5 ms·
I’m vaccinated, but against this vaccine mandate. My proposed method is this: 1) If you want to get vaccinated, get vaccinated. 2) If you don’t, don’t. 3) If
by edot 5y ago
I’m vaccinated, but against this vaccine mandate. My proposed method is this:
1) If you want to get vaccinated, get vaccinated.
2) If you don’t, don’t.
3) If you go to the hospital with a COVID infection, your care is covered by insurance if you are vaccinated. If you are not, your care is not covered by insurance.
This allows people to make decisions about their bodies, while also fending off the two main arguments I see for why everyone should be vaccinated. Those arguments are:
1) Unvaccinated people are hosts for mutations which can break through vaccines. Since we are already going to be doing yearly updates to this vaccine a la flu vaccines, this is not a concern to those who want to be vaccinated as they will get fresh protection each year.
2) Hospital beds are being filled with COVID patients, thus blocking people with e.g. heart attacks, car crash injuries etc. from getting care. With my plan, the unvaccinated will be disincentivized to go to the hospital to get COVID care, thus freeing these beds up. Again, this respects personal choices.
But forcing people to do something to their body? Not cool with me. Also not logically consistent with being pro-choice, which most of my pro-mandate (anti-choice) friends are.
- leesalminen 5y agoTo quote our vice-president, "The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision, it is their body."
- julianlam 5y agoHowever, being pregnant does not cause other people to become pregnant against their will.
- leesalminen 5y agoHowever, voluntarily ending pregnancy can cause fathers to-be to lose their child to-be against their will. We've decided that's OK, because the right of an individual over their body supersedes the rights of others with tangential impacts.
- cheeseomlit 5y agoThat doesn't address the core hypocrisy of the statement, which is that bodily autonomy is "non-negotiable" for some and non-existent for others. Either the government has authority over your body or they don't, regardless of justification.
- josho 5y agoI don't see the hypocrisy. Get vaccinated or get tested for covid weekly. It's your choice. We need to get back to normal, continuing with our previous approach wasn't working, so we have to do something. This seems like a healthy compromise on personal choice and doing what's right for society. What would be a better balance?
- cheeseomlit 5y agoThe hypocrisy is quite obvious, you are choosing not to see it. If you argue that abortion is a right by virtue of people's bodies not being subject to government control, then you can't simultaneously argue in favor of government control of peoples bodies for some other reason. Be consistent. Either the government has the right to regulate your body or they don't, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to argue in favor of abortion then you need to start using a different slogan than "my body my choice", because clearly you don't sincerely believe in bodily autonomy.
- josho 5y agoI think I'm missing something. Where is the government trying to force vaccines? That's not my understanding of the announcement.
- _-david-_ 5y agoThe right of woman to make the decision about injecting a substance into their body is apparently negotiable.
- julianlam 5y ago> With my plan, the unvaccinated will be disincentivized to go to the hospital to get COVID care, thus freeing these beds up. Again, this respects personal choices. The fact that this sentiment already exists in America (via private insurance and out-of-network costs) is absolutely abhorrent. Citizenry should never be disincentivized from seeking out healthcare.
- edot 5y agoPenalizing the unvaccinated is currently proposed to happen through their employer, with loss of employment (loss of being able to provide for one’s family) being the main incentive. I am proposing a more direct penalty, which is only put into effect if: 1) you don’t get vaccinated 2) you get COVID 3) you get treatment at the hospital for COVID The current penalty proposal (getting fired) happens at step 1. I do not agree with that. In a socialized healthcare system, my penalty would be the same. Instead of your insurance company doling out the penalty (withholding payment), it would be your government, but the effect is the same. I do not want to force people to do something they don’t want to do to their bodies, and I do not want others to suffer for the unvaccinated’s choices. Therefore, if you decide not to get vaccinated, you pay for your own healthcare if you go to the hospital for COVID treatment. Personal choice comes with personal responsibility. But personal choice should still be allowed.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y agoThe problem is that unvaccinated people still take resources up, insurance or no. People who need surgery for cancer or need an ICU bed.
- ctrlp 5y agoUndocumented immigrants take resources up. (If fact they may be uninsured and unvaccinated, too.) You should favor refusing medical care to them (and education to their children) based on this argument from resources. Do you?
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y agoUndocumented immigrants actually don’t take resources up statistically because if they did their undocumented status would be more easily uncovered, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Trying to swap one population for another and arguing it’s the same thing, when only one population is causing the problem, isn’t logical. Please address my concerns as they are.
- betwixthewires 5y agoHe (or she) isn't saying they're the same thing, they're just demonstrating that the "takes resources up" argument carries no weight whatsoever.