It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forced to get Flu Shot - How can I decline?

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The OP can, and get a job else where.

I would be willing to be OP was made aware that flu shots were mandatory as it usually is in a healthcare setting upon getting hired.



That's the problem, though. Just because it's a health care field, that doesn't mean the person should lose their right to choose a health treatment, especially one with so much controversy surrounding it. I know for a fact that flu shots given to a family member have made me sick. Giving such shots to health care workers means they are actually placing patients at risk.




posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
compulsory health insurance is a small step in fixing that, you guys still have a long way to go to catch up with the likes of Sweden, Cuba and France tho. (In France, part of the basic healthcare package is a nurse to come round to your house and do your wifes washing when she's pregnant, and they still pay less than you lot, sure as hell beats Americans refusing to get in an ambulance when they are having a heart attack because they don't want to lumber their family with the debt from their treatment).


In France, it's against the law to hire a skinny model. I don't think I want to "catch up" to that.

Compulsory health insurance is a great example of how certain people are trying to "fix" the "problem" of freedom. We can't have two legged cows refusing to allow themselves to be milked.
edit on 9-4-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

the problem has nothing to do with freedom.
the problem is healthcare via private insurance is well known theoretically and practically not to work.

because insuring sick people is not profitable for the insurance companies
and healthy people have little or no perceived need to buy health insurance.

so what you end up with is increadibly expensive premiums bought by people who don't care about money that offer very little in the way of healthcare benefits.
and everyone else left to rot.
edit on 10-4-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: BrianFlanders

the problem has nothing to do with freedom.
the problem is healthcare via private insurance is well known theoretically and practically not to work.

because insuring sick people is not profitable for the insurance companies
and healthy people have little or no perceived need to buy health insurance.



That's fine with me. At least I can still opt out. "Insurance" that you can't opt out of is a protection racket. Insurance was already a dirty business before the government basically sold us to them completely. Now it's just unbelievably corrupt and scummy.

I'd honestly rather lay and die with cancer than be owned by an insurance company and big brother


so what you end up with is increadibly expensive premiums bought by people who don't care about money that offer very little in the way of healthcare benefits.
and everyone else left to rot.


What we're going to get now is a lot worse. Because they still have an incentive to take in more money than they pay out, we are going to hear from them when they actually start having to pay for stuff (which is why there is no money in insuring sick people in the first place). It will be the domino effect with the rest of our freedom. Because they have to pay, they will claim they have the right to tell us how to live. Just watch and see. It's already happening and it's going to get worse.

I know you know this (anyone with a brain can see this basic cause and effect). It most certainly IS a matter of freedom at the very heart of this.
edit on 10-4-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

"You can still opt out"

of what? paying your taxes?

That's a bit extreme don't you think?

The difference is the freedom to choose (you have access healthcare and choose not to use it)
And the "freedom" to have no choice because you don't have access to healthcare.

In the US the "freedom" is the later.
or:
And all that is very different to having access to healthcare and being forced to use it.

Yeah - great demonstration of the "land of the free" there.

There's a reason the US healthcare system is used as the example world over as how not to run a healthcare system.
These are just two small examples.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: BrianFlanders

"You can still opt out"

of what? paying your taxes?

That's a bit extreme don't you think?

The difference is the freedom to choose (you have access healthcare and choose not to use it)
And the "freedom" to have no choice because you don't have access to healthcare.

In the US the "freedom" is the later.
or:
And all that is very different to having access to healthcare and being forced to use it.

Yeah - great demonstration of the "land of the free" there.

There's a reason the US healthcare system is used as the example world over as how not to run a healthcare system.
These are just two small examples.


This post is so bass ackwards I can't even tell what you're trying to say. You must be British.

And by the way. Obamacare was/is a lie through and through. This mandate was not even supposed to exist. Obama lied about the mandate and then made it mandatory anyway after he got elected. Not one person voted for the man who promised a mandate (because he promised the exact opposite of a mandate).

But that's OK. It cost them the Senate. And hopefully, it will cost them the WH too in 16. I can already see the liberal base starting to squirm. They know they #ed up. Now that there is a precedent set by the mandate for government to just order us around like cattle, they might regret supporting it when the Republicans start using it
edit on 10-4-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Great example of the American dream right there, look after yourself and yours and screw everybody else.....amarite?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
There is no problem at all other then the employee now deciding he doesn't want to do something.
Unless the OP comes and says otherwise, I have little doubt he/she was not made aware that the job requires flu shots.

The risk of not getting the shot and getting sick is far higher then getting the shot and getting sick. So to say it is placing them at risk just isn't true.

The medical community at large does not see the controversy.

And you don't know for a fact that it was the flu shot that made your family member sick, getting the flu during flu season and blaming the shot is rather funny.
How do you get sick from a dead virus?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

->Obamacare mandate

Well, actually, depends what you listened too.
If you were on the ground, listening to him talk to the average citizen, he promised to do his best to bring the US healthcare towards the kind of service offered on the international stage. This was always addressing the "Ray Rees" insurance market failure problem, and fundamental to his campaign.

If you didn't bother, and only listened to him during his funding talks, and the speeches handed over to the Murdoch Empire to broadcast on their networks, you'll of only heard ego stroking "it'll be OK, I wont topple your power [you thieving scum]"

Once the health insurance companies realised he really was targeting their bottom line, they launched a fairly massive campaign, and established the Tea Party.

It was great watching such a large swathe of the American public buy hook line and sinker into their manifesto of "If you Don't like the bankers, Vote for us so we can keep the health insurance company profits high"

Everyone on the inner circles was belly laughing at how dumb and futile all those shenanigans were.

ја нисам тачно енглез.
оћигледно ти си једног глупости америцан



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Actually, on an individual level, the risk of getting sick with and without the shot is pretty much the same.
But the risk from an taking attenuated virus
en.wikipedia.org...

Is considerably higher.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

It's really not though, not sure where you are getting that info from. Having some defense is better then having none. I know they dont always get the strain right but still better to have something then nothing. The shot significantly increases chances of not getting the strain they have gone with that year.

Yes flu mist is kind of different since it is a live, but weakened, virus.
It is also not what we are talking about, op isn't getting the nasal spray.

Still rare to get sick solely from that tho. Had it done for 6 years and I personally never got sick from it. Not saying that proves it, just adding that in
edit on thSat, 11 Apr 2015 12:41:37 -0500America/Chicago420153780 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

getting slightly unwell from an attenuated virus is very common.

on top of that. because of herd immunity. each individual who is vaccinated doesn't actually contribute anything to overall resistance. even in hospital.

I. e. as long as everyone else is vaccinated your probability of getting flu bad enough to take time off work is say 0.01% whether you take the vaccine or not.

but if you take the vaccine there is an 80% chance you will have at least some unpleasant side effects.

all the other shots are not recommended by the fda for use in prophylaxis AFAIK.
edit on 11-4-2015 by mSparks43 because: fix italics

edit on 11-4-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

Where are you getting these numbers from?
Where are you getting the info that the fda doesn't recommend the flu shot?
Please answer those two questions before responding to anything else in my post.

Cause I can say with little doubt that nothing the fda doesn't approve of is going onto pharmacies nation wide.
Your stand point seems to based off the flu mist which isn't all the common, and imo it isuncommon to get sick from it alone.
Just cause you got sick in when the flu is going around doesn't mean it was from the vaccination.
Seems silly to discount that you got it from just a natural spread of the virus.

You can't get sick from a dead virus, talking the shot here and the mist is designed to take out the parts that do get you sick.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

there are two types of flu jab.
attenuated virus jabs which have well known side effects.and the retro virals like tamiflu. which have label for use in prophylaxis but are not recommended for anything other than treating confirmed cases due to limited efficacy.
AFAIK there is no "dead virus" vaccines for flu.

which exactly are you talking about?
product name/INN?
edit on 11-4-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

So didn't want to answer where you are getting your info from huh?

Tamiflu is not a vaccine, all it can do is possibly shorten the duration of a flu already contracted as you said.

As far as live and dead, the shots are dead and the nasal is a severely weakens live virus.

Source me other wise.
Source me the attenuated flu jabs, not mist and also its well known side affects.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I just got the flu shot last Thursday.

I used to get struck by the flu each year, but since
I've got the shot I haven't had it.

Go figure.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I quit. I'm not taking your #ing poison. I'll manage in another career. Buh bye and good luck getting the stupid to agree with your policy. I'll try to sue you for damages but I'll probably lose but that doesn't change the fact that you're not messing with my health.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Nature gave me an excellent immune system. I like it. I'm keeping it. Who the # are you to decide what I put in my body. Tell that # to some other dumb ass.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

If you get a job that requires it and you agreed to it then you let them tell you.

But yes outside of that it is your choice.

Our immune system is good but helping it doesn't hurt.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

If you get a job that requires it and you agreed to it then you let them tell you.

But yes outside of that it is your choice.

Our immune system is good but helping it doesn't hurt.


I quit period. Don't give a #.

It's a no brainer.
edit on 11-4-2015 by LOSTinAMERICA because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join