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

371–380 of 402 posts

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#371

Post by avs733 »

throwaway2077 wrote: post #167
avs733 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

please provide evidence to support this claim: "We have unelected officials who are making decisions against the will of the people."

did you vote for Ajit Pai?

I voted for the guy who nominated Pai as a commissioner and against the guy who nominated Pai to be the chairman and I voted for two senators who voted against his nomination to be chairman. I also voted for the guy who kicked his ass to the curb.

I didn't vote for the guys who made the decision to buy the F35, who audited my tax return, or who wrote the manual on uniform traffic control devices (and among all of these I have the most beef with them). But I voted for and against their bosses. I really really don't want my local mail carrier being an elected position, I and you and they have better things to do.

this country isn't a direct democracy, lets not act like it should be just when we disagree with the actions of those elected. These arguments are simply asinine because you know damn well this isn't how things work or were meant to work. You don't like the rule written by one 'unelected' lawyer in the executive branch so you are happy with it being overturned by another 'unelected' lawyer in the judicial branch...

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#372

Post by javagram »

bingohbangoh wrote: post #338
javagram wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Vaccine enforcement and mandates was not even considered as under their purview.” Even if the law as written allowed it? Since the OSHA act and Social security acts that give OSHA and CMS regulatory authority passed, the USA has never faced a deadly virus pandemic that could be combated with a vaccine. If Congress specifically wrote the law to allow flexibility for new situations it doesn’t make sense to me to argue…

Right, that's my point -- this is unprecedented and thus falls under "Congress needs to allow these agencies to do this" _not_ "these agencies can do this by default."

Even though Congress already wrote a law that gave the agencies authority to do unprecedented actions?

What I'm not seeing is engagement with the actual text of the statutes that Congress already wrote and put on the books. For instance, the OSHA Act specifically gave OSHA power to regulate "new hazards".

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title29/html... "1) The Secretary shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5 of title 5, for an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register if he determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger."

Similarly the Social Security act already gave broad power to issue regulations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395hh# "such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the administration of the insurance programs under this subchapter" "No rule, requirement, or other statement of policy (other than a national coverage determination) that establishes or changes a substantive legal standard governing the scope of benefits, the payment for services, or the eligibility of individuals, entities, or organizations to furnish or receive services or benefits under this subchapter shall take effect unless it is promulgated by the Secretary by regulation under paragraph (1)."

the Act clearly envisions the secretary having authority to change standards for benefits, payment for services, and eligibility. There's no limitation saying that eligibility criteria can be based on other safety measures, but not vaccines.

EDIT: and SCOTUS precedent interpreting this language in the past was clear about the scope of authority it gave. See page 34 of the PDF here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dGiMcVAxfziaoecQtd40-nERZr_...

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#373

Post by refurb »

cmh89 wrote: post #304
refurb wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly weak argument and the courts have already ruled similar issues. The government can’t violate your right to free speech. They also can’t “ask” a private company to censor you as it effectively the same thing. Telling someone “its your choice but if you don’t do it you’ll lose your livelihood” is not a choice at all.

Choices have consequences. I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job and the consequence of that choice is that my job would fire me. The ability of the government to establish vaccination requirements is long established. It's only becoming a hot topic now because anti-science folks have been programmed to fear a safe and effective vaccine.

It's clearly not an established process since Biden's mandates is being struck down.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#374

Post by traviswt »

beerandt wrote: post #198
traviswt wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, aut…

This is why nationalized/ government healthcare implementations, even at the level of Obamacare, are so dangerous. It literally gives government moral authority over who deserves care and who doesn't. "Universal" healthcare, as long as you're part of the universe that does exactly what the government tells you to do.

Which is why when social policies are adopted, they must be implemented as a minimum, not a maximum.

You should be allowed to have whatever private health care or sharing, etc you want, while having some basic amount of care commonly available. There will always be limits. Rich people can afford to hire their own private doctor and nurses. We can't realistically afford that for every individual.

And we have already identified these things really. From preventative care and reproductive health options which can be found free of charge, to things like EMTALA granting emergency care to everyone.

Identify the things which are fundamental and provide those to everyone, and allow the upper echelons and unique needs to operate in free market.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#375

Post by avs733 »

avs733 wrote: post #371
throwaway2077 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did you vote for Ajit Pai?

I voted for the guy who nominated Pai as a commissioner and against the guy who nominated Pai to be the chairman and I voted for two senators who voted against his nomination to be chairman. I also voted for the guy who kicked his ass to the curb. I didn't vote for the guys who made the decision to buy the F35, who audited my tax return, or who wrote the manual on uniform traffic control devices (and among all of the…

and i'll add to my own comment because honestly this line of argument just infuriates me.

define 'made the decision'. Who made the decision by your estiamtion? was it the president who directed aides to implement a vaccine mandate? was it the aid who decided it was most appropriate to do through CMS? was it the head of CMS who directed individuals in his organization? Was it the person who actually fired up microsoft word and WROTE the text? The person who published the final rule?

Your argument is a straw man to try and give the veneer of a high minded process complaint to something you simply disagree with on substance. It is characteristic of certain groups and it is unfortunately rarely actively critiqued. It has become common place and is fundamentally disruptive to productive discourse.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#376

Post by exodust »

cmh89 wrote: post #304
refurb wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly weak argument and the courts have already ruled similar issues. The government can’t violate your right to free speech. They also can’t “ask” a private company to censor you as it effectively the same thing. Telling someone “its your choice but if you don’t do it you’ll lose your livelihood” is not a choice at all.

Choices have consequences. I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job and the consequence of that choice is that my job would fire me. The ability of the government to establish vaccination requirements is long established. It's only becoming a hot topic now because anti-science folks have been programmed to fear a safe and effective vaccine.

> I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job

The difference is you flipped the switch and decided to turn up to work without clothes. You decided to radically change your behavior and actions in the workplace. This will obviously have consequences due to your unsightly naked body offending co-workers.

When someone doesn't flip any switch, but continues to work exactly as they did before, they have not done anything you can label a "choice with harsh consequences".

Unvaccinated people are not suddenly shedding and dangerous, in the way a naked person is shedding pubic hairs everywhere.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#377

Post by lpcvoid »

_Understated_ wrote: post #273
lpcvoid wrote: post #237

Vaccines should not be a personal freedom choice. They are a life saving invention, where did we go as a society that this is suddenly up for debate? Did people forget that we eradicated Polio, Tetanus, Hepatitis etc? Where does this sudden influx of people come from that are opposed to this absolute incredible work of science?

> Vaccines should not be a personal freedom choice. I don't do personal attacks but in your case I'll make an exception: you are a fucking psychopath if you think it's ok to tell people to get a jag for something that is killing literally no one right now! We're at around 100 deaths per day right now in the UK [0] and those stats don't actually tell you if they died FROM covid or merely had covid 28 days earlier when…

Wouldn't this imply that the vaccine is physically harmful to you? There is literally no argument against it if you don't imply that. Do you think it is? I am really interested to discuss this with somebody who isn't a conspiracy theorist, so I'd be happy if you can answer.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#378

Post by olliej »

dgfitz wrote: post #336
olliej wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren’t being forced to get vaccinated.

To get it out of the way, I’m fully vaxxed and I don’t think it should be mandated. No people aren’t being rounded up and stuck with needles against their will. Getting fired from a job is a big deal. Not being able to pay bills or buy food or care for a family, no health insurance, that’s a big deal. Surely you’re bright enough to distinguish between “forced full stop” or “forced and in extremely dire financial stra…

You are making a categorically, and objectively false, equivalence. But I suspect you know that.

If your job requires interacting with other people, then your not being vaccinated directly risks the health and life of those people. You don't get to say "it's my choice to intentionally risk harm to others" and then say "it's illegal to stop me from doing that".

For example, no one is required to be licensed as a doctor, but you don't get to do surgery on people if you aren't licensed.

The law doesn't prevent people from being alcoholics, but you don't get to be a drunk bus driver.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#379

Post by olliej »

chronofar wrote: post #299
olliej wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We require healthcare workers wash their hands. We require other vaccines. There is plenty of room for dissent, but it stops being “dissent” when it is simply denying reality.

> There is plenty of room for dissent, but it stops being “dissent” when it is simply denying reality. Ah yes of course, when the common view gets the label of “reality” dissent is no longer “dissent.” /s If only everyone could see the line in the same place, but well if that were the case I don’t suppose there’d be any dissent at all.

... cool, so if I can produce measurable numbers of objective fact is that now an opinion that is up for discussion?

I mean that is a common refrain among the various anti-basic science groups, but I'm curious if that is the view you take

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#380

Post by lpcvoid »

ghoward wrote: post #283
lpcvoid wrote: post #237

Vaccines should not be a personal freedom choice. They are a life saving invention, where did we go as a society that this is suddenly up for debate? Did people forget that we eradicated Polio, Tetanus, Hepatitis etc? Where does this sudden influx of people come from that are opposed to this absolute incredible work of science?

> They are a life saving invention, where did we go as a society that this is suddenly up for debate? So condoms, another life-saving invention, should also be mandated? Should you lose your job if you don't wear your seat belt? (Wearing a seat belt does save others by preventing you from becoming an out-of-control projectile and hitting others.) Should people be prevented from buying unpasteurized milk if they want…

Your examples are, in my opinion, poorly chosen - the only ones of relevance are the seatbelt and the smoking ones, since those actually can harm others. And in these cases, there have been laws put in place to limit other people's exposure to this danger, like seatbelt driving laws and smoke free areas.

What lies where there? The only point that I saw until now was the correlation of positive tests within 28 days that another commenter pointed out, but I don't know if that's directly a lie. Can you name one that specially bugs you?

I don't see why you refuse to call vaccines a science effort - it is wholly backed by decades of research when you consider the mRNA transport mechanism (and not the payload itself, I agree here).

Post reply on HN