weblooker2021
Senior member
- Jan 18, 2021
- 749
- 254
- 96
It might as well be the same if the mandate never sees the light of day.an injunction isn't the same as a settled court case that establishes the limits of an executive agency.
It might as well be the same if the mandate never sees the light of day.an injunction isn't the same as a settled court case that establishes the limits of an executive agency.
Does that include giving hospital care for those who are not vaccinated but contract COVID?Just my $0.02, but now that vaccination has proven to be successful in significantly reducing the risk of hospitalization and death, I think it's time to dump the mask and vaccine mandates, and let Darwin sort it out.
That would be great except you and I end up paying the price. Not only do vaccinated people end up paying for unvaccinated people to be treated in hospitals but also if you're vaccinated and get sick of something else (let's say a car accident), you may die because hospital resources are overstretched because of the unvaccinated idiots.Just my $0.02, but now that vaccination has proven to be successful in significantly reducing the risk of hospitalization and death, I think it's time to dump the mask and vaccine mandates, and let Darwin sort it out.
I think you have a very weak grasp regarding the point of the injunction.It might as well be the same if the mandate never sees the light of day.
Initial injunction was affirmed. I am not seeing any ruling that 5th circuit issues after argument to change anything. I am also not seeing 6th circuit and SCOTUS changing the directions either. So ultimately injunction and ruling will result in the same action which is to keep the order from having any power.I think you have a very weak grasp regarding the point of the injunction.
I think we should leave it to the insurers as to whether or not they should pay out for care that could have reasonably been avoided.Does that include giving hospital care for those who are not vaccinated but contract COVID?
Is the law(ACA) on that not pretty clear?I think we should leave it to the insurers as to whether or not they should pay out for care that could have reasonably been avoided.
No reason why an exception can't be made to deny claims for the voluntary unvaccinated who require COVID. Consequences should be real.Is the law(ACA) on that not pretty clear?
Sure an exception can be made if Congresses passes that but we both know that will never happen.No reason why an exception can't be made to deny claims for the voluntary unvaccinated who require COVID. Consequences should be real.
No reason to wait on Congress when an Executive Order will work right away.Sure an exception can be made if Congresses passes that but we both know that will never happen.
Biden or any other president can't change law using executive order. Court will slap it down very quickly as they should.No reason to wait on Congress when an Executive Order will work right away.
Why should anti-vaxxers worry when there are cheap and effective remedies like Ivermectin? And that work better than the vaccine? COVID is a hoax with a low mortality rate anyway, right? And the ACA is socialized medicine to boot, according to conservatives, so why do they need big govt forcing private insurers to protect them from their own consequences?Biden or any other president can't change law using executive order. Court will slap it down very quickly as they should.
So now that you don't like it you want to repeal it? You made the bed now it's time to sleep in it. Don't try to change the rules because you no longer like them.Why should anti-vaxxers worry when there are cheap and effective remedies like Ivermectin? And that work better than the vaccine? COVID is a hoax with a low mortality rate anyway, right? And the ACA is socialized medicine to boot, according to conservatives, so why do they need big govt forcing private insurers to protect them from their own consequences?
I didn't say I didn't like any rules. What I don't like are hypocritical jackasses who talk ceaselessly about how they don't like socialism and how everyone needs to accept the consequences of their actions, and then run to the protection of big govt at the mere prospect of consequence for their childishness.So now that you don't like it you want to repeal it? You made the bed now it's time to sleep in it. Don't try to change the rules because you no longer like them.
I didn't say I didn't like any rules. What I don't like are hypocritical jackasses who talk ceaselessly about how they don't like socialism and how everyone needs to accept the consequences of their actions, and then run to the protection of big govt at the mere prospect of consequence for their childishness.
No problem get congress to change the law and insurance can change the coverage.I've said it before, I'll say it again. Antivaxxers are like people who drive without car insurance because everyone else has full coverage. If the risk/benefit analysis is such that the risk of the disease is comparable to the risk of the vaccine, then they don't get vaccinated. But the only way the risk of the disease can drop that low is if everyone else is vaccinated.
IOW anti-vaxxers are social deadbeats. They want everyone else to pay so they don't have to pay anything at all.
So close, yet so far away.
I think we should leave it to the insurers as to whether or not they should pay out for care that could have reasonably been avoided.
As good old Abe said. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.This is why I don't social media
Funny you post this in bold large type when you are the one going around saying it won't make it thru the courts.. Of course, you think it is because you think the SCOTUS is going to block it... They won't! I will be surprised if they will even take the case."
Appeals court lets Biden administration enforce vaccine rules for large employers"llink
I assume we are now of to SCOTUS appeal, will see what they say.
