Court ruled mandates okay for health facilities. What if we had government healthcare?

[Orangecat]

Just ask him to provide credible proof like I did a few posts back in this thread. He will down vote you then link a story that has nothing to do with it and when you say it has nothing to do with the point he will down vote you again and stop replying.

These dimwits need to be intellectually humiliated, even though they're rarely perceptive enough to realize it's been done. Everyone else can see.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

20 times more staff has quit to avoid being infected by unvaccinated repubtards, than ever quit because of vaccine mandates.

Then those are healthcare workers we don't need if they don't understand that you can get covid from vaccinated patients or unvaccinated patients. They are not listening to science but instead listening to Democrat propaganda.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your reasoning is a little backwards. The mandate remains because the government has the ability to demand standards for businesses who are going to contract with it to provide medical care and be reimbursed through Medicare/Medicaid.

Those who are receiving Medicare/Medicaid have no such obligations. It's totally different.

We don't know that. The suit against Dementia was because of his mandate on workers and not the patient, so that's all the SC ruled on. But the question is what if the mandate was on anybody receiving government paid care? What about all the people on Commie Care? Most of them are being subsidized by the government. After all this ruling was in favor of the government for the sole reason they get government money.

In other words let's say there was no Medicare, Medicaid or Commie Care and these facilities were all funded privately. The court would have ruled in favor of stopping the mandate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is what I want. 99% of covid patients admitted to hospital are unvaccinated or vaccination has expired. Less than 1% have had their booster. Ambulances were waiting 8 hours to get patients into ER due to massive influx of covids.

Anyone not following Doctors orders or unvaccinated, should be denied any tax payer funded or subsidized care. Massive tax savings & better care for those who appreciate the hard work & sacrifice of the medical community.

Thank you for making my point. If government is paying for your care, then government can control you. One of the many reasons we don't need to expand government funded healthcare. We don't need them having more control over our health decisions.

 

[colfax_m]

But the question is what if the mandate was on anybody receiving government paid care?

But it's not and no one has suggested that it should be.

This ruling has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what you're suggesting.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But it's not and no one has suggested that it should be.

This ruling has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what you're suggesting.

Of course it does because the ruling was based on government funding as the key for this mandate being constitutional.

 

[colfax_m]

Thank you for making my point. If government is paying for your care, then government can control you.

The government pays for the care of tens of something like 80 million people. If this premise were accurate or realistic, then surely there's an example of government controlling these millions of people.

 

[colfax_m]

Of course it does because the ruling was based on government funding as the key for this mandate being constitutional.

The funding that is being provided to medical services providers who are electing to provide services under contract with the government.

That has no relationship to beneficiaries of those services.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The funding that is being provided to medical services providers who are electing to provide services under contract with the government.

That has no relationship to beneficiaries of those services.

Again we don't know that because the suit was not about patients, it was about workers at the facility. The court only rules on the case brought before them, not to make addendums on potential cases in the future. They are not going to rule "the mandate stands because of government funding, AND they can also force patients to be vaccinated." They only rule that the mandate is constitutional because the facilities do get government funding.

The bottom line is government has this control because of government money. How far that extends we will never know until the commies try to make another mandate for people receiving federal money.

 

[colfax_m]

Again we don't know that because the suit was not about patients, it was about workers at the facility. The court only rules on the case brought before them, not to make addendums on potential cases in the future. They are not going to rule "the mandate stands because of government funding, AND they can also force patients to be vaccinated." They only rule that the mandate is constitutional because the facilities do get government funding.

The bottom line is government has this control because of government money. How far that extends we will never know until the commies try to make another mandate for people receiving federal money.

You are basically agreeing with me that the court case had absolutely nothing to do with patients so everything you said is speculative nonsense.

The bottom line is that you're just making up controversy where there is none.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are basically agreeing with me that the court case had absolutely nothing to do with patients so everything you said is speculative nonsense.

The bottom line is that you're just making up controversy where there is none.

The bottom line is government funding was the basis of their decision. If healthcare facilities had no government funding, their decision would have mirrored their decision on private companies.

It's a serious consideration when the subject of government healthcare comes up in the future.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. There are only two things that shall come to pass, its proven with certainty the election of 2020 was stolen, or not stolen.
2. If its proven to be stolen, the election should be reversed, in three days.
3. If one way or another isn't proven to be certainly stolen, and nothings done, then this nation will collapse.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas