dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

L*****ts: Health Care Is A Human Right, Unless You’re Unv******ted
Threatening to deny health care to more than one-third of the adults in the country is just one more way the panic pornographers are trying to tyrannize you.
By Elle Reynolds
SEPTEMBER 15, 2021
The same people who spent the last decade telling you health care is a human right now want to be able to deny it to you.

As if it wasn’t enough to hound people without the C****-** shot out of their jobs, schools, and even effectively whole cities, pundits and even some doctors are now floating the idea of denying medical care to people based on C****-** v******tion status.

“Is it time to put those who are endangering public health by refusing v*****es on notice that if they need care they will go to the end of the line, behind the patients who acted responsibly?” asks the Washington Post in a totally-not-loaded-at-all question.

While the Post article doesn’t endorse refusing treatment to the unv******ted as punishment per se, it leaves the door wide open for denial of health care in certain instances. “Patients should expect to be told that being tested and wearing a mask are conditions of receiving care,” it notes. “For non-urgent care in which sufficient advance notice is given, requiring v******tion as a condition of continued service might also be defensible.”

The author makes no secret of his bias either, proudly admitting, “It’s easy to feel anger — as I do — toward those who perversely promote unwarranted skepticism about the seriousness of c****av***s infection, as well as the safety and effectiveness of v*****es.”

“Taking v******tion status into account when deciding whether to treat a patient can be acceptable — sometimes,” waxes an NBC thinkpiece.

Alabama doctor Jason Valentine posted a photo of himself next to a sign bragging he would “no longer see patients that are not v******ted against C****-**.” To patients questioning the motive for his decision, Valentine says “I told them C***D is a miserable way to die and I can’t watch them die like that.”

Dr. Linda Marraccini of Miami took similar steps, informing her thousands of patients their patronage would be terminated if they failed to v******te against C****-** and blaming them for a “lack of selflessness.” Becker’s Hospital Review published her story under the conspicuous headline “One physician’s case for refusing to treat unv******ted patients in person.”

An internal memo circulated to a group of Texas doctors acknowledged, “Many are understandably angry and frustrated with the unv******ted” and instructed “V*****e status … may be considered when making triage decisions as part of the physician’s assessment of each individual’s likelihood of survival.” After the news leaked, one of the doctors involved backtracked his story and insisted the memo was a “homework assignment.”

These commentators and physicians know they can’t (yet) make blanket assertions that those who haven’t received the C****-** shot should be flatly turned away from critical care, but they are nonetheless stealthily planting the conversation in the public mind.

Meanwhile, people like Jimmy Kimmel are getting away with it, as the late-night host mocked the unv******ted and suggested they should be denied lifesaving treatment. “V******ted person having a heart attack? Yes, come right in, we’ll take care of you. Unv******ted guy who gobbled horse goo? Rest in peace, wheezy,” Kimmel needled, taking a dig at Ivermectin, a Nobel Prize-winning drug which has been misleadingly mocked as a horse dewormer, despite the fact that it has been used as an antiparasitic for human patients for decades.

Others are “merely” suggesting the unv******ted should pay more for their healthcare. “Americans have just about had it up to here with people who refuse C****-** v******tions,” begins a Los Angeles Times column from Michael Hiltzik entitled “Should the unv******ted pay more for healthcare? That’s an easy call.”

“Unv******ted people could be held civilly or even criminally liable if it can be shown that their behavior brought harm to others” — i.e., infected them — reads one of Hiltzik’s suggestions. As an example, he cites the possibility of nursing home employees who aren’t v******ted (but curiously doesn’t mention the policies of Democrat governors like New York’s Andrew Cuomo, who condemned thousands of residents to their deaths by forcing nursing homes to take infected C****-** patients).

In another suggestion, he cites economist Jonathan Meer’s take in MarketWatch: “Insurers, led by government programs, should declare that medically-able, eligible people who choose not to be v******ted are responsible for the full financial cost of C***D-related hospitalizations.”

But wait — isn’t this all coming from the same camp that berated us with the claim that health care is a human right, which all compassionate people must dev**e their tax dollars to providing for everyone? That even the license to k**l your unborn child or undergo state-funded surgeries to look like the opposite sex fall under the umbrella of the human right to health care? And that you, the taxpayer, should pay for all of it and trust socialist government programs to orchestrate it effectively, weeding out your private alternatives?

Health care should not be dependent on your preexisting conditions, or your financial capacity, advocates of government health care opined. Enjoying the appearance of the moral high ground, they lambasted supporters of the private healthcare system as uncompassionate, evil Scrooges who wanted the poor and people with health conditions to die in the streets.

Now, while all the haughty airs of moral superiority are still there, the push for health care as a human right is revealed as the power grab it always was. Those people couldn’t care less if people without the C****-** injection die untreated — in fact, they routinely take pleasure in amplifying those Americans’ deaths.

The push to make denying medical care to unv******ted Americans a viable possibility is just as much about power. After bossing the country into complying with hypocritical and anti-science closures and mandates for a year and a half, threatening to deny health care to more than one-third of adults in the country is just one more way the panic pornographers are trying to tyrannize you. Resist it now, before journalists’ theoretical thinkpieces become hospital policy.

woodguru

At the point that you make the choice not to get v******ted, you should be doing it in the belief that you are not going to get sick. You should also be making that choice taking responsibility for the consequences of being wrong and not putting yourself in a position of using limited intensive care facilities for possibly weeks

Gatsby

One topic that no one is even willing to consider, those with naturally immunity, those who already have

anti-bodies in their blood, and there are many millions of them. How about the 40,000,000 Americans who

have already had the CCP bug, and fully recovered, why should a single one of them even consider the "jab"?

Kevyn

There is no suggestion this will happen. Sadly quite the opposite is happening, needlessly severely ill C***d patients are taking ICU beds from other desperately ill patients.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

How is it possible that you can be so uninformed and wrong about everything more often than Biden, eh comrade?

https://www.wnd.com/2021/09/4945912/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-newsletter&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=newsletter&ats_es=1a85c2723b642a4cbc29b4df12ae15de

Study: Half of 'C***D hospitalizations' were for mild or non-C***D cases

Significant policy implications as officials use metric to justify restrictions
Art Moore By Art Moore
Published September 15, 2021 at 7:11pm


A newly released study reported by the left-leaning magazine the Atlantic found that nearly half of the patients hospitalized for C****-** in 2021 may not have been admitted for the v***s or had mild symptoms or were asymptomatic.

The researchers from Harvard Medical School, Tufts Medical Center and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System examined electronic records for nearly 50,000 C***D hospital admissions at more than 100 VA hospitals nationwide, said the Federalist in a report on the article.

The findings have significant public-policy implications affecting entities such as schools and businesses, noted one of the study's co-authors, Dr. Shira Doron.

"As we look to shift from cases to hospitalizations as a metric to drive policy and assess level of risk to a community or state or country, we should refine the definition of hospitalization," she said.

"Those patients who are there with, rather than from, C***D don’t belong in the metric."

The Atlantic author, David Zweig, explained that the researchers "checked to see whether each patient required supplemental oxygen or had a blood oxygen level below 94 percent." If either condition was met, the researchers classified the patient as having moderate to severe disease. Otherwise the case was considered mild or asymptomatic.

The study found that from mid-January through the end of June 2021, 48% of the hospitalized patients showing up on C***D-data dashboards may have been admitted for another reason entirely. Or they had only a mild presentation of disease.

Zweig wrote that the study "suggests that C***D hospitalization tallies can't be taken as a simple measure of the prevalence of severe or even moderate disease, because they might inflate the true numbers by a factor of two."

Earlier this month, Zweig wrote an article for The Atlantic presenting evidence that school children should not be required to wear a mask. His piece prompted angry Twitter users who didn't expect such reporting from the magazine to f**g it for misinformation and call for a retraction.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

If they are severely ill it can hardly be called needlessly taking ICU beds. It's you l*****t that politicized C***D to the point of scaring everyone to death and overreacting to it. You reap what you sow, comrade.