TriHealth, a full-service medical care provider, takes its slogan “Discover the power of unity” to the extreme. As one of Cincinnati, Ohio’s largest employers, it has forcibly imposed “unity” at the unemployment office by firing at least 150 employees the day before Thanksgiving — for failing to get what turned out to be an employment-conditional flu shot.
TriHealth offered all of its 10,800 employees free flu shots, giving them a month in which to comply. Those who chose to abstain from receiving the vaccine by the Nov. 16 deadline were terminated Wednesday, according to a company spokesperson.
Employees who were fired can appeal to be reinstated only after receiving the mandated inoculation.
The last we heard this was still a free society where people are able to make personal health care decisions, since ObamaCare has not yet kicked in. The fact remains that many have become ill after receiving the vaccine, which contains high levels of a toxic combination of aluminum and mercury. Read other reasons for resisting this forced intrusion here.
H/T WLWT. New 5 Cincinnati.
So true! When I checked with my doctor re the mercury, he said he would check into it. Came back to the exam room and told me I was right. He had to check the contents to know; was oblivious to this until I pointed it out. Suggest others check to see how much their doctors also know about all these vaccines. And also ask him/her if they have taken the shot themselves. I know of at least one M.D. who won’t have it.
Next, Annie O., see what they know about statins like Crestor! Now THAT is a scary class of drugs!
Saw this in the news, SRAZ, and glad you posted it here. I’m a retired, licensed health care professional and I won’t take the flu shot. My wife still works in health care and if they want to fire her for not taking it, so be it! Ironically, there are strict legal parameters for force medicating a person. This, however, is accomplishing the same end through economic blackmail.
…and never forget… “Follow the money!” Who makes out financially in all of this?
Annie and euby:
Same information from my very trusted internist. I asked if he and his family routinely take the flu shots. He was silent for a long moment. Then without directly answering my question, advised me against the vaccine. He also said he didn’t want to be quoted, which is why I’m not recommending him by name.
There is something VERY interesting in what you have written, Army Of One! Why would your physician NOT want to be quoted? What is it which is apparently causing him to feel intimidated? What is it that we don’t know?
He belongs to a health care group, eubie. It’s owned by a hospital conglomerate.
I see, Army Of One!
I have witnessed the healthcare industry reduced to a corporate enterprise with all of the concomitant shortcomings and “evils”. The fundamental problem is that a corporate model is entirely inappropriate for healthcare. Economic considerations can be dealt with without instituting corporate values and culture. We are all paying the price, which is a hefty one, for the corporatization of healthcare. In fact, here is a link to an abstract of a paper addressing precisely that issue:
“The corporatization of health care: an evaluation and an alternative.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10156911
SRA-AGAIN…please forgive me but off topic & on point, THIS fine example of OUR Republican liars & cowards from foxnews.com:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/25/more-congressional-republicans-break-tax-pledge-for-sake-looming-fiscal-crisis/
…I suppose KEEPING YOUR WORD 20 YEARS LATER, & OPERATING TH’ GUBMINT CHECKBOOK LIKE WE HAVE TO OPERATE OURS IS OUTTA’ TH QUESTION…HUH?!?!?!?!?
…ATTENTION:All you folks who’ve been MARRIED for 20+ years…feel free to break your vows. Those only counted THAT YEAR!!!
….do ya’ ever feel like rippin’ all your own hair out & throwin’ yourself on th’ floor like a 4 year old…or is it just me?
Doc,
No need to apologize. Besides, this is only partially “off topic.” The main point is we, the citizens of this great nation founded in brilliance by dedicated patriots, are being screwed at every turn. Whether it is big pharma in collusion with employers as evidenced in this post, or by our government as you have pointed out, Americans are being are being taken to the cleaners, without a freshly pressed suit to show for it. And wherever Lindsey Grahamnesty is, you can bet his best bud, John McCain will not be far behind — or vise versa.
And speaking of pharmaceutical giants, check out this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies
Every industry, from textiles to the steel industry, has had to face foreign competition EXCEPT for the pharmaceutical industry which has remained protected even under Obama! In some cases Americans pay ten times as much for the same medication as people in Canada. The pharmaceutical companies state that paradigm is necessary so that their products can be sold at affordable prices in the rest of the world. “One World” again? We pay high prices so that the REST of the world can pay less?
‘”From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” – Karl Marx
Although this pertains to the Mexican Flu (renamed H1N1 so as not to offend) but encompasses seasonal viruses, as well. What this medical doctor says should make us all think twice about taking any vaccines! I’m a Physician’s Assistant here in the valley and my brother is an MD in Massachusetts. We do not inoculate our families or take any such serums ourselves.
Here is Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D., being interviewed on vaccines. He compares the corrupt logic and attitudes of the vaccine industry to Nazi Germany and its insistence on mandatory participation in vaccine trials. He actually declares such activity is a violation of the Nuremberg medical code, which, after WWII, set specific standards for ethical principles after the grisly human experimentation engaged in by Nazi physicians, who used humans as forced guinea pigs for medical “research” and Frankenstein-like experimentation.
They’re all health care workers. When a flu virus hits it takes a whole lot of people down and the only people who can help them are the health care workers. If they don’t get the shot and they come down with it, they lose a valued worker. Consider 150 workers not getting the shot and coming down with this. It would severely compromise public health and quite possibly lead to the deaths of many people who would’ve been saved otherwise.
http://www.trihealth.com/discover-trihealth/your-trihealth/careers/
As you are well aware, Patty Roe, you are quite wrong on all counts. Spreading untruth about these matters on the internet and at a blog like this is, in my opinion, a despicable thing to do. So let’s entirely debunk your erroneous statements.
“…the only people who can help them are health care workers.” If that is the case, Patty, then how is it that hospice requires a willing and able caregiver who is NOT required to be medically trained?
Next!
“If they don’t get the shot they come down with it….” Absolutely false! In fact, immunity is a crapshoot of the highest order. First, they have to make a “best guess” about which strains of flu will be prevalent. If they’re wrong, you can get the flu anyway. Furthermore, even if they are right, if a person is exposed before their body has time to develop sufficient antibodies, they will still have full blown flu symptoms. Lastly, even if everything goes as hoped for, an immunized person can still develop flu syptoms, although less severe. Whether those symptoms are sufficient to cause a healthcare worker to call in sick is a subjective matter.
Next!
“It would severly compromise public health and quite possibly lead to the deaths of many people who would’ve been saved otherwise.” Really? Would you care to precisely lay out for us how this “doomsday” scenario would come about? This I would REALLY like to hear! What would patients be deprived of, precisely, which is essential for their survival and in what specific manner would they be deprived of it?
Next!
When air traffic controllers illegally went on strike, President Ronald Reagan fired those who didn’t return to work. There was no resulting catastrophe. Why not? Resourcefulness and adaptability! For example, Reagan utilized military air traffic controllers! The idea that we would simply throw up our hands and walk away is ridiculous. We would adapt, as we always do in times of crisis.
Next!
If those 150 workers are so essential, then how is it that their employer is willing to let them go, right now, if they don’t get the shot? What if there were a disaster from a gas main explosion or an airplane crash? The hospital would be short 150 workers to care for the injured simply because those workers didn’t get the flu shot. Now that makes sense… NOT!
And now for the REST of the story!
Rumsfeld’s growing stake in Tamiflu
Defense Secretary, ex-chairman of flu treatment rights holder, sees portfolio value growing.
October 31, 2005: 10:55 AM EST
By Nelson D. Schwartz, Fortune senior writer
NEW YORK (Fortune) – The prospect of a bird flu outbreak may be panicking people around the globe, but it’s proving to be very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences, the California biotech company that owns the rights to Tamiflu, the influenza remedy that’s now the most-sought after drug in the world.
Rumsfeld served as Gilead (Research)’s chairman from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001…
Former Secretary of State George Shultz, who is on Gilead’s board, has sold more than $7 million worth of Gilead since the beginning of 2005.
Another board member is the wife of former California Gov. Pete Wilson.
What’s more, the federal government is emerging as one of the world’s biggest customers for Tamiflu. In July, the Pentagon ordered $58 million worth of the treatment for U.S. troops around the world…
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/fortune_rumsfeld/
euby,
Thank you for both of these informative comments! You have become integral to this site. I ALWAYS make it a point to read your comments!!
Thank you very much, American Dad! Very kind of you to take the time and trouble to mention that to me. It is my fondest hope that I am doing something useful and helpful. I shall try my best in that regard!
OK, I’m confused. 150 workers are being fired because they won’t toe the TSA line by giving up their freedom and subserviently taking the mandated “cure.” So where does the obamao czardom stand on this issue that affects the pharmaceutical companies that supported obamaocare?
Well, if this was an aeronautical manufacturer trying to open a factory to employ hundreds of Americans in a right-to-work state, the obamao NLRB would instantly be suing this company so they couldn’t open, to “save” all of those prospective workers from having to take those nasty jobs.
If this were an American guitar manufacturer in a right-to-work state, the obamao Dept. of Agriculture would be sending in their SWAT Team to shut them down by stealing their inventory of supplies and tying them up with illegal lawsuits. (DOA SWAT Team?? What is this??)
An employer should have the right to lawfully exist and employ workers who suit their standards. But if this were a Christian bookstore that didn’t want to be forced to employ transvestites and other demons, the obamao DOJ would have shut them down in an instant.
“OK, everybody now, the nice TSA inspectors are here to help you.”
God bless America.
I think it’s a bad policy, but a private employer is entitled to have bad policies. Nobody is required to work there and no employer should be forced to employ people who won’t conform to their policies.
Employers with invasive, stupid policies will generally have to either pay more for employees or settle for lower quality employees. In an ideal world, employers like that would not stay in business very long.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of employer mandates (coming from both political parties) that already impact freedom of employers. While each mandate might be seen by someone as a good thing, these mandates, in general, make being an employer riskier and more expensive which is bad for everyone in the long run.
While requiring the flu shots as a condition of employment might be a bad idea, there should not be a government imposed requirement for the employer to either require or not require the immunization. The decision should be made by employers based on their belief about what is right for their businesses. And by employees who decide whether to work for a particular company or seek employment elsewhere.
Here is an excerpt from an excellent article where the New York State Nurse’s Association makes the case against mandated flu shots for healthcare workers:
“The state currently requires that healthcare workers be immunized for measles and rubella, diseases that can be eradicated by one or two immunizations in a lifetime. We have seen the benefit to the public by the virtual elimination of measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, and polio.”
“Influenza, however, cannot be eradicated. It is a constantly mutating virus and the flu vaccine must be administered annually. If this proposal takes effect, nurses will have to submit to vaccinations every year for the remainder of their careers in order to continue working or to get jobs in direct patient care. And will this really ensure patient safety or prevent the spread of a flu virus?”
“The seasonal flu vaccine is not 100% effective and sometimes is highly ineffective, as it was in 2005 and again in 2007. There is no guarantee that in any given year, the public will benefit from mandatory immunization of healthcare providers.”
http://www.nysna.org/advocacy/testimonies/mandated_shots.htm
I agree in part with your arguments, Hunter. However, the fact remains that when you are the sole/major support of your family, your options are lessened. If you don’t want toxins known to cause a variety of serious health problems introduced into your system, you have little choice. This is, in my opinion, a gross invasion of personal freedom. It is not like being required to quit smoking or lose weight in order to keep group health costs down. It is being required to put yourself at risk for developing serious side effects. There has to be a limit to what employers can mandate. How would you feel if your employer — having you over a barrel in this difficult economy — required all employees, at the cost their job, to have the company logo tattooed on their forehead?
I sympathize, but employers have rights too. In this case, they want to make sure that their employees don’t get the flu and don’t pass it on to patients. I agree that the flu vaccine is less effective than most others and has health risks. There are risks to getting it and not getting it. There is no reason an employer should be at the mercy of an employee any more than an employee at the mercy of an employer.
Someone has to decide what is reasonable and what isn’t. It should not be the government on either side of the issue. A government powerful enough to force employers to allow workers to work without flu shots is a government powerful enough to require workers to get flu shots. Employers and employees need to work this out on their own without government interference.
For those so knowledgeable about what is the right thing to do, start your own health care facility and do a better job than the company requiring the vaccinations. Do that instead of complaining about how they run their company. Incidentally, how would you feel if you did own a health care facility and were told by the government that all of your employees were required to get flu vaccines?
Regarding government requiring the vaccines for people to work as health care professionals: that is totally wrong. So is requiring employers to hire health care professionals that are not vaccinated.
Please forgive me, Hunter, but it seems to me that you are the sort of person who gives Conservatives a bad name! Your concept of “employer rights” is, to my view, extreme, illogical, unreasonable and at odds with fundamental individual rights.
The employer seeks to violate the person of it’s employees just as a rapist violates the person of his victim. There is penetration and injection just as with completed rape. Just as with completed rape, there can be a plethora of health damaging consequences.
I’m sorry, Hunter, but “go start your own company” doesn’t address the core issue here which is economic blackmail. Employees MUST submit to having their person violated OR lose their job. That is an entirely unacceptable choice in our country with regard to a medication which is of such dubious value!
In addition, Hunter, you seek to frame the debate as employer versus government when the debate is actually citizen verus employer. It is the employees who are the victims here, not the employer!
Eub, you are the reason conservatives lose to leftists. You advocate for “freedom” except when you want the government to interfere with other people for your benefit or the benefit of a group you feel is victimized. Once conservatives go down this road, there is no coherent policy for freedom. Instead we just go down the path of trying to impose one set of views on everyone while other people try to impose different sets of views.
Comparing requiring vaccinations of employees to rape is a lying rhetorical trick on your part. With rape, there is no consent by the victim and no choice in the matter. With conditions for employment, an employee always has the option of quitting (though that could cause financial hardship). Furthermore, you call employees citizens but don’t regard employers as citizens. You demonize employers as well as any leftist.
Would you support the government forcing employers to allow employees to disregard dress codes because you think it doesn’t make any difference, is ineffective, and may inhibit an employee’s self expression?
More to the point, would you support forcing employers to provide coverage for contraception and abortions because other people thought it was the right thing to do? A government powerful enough to dictate employee immunization policies to private employers is powerful enough to force employers to keep cross dressers in their employ, provide contraceptive and abortion medical coverage, and not allow employees to be dismissed for drug or alcohol abuse (except on the government’s terms).
Once you start introducing your faux conservative leftist populism into the conservative movement, you undermine the conservative arguments for limited government and personal freedom. Just so you know, personal freedom does NOT mean you have a “right” to your job. A person has no more right to a job from an employer than an employer has to enslave the employee. Freedom means you and another person or legal entity (run and owned by a person or people) have the right to mutually agree to exchanging labor services for money and other compensation. If the arrangement is imposed by force rather than mutual agreement, it is tyranny rather than freedom. Businesses have to hire employees; they are not assigned to businesses. If a business treats employees badly, it will have trouble recruiting and retaining good employees. Also, businesses must satisfy their customers or the business will fail. They cannot force people to buy their services or goods. Perhaps having health care workers immunized is something that patients value. In that case, the health care business is giving the customers what they want. Why should patients be compelled to be treated under circumstances they don’t want?
It’s always easy being a big government blow hard telling other people how to run their businesses and their lives. If you don’t like the way a business does something, try to persuade them to change, use another business, or start your own. I have no objection to people telling a business they don’t like the way they do things and stopping buying from them. However, you seem to going down the path of trying to use the government to force them to accept your policy without getting their agreement (either because they see the truth of your position or they conclude it isn’t financially worth holding that position because of possible losses to their business). Conservatives advocating tyranny are not really conservatives.
No, Hunter, Libertarians like you are the reason Republican candidates lose. Furthermore, Conservatives don’t lose to leftists. “Establishment moderates” like McCain and Romney lose to leftists.
Hunter wrote: “You advocate for “freedom” except when you want the government to interfere with other people for your benefit or the benefit of a group you feel is victimized.” Wrong! Once again, you seek to misrepresent the situation. “The government” has nothing whatsoever to do with this. This is about American citizens versus a corporate employer.
Hunter wrote: “Instead we just go down the path of trying to impose one set of views on everyone while other people try to impose different sets of views.” That is the dynamic in a democracy, Hunter. Conservatives, however, hold the constitutional view.
Hunter wrote: “With rape, there is no consent by the victim and no choice in the matter. With conditions for employment, an employee always has the option of quitting (though that could cause financial hardship).” Of course there is an option in rape. The victim could kill herself. What you are suggesting is financial suicide. A choice between financial suicide or having one’s person violated is not a legitimate choice. It is economic blackmail of the highest order and such a scenario should never be permitted in our constitutional democracy.
Hunter wrote: “Furthermore, you call employees citizens but don’t regard employers as citizens. You demonize employers as well as any leftist.” Let’s be clear, Hunter. We are not talking about a “Mom and Pop” family store here. We are talking about a corporation. A corporation is not and cannot be a “citizen”. If corporations were citizens they would be able to vote but they cannot.
“Demonize” is a subjective judgement, not a fact. Your insults are the classic final refuge of those on the left who are unable to make a cogent, fact-based argument, Hunter.
Hunter wrote: “Would you support the government forcing…” Once again, Hunter, the government is not involved in this. You seem unable to grasp the basic facts of the situation. Let me clarify it for you again. This is an issue between American citizens and a corporate employer. The government isn’t involved.
Hunter wrote: “Once you start introducing your faux conservative leftist populism into the conservative movement, you undermine the conservative arguments for limited government and personal freedom.” Excuse me, Hunter, but it is you who seek to substitute Libertarianism and Corpocracy for Conservatism. Let’s unmask your position. You support American citizens being forced by a corporation to either submit to an injection of medication or lose their job. Please explain how that is a Conservative position?
Hunter wrote: “Just so you know, personal freedom does NOT mean you have a “right” to your job.” Once again, like a classic disingenuous leftist, you see to distort and misrepresent the facts. This is not about a “right” to a job. This is about not permitting a corporation to force medicate American citizens on penalty of losing their livelihood. The medication in question is of dubious value and can cause health problems after the fact.
Hunter wrote: “Conservatives advocating tyranny are not really conservatives.” I’m glad to see that you fully understand why you are no Conservative, Hunter.
By the way, Hunter, have you gotten your flu shot yet?
Eub, anyone who compares requiring an employee to get a flu shot with rape has exhausted all rational arguments. Plus, your statement that rape victims can kill themselves to prevent the rape is inaccurate since her attacker has her under his physical control which would likely not permit her that option.
Someone’s livelihood depends on their ability to work productively – not to work for a particular employer.Someone who doesn’t want a flu shot should get a job elsewhere where it isn’t required.
Eub, you are a big government Republican – not a Conservative.
You say there is no government involvement in this situation, but the testimony you quote is regarding state government regulations. Plus, if you think employees should not be required to get the vaccines by their private employer, how would you implement that? With a government regulation? How is that not involving the government.
Whether a business is a mom and pop shop or a corporation (which is owned by stockholders who are mostly citizens), why should that legally make a difference? Why should a privately owned corporation have to do what you or anyone other than their stockholders want?
Are you saying that a sole proprietor or a partnership would have the legal right to have employees vaccinated as a condition of employment, but that corporations don’t?
Furthermore, you don’t seem to understand that you are calling for government regulation even when you say no government is involved. How else could employees force an employer to keep them on the job when not meeting the conditions of the employer.
You sound like someone who has worked in government or business with substantial government regulation for most of your life. You don’t seem to understand the difference between government and private decision making. You sound like the type of person who believes in freedom as long as people do what you or a consensus of fellow citizens want them to do. That sounds more like tyranny than liberty to me.
Finally, you write about us living in a constitutional democracy. While that may, in fact, be true, we should be living in a constitutional republic with a limited government which is what the US constitution actually created. Leftists love democracy; conservatives love limited, constitutional republics. Conservatives don’t try to use the government to impose their beliefs on others. Conservatives try to make sure that government protects their property rights and protects them from interference by others against their will. Anyone getting a flu shot as a condition of employment is getting something they would prefer not to get, but it is not against their will. Ideally, the government should keep us from having anyone imposing their views on anyone else, but it doesn’t mean that private organizations and individuals can’t set conditions for agreements and work arrangements with others. That includes both employers and employees.
Hunter wrote: “Eub, anyone who compares requiring an employee to get a flu shot with rape has exhausted all rational arguments.” Really? Is that your Imperial Pronouncement, Hunter? Should we write that down and hold it as absolute fact?
Hunter wrote: “Someone’s livelihood depends on their ability to work productively – not to work for a particular employer.” Wrong on the face of it! In every case where an employee earns a living it is by virtue of being empolyed by a particular employer! Care to seek to apply your paradigm to the unemployed? The unemployed have an ability to work productively. What they lack is a “particular employer”!
Hunter wrote: “Someone who doesn’t want a flu shot should get a job elsewhere where it isn’t required.” Wrong! Why? Because there is a PRINCIPLE involved! It is that principle which you seek to avoid addressing at every turn as you seek to distract with irrelevant issues!
Hunter wrote: “Eub, you are a big government Republican – not a Conservative.” Now it’s my turn to define you, Hunter! You seek to elevate corporations to the Throne of God! Sorry, Hunter, but the position of God is already filled! As much as you may despise it, we live in a constitutional democracy where political power is vested in “we the people” and NOT in corporations. Get over it!
Hunter wrote: “You say there is no government involvement in this situation, but the testimony you quote is regarding state government regulations.” Nice attempt to obfuscate, Hunter, but no cigar! Once again, as I have already pointed out, to whom the facts were presented is irrelevant. They are facts and remain facts even if they were presented to the Derby Hat Society. What you have studiously FAILED to do is to address the substance of those facts. Why? Because they destroy your arguments and you can’t refute them, LOL!
Hunter wrote: “Plus, if you think employees should not be required to get the vaccines by their private employer, how would you implement that? With a government regulation? How is that not involving the government.” ROFL! Here you seek to use the classic Liberal tactic of a hypothetical straw man to distract from the real issue! Once again, there is NO government involvement in this issue, no matter how hard you try to manufacture it, LOL!
Hunter wrote: “Why should a privately owned corporation have to do what you or anyone other than their stockholders want?” Ah, NOW we are getting to the core of your sick thinking! I’ll be more than happy to answer that for you, Hunter!
The reason why a privately owned corporation should have to do other than what their stockholders want is because we live in a constitutional democracy with the rule of law and where all power derives from “we the people”! It doesn’t get any more basic than that and if you don’t understand that and don’t buy in to that then it is YOU who are alien to Conservatism!
If we follow your principle, that corporations can do what ever their shareholders want, then what we have is the supremacy of corporate governance. That is NOT what the Founding Fathers established, it is NOT our form of government and it is blatantly anti-American!
Hunter wrote: “Are you saying that a sole proprietor or a partnership would have the legal right to have employees vaccinated as a condition of employment, but that corporations don’t?” ROFL! Give it up, Hunter! What I am saying is that a “Mom and Pop” are individual citizens who can vote but a corporate entity is NOT a citizen which is reflected in the fact that a corporation may not cast a vote in an election. Try again, Hunter, LOL!
Hunter wrote: “Furthermore, you don’t seem to understand that you are calling for government regulation even when you say no government is involved. How else could employees force an employer to keep them on the job when not meeting the conditions of the employer.” There you go again, Mr. Hunter, seeking to avoid the actual situation by creating a hypothetical straw man! No, I’m NOT going to follow you down your fabricated rabbit hole, LOL! Stick to the actual facts of the situation at hand. ONCE AGAIN, there is NO government involvement here and I will NEVER let you get away with attempting to pass off that falsehood. I hope you have some warm clothes, Hunter, because we are going to be here until hell freezes over on that point!
Hunter wrote: “You sound like the type of person who believes in freedom as long as people do what you or a consensus of fellow citizens want them to do. That sounds more like tyranny than liberty to me.” Really, Hunter? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with this:
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – Declaration of Independence
The “consensus of fellow citizens” is the source of all powers in our form of governent and is the basis for elections. If you find that so repugnant might I suggest that you move to a country with a form of government more to your liking!
Hunter wrote: “Anyone getting a flu shot as a condition of employment is getting something they would prefer not to get, but it is not against their will.” Wrong! They are being given a “choice” of being injected OR being deprived of their means of putting bread on the table! That is called “coercion”.
“Coercion Law and Legal Definition”
“Coercion generally means to impose one’s will on another by means of force or threats. Coercion may be accomplished through physical or psychological means. It may occur in a variety of contexts, such as unfair trade practices, which prohibits coercion to sell insurance in most states.”
Your endless attempts to morph this into a “government” issue have failed and will continue to fail. This is an issue of attempted coercion upon American citizens by a corporation. Keep attempting to make this a “government” issue and I will keep brining things back to the facts and reality.. until the end of time!
Eub, when you LOL it indicates you are confused about logic rather than actually being clever.
You write that there is no government regulation that you are advocating. How will employers be compelled to employ people not meeting their conditions of employment if there is no government regulation? Will there be a magic fairy that will wave a want and make everything the way you want it? You are either lying about your advocacy of government regulation or are deluded into thinking that it will not be the outcome of your political views.
You LOLed about a sole proprietor being forced to employ people who don’t get a flu shot even if they want to require it. You never answered that question, though. Does a sole proprietor have the right to do that? Are there different employment rules for sole proprietors and evil corporations? Regarding being able to vote as a way to determine who is a citizen and who isn’t, you cite the right to vote. Does that mean that employees who have felony records, are legal non-citizen residents, or are under 18 do not have the same rights as “real” people since they cannot vote? A for profit corporation is simply a way to organize a business with the ownership signified by holding shares of stock rather than running a business as a sole proprietor or with a partnership agreement among several people. A corporation derives its rights as an agent of the shareholders and is considered a separate legal entity only for legal purposes. Just as a partnership does not have a right to vote, neither does a corporation. However, they both have rights based on the rights of the owners.
The fundamental issues for me are individual liberty and limited government. The founding fathers gave no indication that they envisioned a role for government in employer/employee relationships. That came out of the expansion of government during the New Deal.
For you, the fundamental issue seems to be the efficacy of the vaccine. You seem to have no objection to requiring employees to have a measles vaccine which you judge to be effective and a reasonable risk to the recipient. You object to requiring the flu shots on the grounds that they are ineffective and not worth the risk. The rights of employers or employees are not a fundamental issue for you. What you want to do is substitute your (or the government’s) decision making for the decision making of the employer and/or employee. This is the very notion of tyranny over liberty.
If you have an insurance policy that requires you to go to a preferred vendor for medical treatment or pay a larger portion of the medical bill yourself, is that coercion? Or is that simply an agreement between a person and a health insurance company?
If you want to get gasoline and the gas station on the corner charges 10 cents per gallon more than the gas station 2 miles away, is the gas station on the corner coercing you to pay more for gasoline?
If you are renewing auto insurance and you get a premium from your insurance company higher than you think you should pay, is the insurance company coercing you to pay more?
If you own a restaurant and tell the male employees they must wear a dress shirt and tie in order to continue working for you even if they think it is a useless, ineffective requirement, is that coercion?
Your notion of the difference between coercion and reaching mutually agreed on employment agreements needs a bit of logic added to it. Changing jobs is not easy, but it can be done if you think it is important enough to you. If it isn’t, then comply with the requirements. You seem to have no objection to the government imposing requirements, but you won’t allow private employers to make decisions about how to run their own businesses.If all privately owned health care facilities require their employees to get flu shots, that might mean there is a consensus among employers that they are sufficiently effective to justify the requirement. If most employees get the shots, it might mean that most of the employees agree with them as well. There is no law against an employer not requiring flu shots. If any health care providers don’t require them, then maybe employees who don’t want them should look for jobs there. Or offer to work for lower pay in order to get a job where they will feel more comfortable.
If health care companies think flu vaccines for employees are a legitimate way to improve patient health care, why do you have a right to force them to do something differently. What if some employees objected to washing their hands before treating patients because they felt it was ineffective and that soap used that frequently would damage their skin? Should they be allowed to not wash their hands, or does the company have a right to fire them?
A conservative would realize that the fundamental issue is who makes the decision.
A big government person thinks that the decision should be made based on, ultimately, the government making a decision (presumed to be sound because it is very “carefully” studied and is “unbiased” and “official”) applied even to those who disagree.
You may support military spending and be pro-life which are conservative positions, but there is more to being a conservative than just those two issues. It is very possible to be a pro-life Democrat supporting more military spending. The fundamental issue is limiting government to functions the private sector cannot fulfill and keeping it out of the private sector as much as possible.
If you want to respond, great. I won’t be responding to this thread anymore because I think repeating points already made in response to your poorly reasoned responses is a waste of everyone’s time.
Hunter wrote: “Eub, when you LOL it indicates you are confused about logic rather than actually being clever.” And when you post a comment, Hunter, it is proof that it is better to remain silent and be thought to be a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Hunter wrote: “You write that there is no government regulation that you are advocating. How will employers be compelled to employ people not meeting their conditions of employment if there is no government regulation?” Yet once again, Hunter, you continue to seek to employ the liberal tactic of creating a hypothetical straw man. Once again, there is NO government involvement in this case no matter how hard you try to manufacture it.
Hunter wrote: “The fundamental issues for me are individual liberty and limited government. The founding fathers gave no indication that they envisioned a role for government in employer/employee relationships. That came out of the expansion of government during the New Deal.” Once again, Hunter, you seek to employ the disingenuous liberal tactic of creating a hypothetical straw man to be knocked down. Once again, there is NO government involvement in this situation.
Hunter wrote: “For you, the fundamental issue seems to be the efficacy of the vaccine.” No, Hunter, that is entirely wrong and simply proves that you either have not read or not been able to take in what I have already posted.
Hunter wrote: “Your notion of the difference between coercion and reaching mutually agreed on employment agreements needs a bit of logic added to it.” No, Hunter, what I posted was the legal definition of coercion and does not need your subjective “logic” added to it.
Hunter wrote: “If health care companies think flu vaccines for employees are a legitimate way to improve patient health care, why do you have a right to force them to do something differently.” You have it backwards, Hunter. The correct question is what makes a coporate employer think that it has the right to coerce employees into being injected with a substance on penalty of losing their job? Where have “the people” given that power to corporations?
Hunter wrote: “A conservative would realize that the fundamental issue is who makes the decision.” No, Hunter, a Conservative would realize that corporations have not been given the power to dictate what is injected into a person’s body on pain of losing their livelihood.
Hunter wrote: “You may support military spending and be pro-life which are conservative positions, but there is more to being a conservative than just those two issues.” Yes, Hunter, and that is precisely where you prove, beyond doubt, that you are no Conservative.
Hunter, during the course of our discussion you have revealed either a shocking lack of understanding of the basic principles upon which America was founded or that you have deliberately sought to distort and misrepresent those principles.
At every turn, you seek to disempower “we the people” and empower corporate entities to lord over citizens. That sort of tyranny by the privileged few, the elite artistocratic “ruling class”, is precisely what led to the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolutionary War.
Hunter wrote: “I think repeating points already made in response to your poorly reasoned responses is a waste of everyone’s time.” Really, Hunter?
I’ve intellectually kicked your butt around the block several times now and will continue to do so if you choose to respond. You know that and THAT is why you choose to cut and run while attempting to save face by using me as the rationale for your intellectual cowardice.
It does get old very quickly, doesn’t it, Hunter, getting your butt intellectually whipped over and over again? Don’t worry, we understand. Not everyone has the “right stuff” and you are one of those who are lacking in that regard.
Have a nice day, Hunter! :-)
The objections made by the New York State Nurses Association to mandatory flu shots for healthcare workers include the following subject areas:
“Public benefit may not be realized.”
“Evidence-based voluntary programs have not been utilized.”
“Other infection control measures have not been taken.”
“Proposal ignores key role of hazard and risk assessment.”
“Emergency measures are being taken without an emergency.”
Of particular importance is the following point because it is the principle which is at the center of the current debate over Obama’s HHS mandates and their violation of religious freedoms.
“Nurses will be less likely to remain in or enter the profession.”
“We are concerned that nurses would be exempted from the proposed mandate only if the influenza immunization is medically contraindicated. The proposed regulations have no provision for religious or cultural preferences regarding immunization, effectively blocking individuals who have these beliefs from earning their livelihood.”
The testimony before the State Hospital Review and Planning Council Codes and Regulations Committee can be read in it’s entirety here:
http://www.nysna.org/advocacy/testimonies/mandated_shots.htm
Objecting to a government requirement is legitimate. Requiring private employers to accept your decision about what is right for their businesses instead of letting them decide for themselves is not.
This information is from testimony regarding state government regulations – not policies implemented by employers on their own.
Yet once again, Hunter, like a disingenuous leftist, you distort and misrepresent and, if you haven’t figured it out by now, I am not going to permit you to get away with that, no matter how long it takes. So “buckle up”, Bucko, because you aren’t going to snow me with an overabundance of verbiage!
Let’s clarify the REAL issue here. The REAL issue is whether or not a corporation can force medicate American citizens on pain of losing their livelihood. Let’s take a closer look at it!
First of all, the federal government has NOT mandated flu vaccine as necessary for protecting the public health. So this is NOT a “government” issue. Do you have that now, Hunter?
Secondly, we have a corporation seeking to mandate that a substance be injected into the bodies of American citizens. Where did “the people” invest that power in TriHealth? I see no consent of the governed in that regard. It is a gross usurpation of power by a corporation.
Next, we have the specifics of the medication itself. It has been proven, beyond question, to be of dubious value, so much so that the federal government does NOT see fit to mandate it as necessary for protecting the health of the public. Furthermore, it is a known fact that this medication CAN and HAS itself caused serious health problems.
Hunter wrote: “This information is from testimony regarding state government regulations – not policies implemented by employers on their own.” So what? I don’t care if those facts were presented to the International Society of Cheese Makers. Facts are facts and to whom they were presented is, as you are well aware, entirely irrelevant.
Come on, Hunter, keep coming! I eat lightweights like you for between meal snacks, LOL!