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

131–140 of 402 posts

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#131

Post by Chris2048 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #107
roamerz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, the demographics of the court has changed. Thats a problem when the demographics of a ruling body affect rights protected by the Constitution. Wisely the Constitution also provides remedy for when that gets too out of hand: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I think one area the Constitution missed the boat is that when a politician or someone in delegated power make…

Are there any laws that don't infringe on someone's freedoms in some manner? Speeding, theft, discrimination, environmental protections, that's all infringing on one party's freedoms for the protection of themselves or others. That's basically what a law does, it restricts some form of freedom in an effort to provide some form of safety or equity.

Perhaps it should be specific to certain specific infringements.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#132

Post by runako »

golemotron wrote: post #38
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…

That's the key problem with the US now. Elected representatives are allowed to delegate law making. It breaks the line of accountability. It makes contentious issues worse.

> the key problem with the US now. Elected representatives are allowed to delegate law making.

Congress does not delegate lawmaking, Congress delegates the execution of its powers to the Executive branch. This is how the country has functioned since the beginning, for it would be impractical for it to work otherwise.

Say more: delegation will happen at some level, by definition. In military matters, every step or shot a soldier takes is a decision that has been delegated through a chain of command from Congress. Since Congress is not ever going to be in a position to execute every decision for every individual over which Congress has power, Congress inevitably will delegate the execution of its powers. It has always been this way, and will be this way as long as we have a republic.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#133

Post by pseudalopex »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #110
yissp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having had an abortion doesn't affect your ability to safely do your job. Being unvaccinated does.

does being vaccinated stop you from spreading it to your co-workers? what about all the WFH people mandated into vaccines? how does it impact that employer?

> does being vaccinated stop you from spreading it to your co-workers?

To a significant degree.

> what about all the WFH people mandated into vaccines?

This case wasn't about them.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#134

Post by jancsika »

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…

> Everything is a crisis and someone can solve it if they're just given the right permissions.

That's a facile statement. I'd have to bait an HN into playing devil's advocate just to get an opposing view.

What are the "Zig and Rust" of protecting democracy in a time of crisis? Or maybe more realistically-- if we want a "Zig and Rust" for making democracy "memory safe," what are the sources to start with? (Note: I'll filter any citations that rely on invisible hands or, "let's start by decentralizing all the thingies")

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#136

Post by traviswt »

Bhilai wrote: post #97

Mandates are probably not going to work but what would work is denying insurance claims. If someone ends up in a hospital occupying an ICU bed for an illness that could have been prevented by a vaccine widely and freely available then insurance companies (and medicare) should refuse to pay thousands of dollars for their treatment. It was their choice not to use preventative care available.

Is it just this specific situation that causes you to feel that way? Or should all diseases which have some amount of preventative protocol be treated the same, perhaps STDs?

And what about other choices that impact emergency care? Obesity related illness and injuries, smoking and other cancer-inducing habits, dangerous activities such as motor sports and rock climbing, workplace injuries without appropriate PPE, auto accidents without helmets and seat belts, etc.

And who is it that gets to be the moral arbiter of what is acceptable? To me, it seems like whoever is in power. What happens when “the other side” from your perspective wins an election cycle?

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#137

Post by ryandrake »

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…

> That's a good point. 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 (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) that I have never heard of until now and whose head is appointed by one person.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts[1] established that it is within the State's power to mandate vaccinations, so shouldn't this be up to individual states? I'm also pro- nationwide mandatory vaccinations, but Congress also doesn't seem to be the right way to do it.

1: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#138

Post by SkyPuncher »

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?

The person you're replying to has a slightly incorrect statement. At least to my knowledge.

CMS only controls this for patients covered by Medicaid/Medicare. It can set the tone for the entire industry, but does not solely control the industry. Typically, they create influence by setting/rejecting Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement standards. Since enough patients are covered by CMS, it tends to be easier for hospitals to broadly adopt the policies.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#139

Post by tfandango »

JavaBatman wrote: post #121
Bhilai wrote: post #97

Mandates are probably not going to work but what would work is denying insurance claims. If someone ends up in a hospital occupying an ICU bed for an illness that could have been prevented by a vaccine widely and freely available then insurance companies (and medicare) should refuse to pay thousands of dollars for their treatment. It was their choice not to use preventative care available.

That also doesn't work because that same precedent can be used for other preventative health issues such as obesity. "Well, you shouldn't have been eating all those cheeseburgers, sorry"

I think you have a point, it's a fine line, but say there was a shot which could prevent you from becoming obese and all the problems that come with it? Now I'm going to kind of argue against myself here, but as I write this I think a better comparison would be Flu, you can get a Flu shot and pretty much stay out of the hospital. People end up in the hospital with Flu every year and insurance covers that. I guess this is all to say after some reflection, I can see both sides to the argument.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#140

Post by peter422 »

hammock wrote: post #25
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…

>Too often we look at the end results (e.g. will this increase vaccination rates) Even that might not be quite the best end result to be looking for (unless you own the jab patents). Shouldn't we be looking at clinical outcomes of covid patients, or counts of severe covid cases instead? If we optimized for marriage rate in the world we might end up with a whole lot of unhappy couples and/or broken homes.

Vaccinated people have far, far fewer cases of severe covid and far fewer deaths. What else do you want them to look at?
Post reply on HN