4 ms·

U.S. appeals court affirms hold on Biden Covid-19 vaccine mandate

21 points by AndrewBissell 5y ago

throwawaysea 5y ago
Good. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental civil liberty, alongside medical privacy. In any just and free society, it doesn’t make sense to force people to undergo a medical procedure to do everyday things. If others are so fearful, they need to quarantine themselves instead of imposing forced medical procedures on others. After all, even with the vaccine they won’t be perfectly safe.
- rytcio 5y ago
  My body, my choice...sometimes
- DarknessFalls 5y ago
  Fine, but if you don't get the vaccine, your insurance shouldn't distribute the burden of covering medical costs for you if you should require hospitalization. Right now, that's what's happening. It's not just "my body, my choice". It's access to vital healthcare for entire communities, and it's being plugged up by people who want to make a political statement. It's similar to not being able to legally drive if you aren't wearing your seatbelt. People bitched about that, too. There need to be consequences for this burden people are spreading to others.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Do you think insurance should refuse to cover medical costs for anything caused by smoking or obesity? If not, why the difference?
    - DarknessFalls 5y ago
      Insurance does raise rates for people who are obese, quite significantly. So the distinction here is that they aren't taking similar action for people who refuse the vaccine.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Distinguish raising rates from refusing to cover costs. Also, my health insurance company has no idea how much I weigh, so I'm not sure how common that actually is.
      - TheParkShark 5y ago
        This doesn’t apply to all insurances and doesn’t address the actual question at hand. Should obese people, smokers, alcoholics, drug users, etc be denied medical care for the choices they make? If not, is this insurance argument of yours based on actually wanting medical care changes for the benefit of all or just to intimidate more people into getting the vaccine?
  - anfilt 5y ago
    A seat belt is not quite the same. Both sure involve autonomy. However, not wearing your seat belt mainly puts your self at risk. A virus can spread to others. As for externalties of like medical care sure not using a seat belt or taking the vaccine mean your more likely to need medical care. I will add though without seat belt your more likely to die at the scene. Thusly, how much more externalties not wearing a seat belt will cause I don't know, and would need some data on that point. There is also an other big difference between a seat belt and vaccine. Mandating a vaccine is forcing someone to under go a medical procedure. Albeit a simple one. Where as a seat belt does not. Although, bringing up seat belts I find it funny we allow people to drive motor cycles on public roads, but you must wear a seat belt in a car. So clearly this was not just about externalties. So the rule seems quite silly to me. (probably the car insurance lobby pushed for it) In my honest opinion it would be better the state did not mandate either of these in my opinion. What is sad is the vaccine some how has become political, and people are not taking for either stupid reasons or believing false hoods. Despite this I don't think we should be quick abandon principles of liberty because of idiots. Every precedent set today can be used to forward an other one in the future you may not agree with. So best tread carefully.
    - DarknessFalls 5y ago
      My main point was that insurance companies should shift the financial burden to people who refuse to get vaccinated. And hospitals should prioritize the vaccinated in ICUs, even for elective procedures.
      - impendingchange 5y ago
        Why should that shift in financial responsibility be required when vaccine manufacturers were not made financially responsible for adverse reactions to their product, and thus shifting that responsibility to insurers?
      - AndrewBissell 5y ago
        It's such a nice, tiny step down the slippery slope from "prioritize the vaccinated" to "prioritize the 3x/4x/.../10x boostered," and then "prioritize the people who will indefinitely socially isolate themselves." Before 2020 and this bizarre invented notion of an individual responsibility to avoid a contagious respiratory disease, an statement like "don't give medical care to people who do bad thing X" was commonly understood to be a fascist line of argument.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  I'll be all for bodily autonomy when people who are too gullible or lazy to get vaccinated stop clogging ERs because it's too hard to breathe. Hospital beds are a finite resource and those who do the right thing shouldn't be denied medical care because those who refuse to don't know how statistics work.
a0-prw 5y ago
Good. The response to Covid-19 has been crazy from the beginning. People at high risk are obese, have comorbidities or are very old. Those are the groups which it makes sense to protect. It does not make sense to damage kids' education and make poor people the world over even poorer. I believe this pandemic is in fact, the first global mass hysteria.

21 points by AndrewBissell 5y ago

Good. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental civil liberty, alongside medical privacy. In any just and free society, it doesn’t make sense to force people to undergo a medical procedure to do everyday things. If others are so fearful, they need to quarantine themselves instead of imposing forced medical procedures on others. After all, even with the vaccine they won’t be perfectly safe.

rytcio 5y ago
My body, my choice...sometimes
DarknessFalls 5y ago
Fine, but if you don't get the vaccine, your insurance shouldn't distribute the burden of covering medical costs for you if you should require hospitalization. Right now, that's what's happening. It's not just "my body, my choice". It's access to vital healthcare for entire communities, and it's being plugged up by people who want to make a political statement. It's similar to not being able to legally drive if you aren't wearing your seatbelt. People bitched about that, too. There need to be consequences for this burden people are spreading to others.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Do you think insurance should refuse to cover medical costs for anything caused by smoking or obesity? If not, why the difference?
  - DarknessFalls 5y ago
    Insurance does raise rates for people who are obese, quite significantly. So the distinction here is that they aren't taking similar action for people who refuse the vaccine.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Distinguish raising rates from refusing to cover costs. Also, my health insurance company has no idea how much I weigh, so I'm not sure how common that actually is.
    - TheParkShark 5y ago
      This doesn’t apply to all insurances and doesn’t address the actual question at hand. Should obese people, smokers, alcoholics, drug users, etc be denied medical care for the choices they make? If not, is this insurance argument of yours based on actually wanting medical care changes for the benefit of all or just to intimidate more people into getting the vaccine?
- anfilt 5y ago
  A seat belt is not quite the same. Both sure involve autonomy. However, not wearing your seat belt mainly puts your self at risk. A virus can spread to others. As for externalties of like medical care sure not using a seat belt or taking the vaccine mean your more likely to need medical care. I will add though without seat belt your more likely to die at the scene. Thusly, how much more externalties not wearing a seat belt will cause I don't know, and would need some data on that point. There is also an other big difference between a seat belt and vaccine. Mandating a vaccine is forcing someone to under go a medical procedure. Albeit a simple one. Where as a seat belt does not. Although, bringing up seat belts I find it funny we allow people to drive motor cycles on public roads, but you must wear a seat belt in a car. So clearly this was not just about externalties. So the rule seems quite silly to me. (probably the car insurance lobby pushed for it) In my honest opinion it would be better the state did not mandate either of these in my opinion. What is sad is the vaccine some how has become political, and people are not taking for either stupid reasons or believing false hoods. Despite this I don't think we should be quick abandon principles of liberty because of idiots. Every precedent set today can be used to forward an other one in the future you may not agree with. So best tread carefully.
  - DarknessFalls 5y ago
    My main point was that insurance companies should shift the financial burden to people who refuse to get vaccinated. And hospitals should prioritize the vaccinated in ICUs, even for elective procedures.
    - impendingchange 5y ago
      Why should that shift in financial responsibility be required when vaccine manufacturers were not made financially responsible for adverse reactions to their product, and thus shifting that responsibility to insurers?
    - AndrewBissell 5y ago
      It's such a nice, tiny step down the slippery slope from "prioritize the vaccinated" to "prioritize the 3x/4x/.../10x boostered," and then "prioritize the people who will indefinitely socially isolate themselves." Before 2020 and this bizarre invented notion of an individual responsibility to avoid a contagious respiratory disease, an statement like "don't give medical care to people who do bad thing X" was commonly understood to be a fascist line of argument.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
I'll be all for bodily autonomy when people who are too gullible or lazy to get vaccinated stop clogging ERs because it's too hard to breathe. Hospital beds are a finite resource and those who do the right thing shouldn't be denied medical care because those who refuse to don't know how statistics work.

a0-prw 5y ago

Good. The response to Covid-19 has been crazy from the beginning. People at high risk are obese, have comorbidities or are very old. Those are the groups which it makes sense to protect. It does not make sense to damage kids' education and make poor people the world over even poorer. I believe this pandemic is in fact, the first global mass hysteria.