Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 402 posts

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#51

Post by loudtieblahblah »

bko wrote: post #32
mattzito wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the role of the CMS, as established by congress, is to set the guidelines of care and standards of participation for providers who opt to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. They set rules for everything from how many hospitals can be owned by a single entity, to what sorts of qualifications are required for hospital administrators, to what types of medical orders are allowed to be given to patients. T…

> to what types of medical orders are allowed to be given to patients Suppose an anti-abortion president gets elected and he elects someone as head and tells them that health care providers that accept medicare or medicaid cannot provide abortions. Not making it illegal per-se, but just for the providers that accept medicare or medicaid for any of their services. You okay with this as well?

i'm pretty sure the average person on Hacker News would be ok with the Social Security administration banning gas powered leaf blowers.

This place has become as intellectually low-brow as Twitter and Reddit.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#52

Post by jaywalk »

runako wrote: post #26
sieabahlpark wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you moving the goal posts? No one said the population should directly vote on it. They said the representatives (who the people voted for) should be deciding through the legislature, not through a single appointed person.

> it is a Senate confirmed position - she was approved with a vote of 55-44 (with five R votes). The elected representatives chose to delegate this power to the person they approved as the head of CMS. What principle would be involved in requiring Congress to execute its powers in a different manner (i.e. by not delegating), simply because one does not like the outcome in this case? Who would decide which powers Cong…

> The elected representatives chose to delegate this power to the person they approved as the head of CMS.

The courts clearly disagree with you.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#53

Post by kiba »

roamerz wrote: post #45
mattzito wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the role of the CMS, as established by congress, is to set the guidelines of care and standards of participation for providers who opt to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. They set rules for everything from how many hospitals can be owned by a single entity, to what sorts of qualifications are required for hospital administrators, to what types of medical orders are allowed to be given to patients. T…

Except this isn’t about almost anything else. This is about control over one’s body. This is from someone who chose freely to get the vaccine. Even at my own peril I support other’s freedom to choose.

Your freedom to control over one's body ends when it comes to the safety and health of other people's bodies. That's why herd immunity is a thing.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#54

Post by teeray »

mattzito wrote: post #31
bko wrote: post #3

> Doughty said the CMS lacked the authority to issue a vaccine mandate that would require more than 2 million unvaccinated healthcare workers to get a coronavirus shot. > "There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million healthcare workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency," wrote Doughty. That's a good point. You can agree that its within the federal authority to mand…

Except that the role of the CMS, as established by congress, is to set the guidelines of care and standards of participation for providers who opt to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. They set rules for everything from how many hospitals can be owned by a single entity, to what sorts of qualifications are required for hospital administrators, to what types of medical orders are allowed to be given to patients. T…

Sure, that’s the loophole. What’s happening here is yet another end-run around the democratic process. People are tired of emergency powers, executive orders, and delegated authority being used to enact some of the most impactful laws of our time. We want the Schoolhouse Rock version of law-making because we at least get something of a say in it.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#55

Post by bko »

invokestatic wrote: post #36
bko wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Requiring employees to be vaccinated as a condition to accepting Medicare seems pretty reasonable to me. That's just a backdoor for giving more power to the federal branch. Its like 'interstate commerce' where anything that has interstate implications (pretty much everything) can be influenced by the federal government. What if an anti-abortion president elected someone to this board and told them that no health ca…

It's interesting you bring up both commerce clause and abortion as I'm currently taking a constitutional law class covering both issues. The commerce clause did wildly expand through the 20th century, but I just want to point out that US v Lopez substantially cut back Congress' Commerce power. It laid out clear restrictions to what and when Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Further cases like NF…

Thanks for the insight. I wasn't aware of US v Lopez. The most egregious use I found of the commerce clause was Wickard v Filburn. It was a depression era ruling that said the federal government had the right to prevent a farmer on growing food on his own land to feed his livestock in opposition to a law meant to 'stabilize wheat prices' by having farmers not grow food. Ever since then I was no a fan of commerce clause. Would something like this be possible today or did US v Lopez make this impossible?

> Conversely, there is no constitutional right to /not/ get a vaccine

Doesn't it need to be framed as the government having the right to apply a medical treatment to me against my will?

I have a constitutional right to bare arms but presumably the federal government can decry that I do not have the right in certain places. Or is that not an affirmative right.

[EDIT] It appears that is what US v Lopez is about (federal restriction of guns near schools)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#56

Post by wrycoder »

petesergeant wrote: post #30
bko wrote: post #3

> Doughty said the CMS lacked the authority to issue a vaccine mandate that would require more than 2 million unvaccinated healthcare workers to get a coronavirus shot. > "There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million healthcare workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency," wrote Doughty. That's a good point. You can agree that its within the federal authority to mand…

> You can agree that its within the federal authority to mandate vaccines, but it really should be a decision made and explicitly endorsed by elected representatives rather than some agency I'm from a country (UK) where parliament has absolute power, but also where the populace largely trusts the civil service. Health decisions, prosecution decisions, and so on are explicitly devolved from the government so that they…

Except in the US, the civil service is politicized and its employees are 95% in favor of one party, as shown by their political donations history.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#57

Post by mikem170 »

AuthorizedCust wrote: post #41
bko wrote: post #3

> Doughty said the CMS lacked the authority to issue a vaccine mandate that would require more than 2 million unvaccinated healthcare workers to get a coronavirus shot. > "There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million healthcare workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency," wrote Doughty. That's a good point. You can agree that its within the federal authority to mand…

> Could you imagine a news report about how the much touted vaccine efficacy of 95% didn't really pan out? It didn’t pan out because of Delta, a way more infectious variant that became common well after the 95% figure was determined. And it’s fully accurate to say that despite Delta, the vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization, and death. I think that’s a very good thing!

Or did they just not run the trials long enough to detect the efficacy dropping?

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#58

Post by geewee »

zamadatix wrote: post #2

Original title is much more accurate "Courts block two Biden administration COVID vaccine mandates", the edited one here "Courts block Covid vaccine mandates for healthcare workers nationwide" implies something much larger in scope.

Also if you're not US-based.. which nation?

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#59

Post by loudtieblahblah »

belltaco wrote: post #50
roamerz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this isn’t about almost anything else. This is about control over one’s body. This is from someone who chose freely to get the vaccine. Even at my own peril I support other’s freedom to choose.

These are healthcare workers. Jobs have requirements. They're free to quit instead of increasing the dangers of disease for their sick and older patients who are at highest risk for covid. No one is controlling their body any more than making it show up at work in order to get paid. Coal miners are forced to work in dangerous conditions around the world in order to keep their job. Getting a vaccine is far less risk,…

so you'd be cool with employers banning employees who get an abortion.

something, something, consequences.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#60

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bko wrote: post #32
mattzito wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the role of the CMS, as established by congress, is to set the guidelines of care and standards of participation for providers who opt to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. They set rules for everything from how many hospitals can be owned by a single entity, to what sorts of qualifications are required for hospital administrators, to what types of medical orders are allowed to be given to patients. T…

> to what types of medical orders are allowed to be given to patients Suppose an anti-abortion president gets elected and he elects someone as head and tells them that health care providers that accept medicare or medicaid cannot provide abortions. Not making it illegal per-se, but just for the providers that accept medicare or medicaid for any of their services. You okay with this as well?

> Suppose an anti-abortion president gets elected and he elects someone as head and tells them that health care providers that accept medicare or medicaid cannot provide abortions

Not comparable. Based on current law, abortion is a Constitutionally-protected right. Based on precedent from the Spanish-flu era, the government has broad public health powers.

All that said, as someone who isn’t a fan of how much power Congress has ceded to the executive through administrative powers (which delegate legislative powers to the executive through rulemaking), I wouldn’t mind seeing those curtailed.

Post reply on HN