Why don't Americans have universal healthcare?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 15 Nov 2007 08:25

State Attorney Admits No Law Makes Vaccines Mandatory
Hundreds of parents face jail after school kicked out children, triggering unfair truancy charges

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, November 15, 2007

A state prosecutor involved in bringing potential criminal charges against hundreds of parents in a county just outside Washington D.C. for failing to allow their children to be vaccinated admitted yesterday on a national radio show that there is no law that mandates any vaccine, despite a Fox News report falsely claiming otherwise.

Yesterday we highlighted a case in Prince George's County, Maryland, where parents of more than 1600 children have been told they could be put in jail for failing to get their kids vaccinated.

Unless parents bring their children to court on Saturday, where medical officials will be on standby to forcibly inject their children in a scenario befitting of a science fiction horror movie, those parents will be subject to arrest and/or fines.

(advert)

The threat of arrest was not as a result of a failure to get the kids immunized, but because of truancy laws, which were only triggered after the school expelled the children for not getting the shots.

There is no law in the United States which makes vaccinations mandatory , yet this didn't prevent a local Fox News affiliate from reporting, "A new law was passed last year requiring children from 5th through to 10th grade to have the vaccine," which was a total lie.

Watch the bias and error-strewn Fox report below. (video link)

The State Attorney preparing to bring charges against the parents yesterday admitted on a nationally syndicated radio show that there are no laws which make failure to have children vaccinated illegal.

After being asked, "Isn't it really that there's no law you have to take the vaccines, but then if you're truant, that's when criminal penalties kick in?" State Attorney Glenn Ivey conceded on The Alex Jones Show that, "Yeah, there's a statute here in Maryland, it's called Child In Need of Supervision and I have used it for chronic truancy cases to pressure the parents to get their kids back in school."

In another telling admission, Ivey later said that he personally prevented his children from getting the very same vaccines that parents may go to jail for not allowing their children to receive in Prince George's County.

Ivey emphasized the fact that parents could use the waiver forms to legally opt out of the vaccines, but when mainstream news outlets nationwide as well as government and medical officials are lying in claiming that vaccines are "the law," the obvious agenda is to keep parents in the dark about their right to refuse an increasing amount of dangerous vaccines for their children.

In the interests of those parents and their children, here is a link to the Maryland vaccine waiver form - there are more alternatives here and here is a link to vaccine waiver forms for other states .

Remember - besides certain laws that apply only to government medical specialists - there is no law that enforces the mandatory use of any vaccine in the United States. Enforced medical treatment is an assault and a violation of the 14th amendment. You do have a right to say no.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 15 Nov 2007 14:59

Considering vaccines only work successfully if enough of the population are vaccinated (is it 70%?), and if less than that are vaccinated, it puts every at risk of catching the disease, and considering that approximately 300,000 children die each year from whooping cough, which they could be vaccinated against, I fully support mandatory vaccination and punishment for attempting to avoid vaccination.

funklovesfootbag · Post by **funklovesfootbag** » 24 Dec 2007 21:05

More proof that our system is working:

(Full story from Alternet.org)

Teenager Dies After Insurance Company Balks at Transplant
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on December 22, 2007 at 7:03 AM.

Sometimes, the national healthcare scandal isn't limited to those without insurance; sometimes it's equally outrageous what happens to those with insurance. (thanks to LM for the tip)

The family of a 17-year-old girl who died hours after her health insurer reversed a decision and said it would pay for a liver transplant plans to sue the company, their attorney said Friday.

Nataline Sarkisyan died Thursday at about 6 p.m. at the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. She had been in a vegetative state for weeks, said her mother, Hilda.

Attorney Mark Geragos said he plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare in the case. The insurer "maliciously killed her" because it did not want to bear the expense of her transplant and aftercare, Geragos said.

Nataline was battling leukemia -- she had received a bone marrow transplant from her brother -- but experienced liver failure as a complication from the treatment. Gigna reportedly balked at the cost of the transplant, calling the procedure "experimental" and outside the scope of coverage.

In the wake of the decision, 150 students and nurses protested at the company's offices. Cigna, apparently afraid of a public-relations nightmare, reversed course and said it would pay for the liver transplant.

But it was too late. Nataline died within hours of Cigna changing its mind about the procedure.

"They took my daughter away from me," said Nataline's father, Krikor, who appeared at the news conference with his 21-year-old son, Bedros.

Despite the reversal, Cigna said in an e-mail statement before she died that there was a lack of medical evidence showing the procedure would work in Nataline's case.

"Our hearts go out to Nataline and her family, as they endure this terrible ordeal," the company said. "CIGNA HealthCare has decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant."

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 24 Dec 2007 23:03

Yeah I meant to post in this topic. Last week I broke my finger, saw 2 doctors and a specialist and had it x-rayed at a private clinic and the total cost to me was... $0 Of course I pay literally thousands of dollars in tax every year, so it's not really free, but I'm happy to have that money invested in a system that when something unexpected like this happens, I can have it sorted out without any worry about money.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Jan 2008 00:35

So to bring up an old topic, I found this interesting;

http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/plague%20map.jpg

I was especially interested in this map of world, with countries that have had cases of the bubonic plague in recent times (not sure the exact time frame).

At first glance, the thing I notice is that the countries effected are all developing/third world countries, and the USA. To me that seems inconceivable unless there is a very specific difference between the rest of the developed world and the US. The problem in this instance is probably not universal health care, but certainly there is something wrong relating to health policy (and certainly not related to immigration policy, since many countries in Europe have high numbers of immigrants from red countries - especially around the Mediterranean. I think though that the really important thing to note from this is that if a bubonic plague pandemic occurred, things like health insurance and how much money people can afford to spend on medical care wouldn't help them at all. Once large epidemics start, things like vaccinations really don't help at all. It would be entirely be in the best interests of all the people with health insurance if they could insure that people without any money or health insurance received immediate medical care if they contract serious contagious diseases, because if it spreads out of control, everybody is in trouble.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Jan 2008 00:41

Sorry no edit;

So if you get sick, and you can't afford to go to the hospital, and so you just stay at home, in crowded conditions in a poor part of a big city, and then it turns out you have the bubonic plague, there's a very real risk of that spreading to a point where it can't be quarantined and everybody in the city (or even beyond) could catch the disease. Creating an environment where people can go to the doctor and be diagnosed without fear of the costs is critical for being able to respond and prevent such pandemics.

Recently a number of people in the media have commented about how "science" predicted that last flu season would be especially bad, and about how that prediction was wrong. Actually the prediction was probably correct, but because of the prediction, the US recorded by far its highest number of vaccinations against that strain of the flu, and managed to easily control the damage. Early action can easily prevent epidemics.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 30 Jan 2008 11:07

How can you dismiss immigration as contributor? The numbers of people coming has been historically, unprecedentedly massive for 40 years, when compared to the previous 200-ish years.
For years, USA takes in more immigrants than every other nation on Earth combined.

European countries perhaps health screen more, and deport the sick at greater rates.

I don't know how many un-screened migrants enter the EU.

Massive air travel in and out of the nation, from around the world perhaps contributes.

Doesn't anybody notice, every couple weeks, some story comes out about the fuck head who knew they had drug-resistant TB, for example, but they flew in and out of 20 different U.S. airports.

Perhaps climate also contributes, USA has deserts, swamps, and all things in between.

I don't think preventing a pandemic is a high priority for our leaders. There is a consensus, there are to many people.

Many important, enlightened people (our leaders) believe that the globe must be "thinned", of parasitic, polluting humans.

A pandemic would further that, and allow extra millions to be poisoned/sterilized with the "vaccine".

A pandemic would also allow Bush, Hillary, or Obama declare martial law, mandatory vaccinations, forced relocation of citizens, etc...etc....

A pandemic would be far to politically valuable to pass up, or prevent, especially if they can blame the "terrrrists".

-

Bringerofpie · Post by **Bringerofpie** » 30 Jan 2008 12:22

So you're saying that the government wants a pandemic? That's a little far-fetched.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jan 2008 14:08

HighDemonslayer wrote:How can you dismiss immigration as contributor? The numbers of people coming has been historically, unprecedentedly massive for 40 years, when compared to the previous 200-ish years.
For years, USA takes in more immigrants than every other nation on Earth combined.

Do you have a source for that?

European countries perhaps health screen more, and deport the sick at greater rates.

I don't know how many un-screened migrants enter the EU.

So the problem isn't immigration, but checking the health of immigrants?

Massive air travel in and out of the nation, from around the world perhaps contributes.

Interesting how massive international connecting points like London are not effected. Interesting how only 1 developed nation is.

Perhaps climate also contributes, USA has deserts, swamps, and all things in between.

What kind of climate does the US have, that can't be also found in Australia?

I don't think preventing a pandemic is a high priority for our leaders. There is a consensus, there are to many people.

Have you been following the bird flu news? There's been a massive controversy last year because developed nations were stockpiling potential vaccines, which were developed with the help of developing nations. That sounds like the actions of governments doing exactly what they were elected to do, and looking out for the best interests of their own country.

Many important, enlightened people (our leaders) believe that the globe must be "thinned", of parasitic, polluting humans.

Source? Or is this just mindless speculation?

A pandemic would further that, and allow extra millions to be poisoned/sterilized with the "vaccine".

A pandemic would also allow Bush, Hillary, or Obama declare martial law, mandatory vaccinations, forced relocation of citizens, etc...etc...

Why would Bush, Hillary or Obama want any of those things? An elected government with a majority can change the law and constitution at will. If Bush wanted to be a dictator, he could have easily passed such legislation while the republicans had control of the senate. He chose not to. Democracy can turn to a dictatorship as soon as the ruling people decide that's what they want. There is no safety net, and nothing to stop that happening without needing a pandemic.

A pandemic would be far to politically valuable to pass up, or prevent, especially if they can blame the "terrrrists".

How is a pandemic "politically valuable?" Destroying liberties does not give you political support. It not only turns people against you, but within your own party as well as the general people. You only need to look through 20th century history to see that being a dictator is not only a politically bad move, but a terrible move for your health as well.

It's interesting how you state that Clinton and Obama also want a pandemic; I guess so that when they get into power and then there is one, you can act like you predicted it. They obviously have had very little say in government policy, and so I wonder what kind of evidence you have to support this claim. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't have any, and that it's just an underhand attack at them.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 30 Jan 2008 14:29

Hey HDS, I found a new avatar for you:

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 30 Jan 2008 15:42

oh man i want that avatar.

snafu1322 · Post by **snafu1322** » 10 Jul 2008 19:37

Just on the Bubonic Plague side note:

...human plague in the United States has occurred as mostly scattered cases in rural areas (an average of 10 to 15 persons each year). Globally, the World Health Organization reports 1,000 to 3,000 cases of plague every year. In North America, plague is found in certain animals and their fleas from the Pacific Coast to the Great Plains, and from southwestern Canada to Mexico.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/

and

Who is at risk for plague?

* People who live in rural areas where plague occurs in wild rodents
* People, such as biologists, trappers, and hunters, who handle potentially infected animals
* Campers, hikers, travelers, and others in areas where plague is known to exist
* People in close contact with pneumonic plague patients

Source: http://www.dhpe.org/infect/plague.html

Don't have much to say about it other than that in the US it hits a few hunters or what haver you every year and at least 1-2 cases come from my place of residence, New Mexico aka the Land of Entrapment.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 11 Jul 2008 17:18

Ya you have to be careful to cook a lot of things well in the American Southwest because besides a lot of other stuff, they can also carry the plauge.

janis · Post by **janis** » 26 Jul 2008 07:51

So disappointing that this thread made it to 9 pages

bdams19 · Post by **bdams19** » 30 Jul 2008 06:44

i think its cause we're fat and unhealthy