January 21, 20215 yr 29 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: Already laying the excuses out on the table in the event he fails to vaccinate 100 million in the first 100 days I see So you think the Trump administration did have a solid, efficient plan in place for vaccine distribution and the Biden administration is making that all up?
January 21, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: Now you’re just being redundant. Why not just admit that Sweden’s approach has been a failure? I don’t get it...
January 21, 20215 yr 34 minutes ago, Boogyman said: So you think the Trump administration did have a solid, efficient plan in place for vaccine distribution and the Biden administration is making that all up? No - I think exactly what I said - that they are making their excuse for failing public. I hope he doesn't fail - hell I hope he vaccinates 200 million in the first 100 days.
January 21, 20215 yr This is legitimately insane. Let's prioritize those that have made poor life choices and taken no responsibility for their health. This ties into the discussion on entitlements -- when you remove people from the consequences of their bad decisions, you get more bad decisions. This is even worse -- let's REWARD people for being irresponsible.
January 21, 20215 yr 13 minutes ago, vikas83 said: This is legitimately insane. Let's prioritize those that have made poor life choices and taken no responsibility for their health. This ties into the discussion on entitlements -- when you remove people from the consequences of their bad decisions, you get more bad decisions. This is even worse -- let's REWARD people for being irresponsible. It's an interesting discussion. Do you vaccinate these people for the overall good of society because they are really the people who will most likely burden the healthcare system when getting Covid? Other argument is vaccinating superspreader a holes who don't practice social distancing and don't have any regard for others. Vaccinating these people would be most effective in reducing the spread even though they may not deserve it before someone else. It's a strange dilemma between vaccinating those who maybe ethically deserve the vaccine more than others and vaccinating those who's vaccination will do the most overall good. I'm honestly not sure which is better, both sides have legitimate points.
January 21, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, downundermike said: They are still on one. They should stop paying their taxes to test the "no more fake income taxes or IRS" theory. See how that works out for them.
January 21, 20215 yr 20 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: No - I think exactly what I said - that they are making their excuse for failing public. I hope he doesn't fail - hell I hope he vaccinates 200 million in the first 100 days. But my question was do you think Trump had a plan in place? I mean if he didn't then they are just telling the public what the situation is right now at day 1.
January 21, 20215 yr 1 hour ago, Toastrel said: I don't understand your continued defense of a colossal failure. You don't seem to understand that explaining the why/how about something isn't the same thing as defending it.
January 21, 20215 yr 2 minutes ago, BirdsFanBill said: It's an interesting discussion. Do you vaccinate these people for the overall good of society because they are really the people who will most likely burden the healthcare system when getting Covid? Other argument is vaccinating superspreader a holes who don't practice social distancing and don't have any regard for others. Vaccinating these people would be most effective in reducing the spread even though they may not deserve it before someone else. It's a strange dilemma between vaccinating those who maybe ethically deserve the vaccine more than others and vaccinating those who's vaccination will do the most overall good. I try not to get into these discussions. While I totally get what vikas is saying, why reward folks that made bad choices with getting vaccinated before someone else? But the thing is, it is their choice to make. Or do we just eliminate fast food, soda, alcohol, and tobacco and all things that are so bad for us? Good luck with that.
January 21, 20215 yr 7 minutes ago, BirdsFanBill said: Other argument is vaccinating superspreader a holes who don't practice social distancing and don't have any regard for others. Vaccinating these people would be most effective in reducing the spread even though they may not deserve it before someone else. Yeah that would be a good thing to do. However, how does one identify the superspreaders?
January 21, 20215 yr 4 minutes ago, BirdsFanBill said: It's an interesting discussion. Do you vaccinate these people for the overall good of society because they are really the people who will most likely burden the healthcare system when getting Covid? Other argument is vaccinating superspreader a holes who don't practice social distancing and don't have any regard for others. Vaccinating these people would be most effective in reducing the spread even though they may not deserve it before someone else. It's a strange dilemma between vaccinating those who maybe ethically deserve the vaccine more than others and vaccinating those who's vaccination will do the most overall good. I'm honestly not sure which is better, both sides have legitimate points. It's part of a longer term discussion regarding incentive structures. You are actively punishing people who have made responsible choices and rewarding people who have been lazy and irresponsible. This only guarantees that you will get more and more irresponsible, lazy and stupid people overall. It's akin to giving people on welfare more money for having another kid -- so we are going to incentivize people who already can't afford to raise their kids to have..checks notes...more kids. Insurance companies should be allowed to charge overweight people and smokers more in premiums. Create consequences for bad behavior, not rewards.
January 21, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, DiPros said: I try not to get into these discussions. While I totally get what vikas is saying, why reward folks that made bad choices with getting vaccinated before someone else? But the thing is, it is their choice to make. Or do we just eliminate fast food, soda, alcohol, and tobacco and all things that are so bad for us? Good luck with that. Those aren't the choices. People are free to make whatever choices they want. But then let United Healthcare charge fat people and smokers more, since they will have greater health needs. Let auto insurers charge more to cover an alcoholic. Let the free market function.
January 21, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, vikas83 said: It's part of a longer term discussion regarding incentive structures. You are actively punishing people who have made responsible choices and rewarding people who have been lazy and irresponsible. This only guarantees that you will get more and more irresponsible, lazy and stupid people overall. It's akin to giving people on welfare more money for having another kid -- so we are going to incentivize people who already can't afford to raise their kids to have..checks notes...more kids. Insurance companies should be allowed to charge overweight people and smokers more in premiums. Create consequences for bad behavior, not rewards. It's kind of hard to game this out like you would with welfare or insurance premiums, since the pandemic is a one-time thing. I get your perspective on it, but I'm not sure if it applies since (hopefully) this will be the only pandemic these people live through.
January 21, 20215 yr 1 hour ago, Dave Moss said: Why not just admit that Sweden’s approach has been a failure? I don’t get it... I promised another poster to explain the rationale behind the strategy. I wasn't intending to defend it. As I said in my opinion, I think they got the strategy mostly right but failed on the execution and in at least the key nursing home area they failed miserably. So for sure there was a large failure there.
January 21, 20215 yr 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: It's part of a longer term discussion regarding incentive structures. You are actively punishing people who have made responsible choices and rewarding people who have been lazy and irresponsible. This only guarantees that you will get more and more irresponsible, lazy and stupid people overall. It's akin to giving people on welfare more money for having another kid -- so we are going to incentivize people who already can't afford to raise their kids to have..checks notes...more kids. Insurance companies should be allowed to charge overweight people and smokers more in premiums. Create consequences for bad behavior, not rewards. This I believe could work. I do pay higher premium for life insurance since I cannot stay smoke free for an entire year, which is when you are considered QUIT
January 21, 20215 yr 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: It's part of a longer term discussion regarding incentive structures. You are actively punishing people who have made responsible choices and rewarding people who have been lazy and irresponsible. This only guarantees that you will get more and more irresponsible, lazy and stupid people overall. It's akin to giving people on welfare more money for having another kid -- so we are going to incentivize people who already can't afford to raise their kids to have..checks notes...more kids. Insurance companies should be allowed to charge overweight people and smokers more in premiums. Create consequences for bad behavior, not rewards. Yeah but I think it's a different comparison. On one hand you're talking about mitigating the spread of a 100 year pandemic. On the other you're talking about general health and well being. You could make the case to behave differently in one than the other. I generally agree with not rewarding bad behavior, but in this circumstance it's a little different I'd say.
January 21, 20215 yr Just now, VanHammersly said: It's kind of hard to game this out like you would with welfare or insurance premiums, since the pandemic is a one-time thing. I get your perspective on it, but I'm not sure if it applies since (hopefully) this will be the only pandemic these people live through. So then we just act like their will be consequences for bad life decisions until there are actual consequences? So we are the parent that keeps threatening to take away the iPad, but then never follows through. That works out well.
January 21, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, DiPros said: This I believe could work. I do pay higher premium for life insurance since I cannot stay smoke free for an entire year, which is when you are considered QUIT And that's your choice to make, which I fully support. I used to smoke too. And I should have been charged more for health insurance because of it.
January 21, 20215 yr 1 hour ago, DiPros said: Thank you! Sent this info to my daughter. She's an educator and will be up next even before me, so I can't say I did it so can you! She's just afraid of it I think, so thank you for especially for the Emily Oster article that explains how the mRna works. Of course! Emily Oster is a personal favorite of mine. She has some videos out there as well if that helps.
January 21, 20215 yr 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: And that's your choice to make, which I fully support. I used to smoke too. And I should have been charged more for health insurance because of it. People who pay premiums and never file a claim, yes I feel they should be rewarded. I think one auto insurer does this
January 21, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, vikas83 said: And that's your choice to make, which I fully support. I used to smoke too. And I should have been charged more for health insurance because of it. This is the classic topic of where one can draw the lines. Of course one could assert that there shouldn't be any lines at all. For example, in the car insurance market females used to get lower rates because they were females. I'm not sure if that is still ok in the US. If one gender/race/age/whatever has a lesser need for health care should the cost for them be less for any variable or is there a set of variables which cannot be used to set price?
January 21, 20215 yr 5 minutes ago, DiPros said: This I believe could work. I do pay higher premium for life insurance since I cannot stay smoke free for an entire year, which is when you are considered QUIT at my current & previous employers, smokers do pay a higher premium for health insurance. the previous employer even had a smoking cessation plan to help ee's get off the cigs.
Create an account or sign in to comment