4 ms·

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

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