3 ms·

"Even if true, so what? It's their bodies. They should be allowed to choose, just like you are." Is this still true if unvaccinated takes a hospital bed away f

"Even if true, so what? It's their bodies. They should be allowed to choose, just like you are." Is this still true if unvaccinated takes a hospital bed away from someone else or increases insurance costs to everyone else due to more expensive care?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xyzzyz 5y ago
Replacing “unvaccinated” with “obese” here gives an argument for forcing obese people on diet against their will.
- antattack 5y ago
  It's unamerican to force people to do something. However, smokers, for example, pay higher insurance premiums and alcohol is taxed higher.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    Yeah, smoking is just about the only thing the insurance companies are legally allowed to upcharge for. That’s one of the main reasons Obamacare was passed in the first place. The whole reality is now completely dystopian. We have people calling for denying healthcare to people who took “my body, my choice” as a right, because they voluntarily chose to not take the vaccine. However, these same people would be completely appalled by the idea of letting a drug addict die on the street from overdose, even though it is also a result of their voluntary choice to take drugs. The very same people who call for denying people things like a right to eat at a restaurant or get groceries without vaccine passport, claim that requiring ID to vote is a violation of civil rights, and all that despite the fact that black Americans are least vaccinated group in US. Total insanity.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      Requiring an ID to vote is a violation of civil rights purely because local governments make it difficult for poor people to get IDs for free. If everyone was issue a government ID for free, this would be a nonissue. I'm not aware of any grocery stores requiring a vaccine passport, but in general, the bar for a private business allowing customers in should be a lot more malleable fluid that voting restrictions. It's not a contradiction of principles to point this out even if poor black people are among the lowest vaccination groups.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        > Requiring an ID to vote is a violation of civil rights purely because local governments make it difficult for poor people to get IDs for free. If everyone was issue a government ID for free, this would be a nonissue. No, that’s very much false. For example, Georgia offers free voter identification card, and yet its new voter ID laws were called “new Jim Crow” by prominent politicians. This is issue purely for partisan reasons, and the eagerness to introduce vaccine IDs while shunning voter ID shows it pretty clearly. > I'm not aware of any grocery stores requiring a vaccine passport, but in general, the bar for a private business allowing customers in should be a lot more malleable fluid that voting restrictions. The problem here is that the businesses are not introducing these restrictions out of their own initiative, but they rather are following government regulations. As a result, it is government which is requiring ID to enter a restaurant, but not requiring it for voting, and suggesting it’s actually private businesses enforcing it is just trying to shift the blame.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    The Supreme Court disagrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      This Supreme Court decision only ruled that it is legal to give a minor fine for not getting a vaccine, not that it is legal to forcibly vaccinate people.
      - lostcolony 5y ago
        This Supreme Court decision says nothing about the extent of the penalties; simply that it is within the government's rights to enforce health mandates. This decision is a referenced legal precedent cited for masking mandates, stay at home mandates, etc etc. The case -stemmed- from someone protesting being fined, but both the decision, and the ramifications, intentionally, are far further reaching than that. Yes, it is not a precedent for going door to door and forcibly vaccinating people. No one is advocating for that. What people -are- advocating for is withholding the privileges of society from any who choose not to get vaccinated, and there is a lot of precedent allowing for that. There is, as you note, even precedent for -punitive- actions from the state for failing to have it done. So if you want to get technical, sure, there is no way to force people in the US to get vaccinated, just like there is no way to force people in the US to do anything; there is only carrot and stick measures to try and coax people to do something. If that was the point...um, okay, but that also isn't arguing against anything that was said. The original post was about taking hospital beds away from those who catch COVID who chose to be unvaccinated, and not letting their COVID bills go to insurance; that isn't forcing them to get vaccinated, that's just introducing new punitive measures for not getting vaccinated.
        xyzzyz 5y ago
        > This Supreme Court decision says nothing about the extent of the penalties; simply that it is within the government's rights to enforce health mandates. You are misrepresenting the case. The extent of the penalties was implied here, because the case was about upholding or rejecting particular state law, which listed the specific penalties involved. > This decision is a referenced legal precedent cited for masking mandates, stay at home mandates, etc etc. The case -stemmed- from someone protesting being fined, but both the decision, and the ramifications, intentionally, are far further reaching than that. Wrongly so. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906452 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906452
- jesusohchrist 5y ago
  Mandatory gym memberships and no sugar would end the pandemic probably faster Edit: Obesity source: 1. https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-19-cdc-063fb142-234c-4654-98b1-de357fb8df87.html https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-... 2. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughl... BaSeLeSs BrO ScIeNcE
  - CyberDildonics 5y ago
    I'm sure the ravaged nursing homes and full hospitals wished they had found the wisdom of your baseless bro science earlier.
    - jesusohchrist 5y ago
      https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughl... You were saying something mate? CDC is bro science?
      - CyberDildonics 5y ago
        You realize your original comment was about ending the pandemic faster than vaccines right?
        pgalvin 5y ago
        I might be wrong, but to me it was obvious they were making a tongue in cheek joke. It obviously wouldn’t end it faster.
        CyberDildonics 5y ago
        I wish that were true, but now when I see ridiculous things like this I realize that people are not joking.
- specto 5y ago
  Yep, being obese definitely causes issues for others with weak immune systems just like covid.
pattrn 5y ago
Yes. It's still true. Arguing otherwise requires applying that same logic universally. Any life decision that could result in worse health outcomes "takes a hospital bed away from someone else." Once you go down that road, you now need a way to define what is "healthy," so that you can legislate what to do with people who made poor health choices. If we delegate the definition of "healthy" to the FDA, then trying out something as benign as a novel diet could end up in medical discrimination. That's not a world I want to live in.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  I noted this mentally only a few hours ago. I commented on HN, using as a metaphor "Universal health care provided by the State: [you cannot abuse it, as a common good - ] if you drink soda, you lose entitlement for your diabetes to be treated at the same cost". Then I added, "stretched example". Then, thinking it more properly, it is not that stretched... Those under the FDA do not have that social constraint (free healthcare), to others it is a reality (with responsibilities etc.). And in a way, like in the context of insurance, different personal histories are relevant. Job related health consequences? Unforeseeable consequences? Jamesdean consequences? Not the same.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xyzzyz 5y ago

Replacing “unvaccinated” with “obese” here gives an argument for forcing obese people on diet against their will.

antattack 5y ago
It's unamerican to force people to do something. However, smokers, for example, pay higher insurance premiums and alcohol is taxed higher.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  Yeah, smoking is just about the only thing the insurance companies are legally allowed to upcharge for. That’s one of the main reasons Obamacare was passed in the first place. The whole reality is now completely dystopian. We have people calling for denying healthcare to people who took “my body, my choice” as a right, because they voluntarily chose to not take the vaccine. However, these same people would be completely appalled by the idea of letting a drug addict die on the street from overdose, even though it is also a result of their voluntary choice to take drugs. The very same people who call for denying people things like a right to eat at a restaurant or get groceries without vaccine passport, claim that requiring ID to vote is a violation of civil rights, and all that despite the fact that black Americans are least vaccinated group in US. Total insanity.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Requiring an ID to vote is a violation of civil rights purely because local governments make it difficult for poor people to get IDs for free. If everyone was issue a government ID for free, this would be a nonissue. I'm not aware of any grocery stores requiring a vaccine passport, but in general, the bar for a private business allowing customers in should be a lot more malleable fluid that voting restrictions. It's not a contradiction of principles to point this out even if poor black people are among the lowest vaccination groups.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      > Requiring an ID to vote is a violation of civil rights purely because local governments make it difficult for poor people to get IDs for free. If everyone was issue a government ID for free, this would be a nonissue. No, that’s very much false. For example, Georgia offers free voter identification card, and yet its new voter ID laws were called “new Jim Crow” by prominent politicians. This is issue purely for partisan reasons, and the eagerness to introduce vaccine IDs while shunning voter ID shows it pretty clearly. > I'm not aware of any grocery stores requiring a vaccine passport, but in general, the bar for a private business allowing customers in should be a lot more malleable fluid that voting restrictions. The problem here is that the businesses are not introducing these restrictions out of their own initiative, but they rather are following government regulations. As a result, it is government which is requiring ID to enter a restaurant, but not requiring it for voting, and suggesting it’s actually private businesses enforcing it is just trying to shift the blame.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  The Supreme Court disagrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    This Supreme Court decision only ruled that it is legal to give a minor fine for not getting a vaccine, not that it is legal to forcibly vaccinate people.
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      This Supreme Court decision says nothing about the extent of the penalties; simply that it is within the government's rights to enforce health mandates. This decision is a referenced legal precedent cited for masking mandates, stay at home mandates, etc etc. The case -stemmed- from someone protesting being fined, but both the decision, and the ramifications, intentionally, are far further reaching than that. Yes, it is not a precedent for going door to door and forcibly vaccinating people. No one is advocating for that. What people -are- advocating for is withholding the privileges of society from any who choose not to get vaccinated, and there is a lot of precedent allowing for that. There is, as you note, even precedent for -punitive- actions from the state for failing to have it done. So if you want to get technical, sure, there is no way to force people in the US to get vaccinated, just like there is no way to force people in the US to do anything; there is only carrot and stick measures to try and coax people to do something. If that was the point...um, okay, but that also isn't arguing against anything that was said. The original post was about taking hospital beds away from those who catch COVID who chose to be unvaccinated, and not letting their COVID bills go to insurance; that isn't forcing them to get vaccinated, that's just introducing new punitive measures for not getting vaccinated.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        > This Supreme Court decision says nothing about the extent of the penalties; simply that it is within the government's rights to enforce health mandates. You are misrepresenting the case. The extent of the penalties was implied here, because the case was about upholding or rejecting particular state law, which listed the specific penalties involved. > This decision is a referenced legal precedent cited for masking mandates, stay at home mandates, etc etc. The case -stemmed- from someone protesting being fined, but both the decision, and the ramifications, intentionally, are far further reaching than that. Wrongly so. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906452 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906452
jesusohchrist 5y ago
Mandatory gym memberships and no sugar would end the pandemic probably faster Edit: Obesity source: 1. https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-19-cdc-063fb142-234c-4654-98b1-de357fb8df87.html https://www.axios.com/bmi-obesity-severe-risk-factors-covid-... 2. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughl... BaSeLeSs BrO ScIeNcE
- CyberDildonics 5y ago
  I'm sure the ravaged nursing homes and full hospitals wished they had found the wisdom of your baseless bro science earlier.
  - jesusohchrist 5y ago
    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughl... You were saying something mate? CDC is bro science?
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      You realize your original comment was about ending the pandemic faster than vaccines right?
      - pgalvin 5y ago
        I might be wrong, but to me it was obvious they were making a tongue in cheek joke. It obviously wouldn’t end it faster.
        CyberDildonics 5y ago
        I wish that were true, but now when I see ridiculous things like this I realize that people are not joking.
specto 5y ago
Yep, being obese definitely causes issues for others with weak immune systems just like covid.

pattrn 5y ago

Yes. It's still true. Arguing otherwise requires applying that same logic universally. Any life decision that could result in worse health outcomes "takes a hospital bed away from someone else." Once you go down that road, you now need a way to define what is "healthy," so that you can legislate what to do with people who made poor health choices. If we delegate the definition of "healthy" to the FDA, then trying out something as benign as a novel diet could end up in medical discrimination. That's not a world I want to live in.

mdp2021 5y ago
I noted this mentally only a few hours ago. I commented on HN, using as a metaphor "Universal health care provided by the State: [you cannot abuse it, as a common good - ] if you drink soda, you lose entitlement for your diabetes to be treated at the same cost". Then I added, "stretched example". Then, thinking it more properly, it is not that stretched... Those under the FDA do not have that social constraint (free healthcare), to others it is a reality (with responsibilities etc.). And in a way, like in the context of insurance, different personal histories are relevant. Job related health consequences? Unforeseeable consequences? Jamesdean consequences? Not the same.