KD in CA Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Link Hmmm....nope, still not the least bit concerned with government concentrating their power over healthcare matters. This is my favorite part: Julie Gerberding, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that it's important for the workers and their patients, who are often vulnerable to viruses and infections because of age or weakened immune systems. "We tried to market the idea, to push people, to educate," she told the NYT. "But looking back, broadly speaking, we failed. It's time to look at a more aggressive approach." That's the spirit. When the populous doesn't respond to the government's wishes, don't bend to the will of the people! Nope, that just means "it's time to look at a more aggressive approach." Hooray for democracy. How much longer until these flu shots are mandatory for everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Link Hmmm....nope, still not the least bit concerned with government concentrating their power over healthcare matters. This is my favorite part: That's the spirit. When the populous doesn't respond to the government's wishes, don't bend to the will of the people! Nope, that just means "it's time to look at a more aggressive approach." Hooray for democracy. How much longer until these flu shots are mandatory for everyone? Not that one way is better than the other, but the private sector really isn't looking out for people either. Why should they be given power over healthcare matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I worked in a hospital for 5 years and got the flu shot twice, my first two years. Both years I got the flu, and got it bad. I decided not to get it any more, and haven't gotten the flu since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Not that one way is better than the other, but the private sector really isn't looking out for people either. Why should they be given power over healthcare matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 but the private sector really isn't looking out for people either. How about if the people are allowed to look out for themselves? Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 29, 2009 Author Share Posted September 29, 2009 Not that one way is better than the other, but the private sector really isn't looking out for people either. Why should they be given power over healthcare matters? Uh...they don't. Not only that, but the private sector also doesn't have the power to throw people in jail or take their money arbitrarily. Good grief...do people really not understand the difference between the government and the private sector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Not that one way is better than the other, but the private sector really isn't looking out for people either. Why should they be given power over healthcare matters? What the fochinell??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 How about if the people are allowed to look out for themselves? Just a thought... Anarchy baby!!! What the fochinell??? Some want you to believe we can do everything through the government and higher taxes. Others think that the private sector is always the answer- neither side is right- we should look for what the most efficient and low cost method is for each thing. Thats why democrats and republicans are bringing this country down so much- they both loe themselves and hate America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Anarchy baby!!! Some want you to believe we can do everything through the government and higher taxes. Others think that the private sector is always the answer- neither side is right- we should look for what the most efficient and low cost method is for each thing. Thats why democrats and republicans are bringing this country down so much- they both loe themselves and hate half America. I just made your statement more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I just made your statement more accurate. Well, hate might be a strong word- but they just seem to lose track of what is right- and being right is more important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Well, hate might be a strong word- but they just seem to lose track of what is right- and being right is more important That was your word, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Yes, you should get your flu shot. If enough people get it it grants herd immunity to the population. If you do not, you are simply sponging off those who do. Correlation does not equal causation. Sometimes the shot is ineffective because of unanticipated mutation of the season's virus (see evolution) in combination with lack of herd immunity. For those who say 'the only times I got the shot, I got the flu' (a typical excuse), realize that although the flu shot does not guarantee immunity, it DOES NOT CAUSE THE FLU. You might also be falling victim to some confirmation bias, but I doubt many posters here would cop to that. A flu shot contains an inactivated vaccine made of killed virus. The injection is usually given in the arm. Because the viruses in the vaccine are killed (inactivated), the shot won't cause you to get the flu, but it will enable your body to develop the antibodies necessary to ward off influenza viruses. You may have a slight reaction to the shot, such as soreness at the injection site, mild muscle ache or fever. Reactions usually last one to two days and are more likely to occur in children who have never been exposed to flu virus. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/flu-shots/ID00017 It doesn't hurt to do a quick Google search before believing every thought that pops into head, because as has been discussed here in many threads, some things are counterintuitive and your first instinct is probably not right when it comes to complex things. Except religion and the creation of the Universe of course. So get your damned flu shot morons. It can't hurt you because the virus is DEAD, you help out the population as a whole - especially those most at risk and you greatly decrease your chances of getting really sick. It might be time to pick a cause that's more worthwhile - I hear the Prez is turning the USA into a Socialist State and that he wasn't even born here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Yes, you should get your flu shot. If enough people get it it grants herd immunity to the population. If you do not, you are simply sponging off those who do. I honestly don't expect you to understand this, but some people actually have a problem with the government making them do things that affect their body. The issue isn't what they're being made to do, it's that they're being made to do something against their will. Of course, I've never met a liberal who could understand that idea, so I'm probably just pissing in the wind here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I honestly don't expect you to understand this, but some people actually have a problem with the government making them do things that affect their body. The issue isn't what they're being made to do, it's that they're being made to do something against their will. Of course, I've never met a liberal who could understand that idea, so I'm probably just pissing in the wind here. Purely out of curiosity, I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of the people that think mandatory flu shots are okie dokie are also pro-choice. I'd expect there to be a fairly high correlation but don't know that for certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I honestly don't expect you to understand this, but some people actually have a problem with the government making them do things that affect their body. The issue isn't what they're being made to do, it's that they're being made to do something against their will. Of course, I've never met a liberal who could understand that idea, so I'm probably just pissing in the wind here. Fine, but there are plenty of 'government interference' crusades to choose from. The science here is conclusive. Does anyone realize that we're talking about state healthcare workers here? If I'm going to a hospital should I be exposed to influenza because my nurse/doc/tech decided not to get their flu shot? Nobody's making anyone do anything here. There are lots of things that one can do or choose not to do that might get one fired from one's job. This is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Purely out of curiosity, I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of the people that think mandatory flu shots are okie dokie are also pro-choice. I'd expect there to be a fairly high correlation but don't know that for certain. Reverse the two and the correlation would be similar. Does that tell you anything about the motivations of those protesting this? Sure, make a rape victim give birth, but don't tread on me with your flu vaccine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Reverse the two and the correlation would be similar. Does that tell you anything about the motivations of those protesting this? Sure, make a rape victim give birth, but don't tread on me with your flu vaccine. Republicrats are two sides of the same coin. You just love to tell people what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Fine, but there are plenty of 'government interference' crusades to choose from. Yes, but in case you haven't noticed, there is a crapload more lately than we've seen in some time. Banks. Cars. Health care. People are resisting in droves, so I'd argue that this is a bad time for any government to start telling individuals that they MUST do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Yes, but in case you haven't noticed, there is a crapload more lately than we've seen in some time. Banks. Cars. Health care. People are resisting in droves, so I'd argue that this is a bad time for any government to start telling individuals that they MUST do anything. Love the selective quoting... What's more important here, the patient's right to life or the heath worker's right to not get vaccinated with a completely safe shot? What are you railing against here? Been to any good tea parties lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Love the selective quoting... What's more important here, the patient's right to life or the heath worker's right to not get vaccinated with a completely safe shot? Like I said; you're unable to understand the actual issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts