useful.

[Robert H]

On Jan 4, 3:14 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:00:25 -0800, Robert H wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 8:06 am, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> >> "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > In article
>
> >> <kc5dsh02...@news4.newsguy.com>, m...@privacy.net says...
>
> >> >> Well when I was 15 I caught the flu and ended up in the hospital with
> >> >> IV to re hydrate me. I was so sick I couldn't walk. Ever year since
> >> >> then I have had the flu vaccine and have been vaccinated for every
> >> >> disease possible. I haven't had the flu in 30+ years or other
> >> >> diseases. One episode with the flu convinced me to get immunized
> >> >> every year. I'm a believer!
> >> > I wish more were. Immunization have saved me on more than one
> >> > occasion. And, I nearly died before some vaccines were developed.
>
> >> The US military gives mandatory flu shots every year. It doesn't always
> >> work. But it is an effort to save lives.
>
> > True, but unlike the nurses, in the military you raise your right hand and
> > you sign a contract becoming government "issued".  You belong to the
> > government in that case.
>
> You seriously don't have a problem with mandatory inoculations for the
> military, but you do for health-care workers?

Yes, did. And if you recall, when they ordered the anthrax shots, many
refused to take them.
And I applaud them for taking a stand.

You claim you care about the patients, but you don't want to take ALL
necessary precautions
to do so.
So...which is it?
Do you care more about the health care workers being ordered...or do
you care about protecting the patients?

[Robert H]

In your case, I would repeat to you what Boehner told Reid.

[elizabeth]

When have you ever backed up your statements, Heishman?
Still waiting for your evidence of your repeated assertion that I have
a criminal past, Heishman .. .

[Robert H]

Oh no...it's either we care and do everything or do nothing.
I mean come on, either you want to seriously protect the patients
from exposure to the flu, or you don't.

Which is it?

It is, in some
> states, *required* that the hospital offer flu shots to all patients,
> unless they have a medical contra-indication.

Ok, and if they refuse to receive..then they should be segregated and
not allowed to come into
contact with anyone, including visitors who have not received the
shot.

Just as they are required
> to offer smoking cessation, and to investigate any possibility of domestic
> abuse at home. Before too much longer, the parents of obese children will
> be targeted for education, as well.

We should ban all foods and drinks that are related to causing
obesity.
I believe they are attempting this in New York.
Laws need to be made that will ban these foods.

>
> Take a stroll through most any hospital ward these days, and about half
> the rooms will be on some sort of isolation: contact, wound, inhaled
> droplet, etc. Preventing the spread of infections *within* the hospital
> has become a big priority in just the last few years.

Good, now we need to do more. Since we are firing workers who are not
getting those shots, we need to
take this to the next step. Anyone and EVERYONE who comes into contact
with the Hospitals must
have all inoculations that will prevent the spread of the flu virus.

Remember, this is about protecting the patients.
Got to keep them in mind.

>
> Regarding visitors, the CDC would LOVE it if every eligible person got the
> flu vaccine every year, whether they go to visit people in the hospital or
> not.

Great, now lets do it. Laws can be created. People can be fined if
they refuse
to do so.
Aren't people being fined if they don't take the health care created
with the Obama
administration?

So it can be done. You can't force them, but you can fine them. And
if they don't, don't
come into a hospital.

Who is protecting the workers from exposure?

The hospital cannot legally require visitors to be vaccinated, nor

> can they legally prevent them ...

Sure they can...these things can be changed.

> However, you voiced your REAL concern in your first paragraph.  What
> bothers you is "government intrusion", and I agree, it is a real concern.
> However, it is far more productive to monitor and control "government
> intrusion" than it is to reflexively rebel against it.  In this
> circumstance, however, it is not the government that is intruding, but the
> hospital, presumably a private employer.
>
> It is a real fact that people now travel all over the world, and can wind
> up in a contained space, like a hospital, in close contact with other sick
> people.  In such circumstances, the spread of infectious organisms is
> inevitable, and people will die as a result.  In that situation, the
> hospital has a moral and legal duty to do all in its power to prevent the
> spread of infections.  If vaccinating the workers is an effective measure,
> and studies have shown that it is, then the hospital is obliged to make
> sure that all its workers are vaccinated.
>
> Again, the hospital employees are not slaves, but they do have to meet the
> requirements of their employer.  If they don't want to get vaccinated,
> they can go work for someone else.

Mark..come on now.
We are telling people if you don't do this, you're unemployed.
Thus creating more unemployment for tax payers to pick up.

We either care about the patients..or we don't.

Laws can be created, just as Hospitals can create their rules and
contracts for their staff.

Who is making sure all food service workers, sanitation crews, and
others in the hospitals
are receiving their vaccinations? Do then not have a direct or
indirect way of having contact
with the patients?
Food?
Clothing and sheets?

Janitors?

Security?

Are we just going to stick it to the nurses?

These are hard questions that must be answered Mark. Either we care
about these patients or we don't damn it.

Now which is it?
If you truly care about their exposure, then certainly you should
endorse laws being created that would make sure
that this exposure is eliminated.

Now, go help those nurses get back on their feet, as we have to help
pay for their unemployment for how many years?

[Patrick]

"Robert H" <cra...@comcast.net> wrote

> > The US military gives mandatory flu shots every year.
> > It doesn't always work. But it is an effort to save lives.

Lets make everyone get inoculated then.
Patients, visitors, anyone who enters those doors.
After all, you do care about the patients right?

-----------

Patient rights do not dictate that nurses be innoculated.
It is the hospital that made up that rule.
If you don't like the rule, don't work there.
If the hospital feels everyone who enters should have a
flu shot that year, let this be investigated in the courts.

[Patrick]

"Robert H" <cra...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:efd1b2dd-f036-4bf9...@a15g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

[Robert H]

On Jan 4, 6:16 pm, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "Robert H" <craz...@comcast.net> wrote

>
> > > The US military gives mandatory flu shots every year.
> > > It doesn't always work. But it is an effort to save lives.
>
> Lets make everyone get inoculated then.
> Patients, visitors, anyone who enters those doors.
> After all, you do care about the patients right?
> -----------
>
> Patient rights do not dictate that nurses be innoculated.

You're willing to help those nurses for 2 years while they are on
unemployment, right?
Well, you are regardless if you want to or not.

So you don't care about the patients after all then.

> It is the hospital that made up that rule.

We can create laws that say we must ALL get inoculated.
Why not? It's about the patients right?

> If you don't like the rule, don't work there.

If you don't like the laws that can be created, then you pay the fine.

> If the hospital feels everyone who enters should have a
> flu shot that year, let this be investigated in the courts.

Anyone, and EVERYONE who comes into contact with anyone in the
hospitals, should be inoculated.
Including janitors, security, food service, all delivery personnel,
administration...everyone.

AND...

Visitors..don't forget them. If they don't want to get inoculated,
then don't go to the hospital.

You do care about the patients, right?

[Lady Veteran]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 19:12:42 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

If health care employers are going to fire people for refusing the
vaccine immediately, why can they not have the alternative vaccine
available immediately? Then if people refuse, there is a right to
fire. The exemptions should be allergies or disease/drug interaction
and that is it if you are a medical care provider.

LV

--

"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------

"Only a male compensating for his impotence
would accuse a strong woman of being a lesbian."

---Unknown
----------------------------------------------

"It's a sign of your own worth sometimes if you are
hated by the right people."

---Miles Franklin
----------------------------------------------

See the latest idiot featured on my blog!

My Blog http://ladyveteranslog.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------
"Do you have enemies? Good. That means that you have
stood up for something,sometime in your life."

---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
Remember that today's oak tree is yesterday's nut that
stood it's ground.

---Unknown
----------------------------------------------
"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living
someone else's life."

---Steve Jobs
----------------------------------------------
Ten years ago the USA had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and
Johnny Cash .... Now they have no Jobs, no Hope and
no Cash.

---Unknown
----------------------------------------------
"No Gentleman will insult me and no one not a gentleman
can insult me."

---Frederick Douglas

[Moses]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:48:01 -0800 (PST), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>

> Mark..come on now.
> We are telling people if you don't do this, you're unemployed.
> Thus creating more unemployment for tax payers to pick up.

No, if you are fired for violating your employment contract you are not
allowed to collect unemployment.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

I wager Reid doesn't give any more of a fuck what Boehner thinks than
I give about what you think, rightard.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Otto's Law: The rightardedness of a rightard is in direct proportion
to how much they snip.

This wouldn't be the first time you've demanded a cite for something
you already know to be true, rightard.

That's one of the reasons I don't provide you with cites to begin
with.

[Robert H]

On Jan 4, 7:08 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:48:01 -0800 (PST), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mark..come on now.
> > We are telling people if you don't do this, you're unemployed.
> > Thus creating more unemployment for tax payers to pick up.
>
> No, if you are fired for violating your employment contract you are not
> allowed to collect unemployment.

The whole premise is about protecting the patient.

They will collect unemployment. Now, be prepared to help assist more
unemployed people.

And since the whole premise is about protecting the patient, lets not
stop at the nurses.

EVERYONE who has any ability to enter the hospital should be ordered
to get a flu shot.
This includes food service, security, IT, and so forth. Even
volunteers.
Don't forget the visitors.
Now, if one is admitted into the hospital, in order to get a room and
be around anyone, they must be made to get a flu vaccine if they have
not gotten one.

And since we care so much about the spread of the flu virus, we should
pass laws that say if you don't get the flu shot, you will be fined.

So don't just stop at the nurses. I know you don't care about them,
after all...this is all about the patients.

[Robert H]

On Jan 4, 7:18 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:39:24 -0800 (PST), Robert H
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That's ok, I'm sure Reid is funneling plenty of money with that
additional 4 trillion to his lobbyist.

You're ok with that, right?

[Patrick]

"Robert H" <cra...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:cd039269-dbb6-475c...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 4, 6:16 pm, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "Robert H" <craz...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > > The US military gives mandatory flu shots every year.
> > > It doesn't always work. But it is an effort to save lives.
>
> Lets make everyone get inoculated then.
> Patients, visitors, anyone who enters those doors.
> After all, you do care about the patients right?
> -----------
>
> Patient rights do not dictate that nurses be innoculated.

You're willing to help those nurses for 2 years while they are on
unemployment, right?
Well, you are regardless if you want to or not.

+ You are an idiot.
+ Nurses are never on unemployment unless they are loozers.
+ I was in the USAF and moved a lot. My wife ALWAYS
was able to get a job in a new town within one day.
---------------

So you don't care about the patients after all then.

+ Patients should not be exposed to more illness when they
are seeking help and medications.
--------------

> It is the hospital that made up that rule.

We can create laws that say we must ALL get inoculated.
Why not? It's about the patients right?

+ You do what you like. However, that will not
stand up in any court where you force people to get a shot
when they don't want one, need one, or even like the flu.
--------------

> If you don't like the rule, don't work there.

If you don't like the laws that can be created, then you pay the fine.

+ OK then. We have that all settled.
----------------

> If the hospital feels everyone who enters should have a
> flu shot that year, let this be investigated in the courts.

Anyone, and EVERYONE who comes into contact with anyone in the
hospitals, should be inoculated.
Including janitors, security, food service, all delivery personnel,
administration...everyone.

+ That is not your call.
+ At senior citizen nursing homes, many will offer free flu shots
to all employees. Most people will get them because they know
that if they get the flu, some elderly people could die from it.
--------

AND...

Visitors..don't forget them. If they don't want to get inoculated,
then don't go to the hospital.

You do care about the patients, right?

+ Gimme a break.... Patient rights stop when it imposes on people.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 16:23:44 -0800 (PST), Robert H
<cra...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Jan 4, 7:08�pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:48:01 -0800 (PST), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark..come on now.
>> > We are telling people if you don't do this, you're unemployed.
>> > Thus creating more unemployment for tax payers to pick up.
>>
>> No, if you are fired for violating your employment contract you are not
>> allowed to collect unemployment.
>
>The whole premise is about protecting the patient.
>
>They will collect unemployment. Now, be prepared to help assist more
>unemployed people.

No, rightard.

If one is fired for cause, one doesn't get to collect unemployment.

>And since the whole premise is about protecting the patient, lets not
>stop at the nurses.
>
>EVERYONE who has any ability to enter the hospital should be ordered
>to get a flu shot.
>This includes food service, security, IT, and so forth. Even
>volunteers.
>Don't forget the visitors.
>Now, if one is admitted into the hospital, in order to get a room and
>be around anyone, they must be made to get a flu vaccine if they have
>not gotten one.
>
>And since we care so much about the spread of the flu virus, we should
>pass laws that say if you don't get the flu shot, you will be fined.
>
>So don't just stop at the nurses. I know you don't care about them,
>after all...this is all about the patients.

Mark addressed all you points, rightard, and you just completely
ignore his answers and restate the -same- points as if they've not
been addressed.

Do you understand why thinking people call you a "rightard" now,
rightard?