Tying Stimulus to Vaccines

For or Against: Should we tie the next round of COVID relief direct payments to getting vaccinated

  • For

  • Against


Results are only viewable after voting.

Bleipriester

Freedom!
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
27,340
Reaction score
2,177
Points
275
Location
Stupid-19
Good idea, lets see how quick the needle penetrates the tinfoil.
Nice.

My thing is this. Any 2 choice plank pretty much creates 4 scenarios.

You want the check but not the shot
You want the shot but not the check
You want both the shot and the check
You want neither the shot or the check

I think a winning position is this?

If the shot is made available in 1/1/2021 for example.
If you get the shot between 1/1/2021 to 6/1/2021, you get a stimulus check
After that....you can get the shot but no check.

The idea is to get the population inoculated. If it's framed that way...I think it works better. Just either/or is too coercive as far as it goes. My "no" is a soft no.
One week might be too short. Could be a sort of a lottery whether you get your turn within that few days.
Clearly you don't live in the U.S. and haven't been completely schooled about the culture here. . . . :heehee:


. . . a few days. . . . :auiqs.jpg:


That's rich. What do you think this is, Mexico?
You made me reread that. 6 months should be enough, you are right.
Too late.

We know you are a Russian bot now.

Actually, I am not even hiding it. See here:
 

MisterBeale

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
28,859
Reaction score
10,463
Points
900
How do we prove we had the vaccine filling out an online application? It's a clever incentive, but #1) technically difficult to implement and #2) it will be summer, at least, before everyone can be immunized. Hopefully, they aren't waiting that long for the next stimulus check?
Screw how they are going to prove someone got the vaccine ... Where'd they get the money to write the fools a stimulus check ... :thup:
You live in a world of make believe money, that is tied to nothing more than expanding Governmental control.

.
Have the healthcare professional administering the vaccine sign off.
How?
No one can "sign off" on stripping you of your autonomy and sovereignty but yourself.

He's bullshitting you.

Vaccine manufacturers have legal immunity, thus, the person taking the vaccine has to be willing and fully responsible for taking the dose and accept the consequences.

I did a little research, and it turns out, the Vaccines for this disease are unique, they are not covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Instead? They are covered by something called the, "Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP)." However, there is a very important caveat, one must be sure that which ever, and what ever version of the vaccine they are being administered, is actually covered under this program. . . otherwise? It would appear you are. . . well, out of luck.


Frequently Asked Questions: CICP
"Will the CICP provide compensation to individuals injured by COVID-19 vaccines?

COVID-19 vaccines are covered countermeasures under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), not the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to certain individuals or estates of individuals who sustain a covered serious physical injury as the direct result of the administration or use of covered countermeasures identified in and administered or used under a PREP Act declaration. The CICP also may provide benefits to certain survivors of individuals who die as a direct result of the administration or use of such covered countermeasures. The PREP Act declaration for medical countermeasures against COVID-19 states that the covered countermeasures are:

  • any antiviral, any other drug, any biologic, any diagnostic, any other device, any respiratory protective device, or any vaccine, used
    • to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, mitigate or limit the harm from COVID-19, or the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, or
    • to limit the harm that COVID-19, or the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, might otherwise cause; or
  • any device used in the administration of any such product, and all components and constituent materials of any such product.

Covered Countermeasures must be ''qualified pandemic or epidemic products,'' or ''security countermeasures,'' or drugs, biological products, or devices authorized for investigational or emergency use, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Public Health Service Act, or a respiratory protective device approved by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under 42 CFR part 84, or any successor regulations, that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services determines to be a priority for use during a public health emergency declared under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act.

For a category of vaccines to be covered by the VICP, the category of vaccines must be recommended for routine administration to children or pregnant women by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, subject to an excise tax by federal law, and added to the VICP by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This has not been done for any COVID-19 vaccines to date.

Occasionally, a pandemic, epidemic, or security danger threatens our country. To combat these threats, the government supports the development of countermeasures.. . . "
 

The Irish Ram

LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
17,510
Reaction score
5,501
Points
350
Location
diagonally parked in a parallel universe
Nobody likes polio, right? It could show up again at anytime. How about they tie a polio vaccine to your tax return. Pay $1,000 less in taxes for you and any dependent who has taken the vaccine in your household.
Would you take it? Would you have your children take it?
 

MisterBeale

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
28,859
Reaction score
10,463
Points
900

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,169
Reaction score
4,879
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
You know I put the public good first in some situations. I'd shut some people up, too. Not one bit embarrassed about it either.
If a person has a Constitutionally protected right to decide what happens with their body ...
Then that right doesn't cease to exist at abortion, or when it becomes inconvenient for the next foolish desire.

That's the problem ... It has nothing to do with the public good, but compliance.

.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
65,668
Reaction score
16,449
Points
2,220
You know I put the public good first in some situations. I'd shut some people up, too. Not one bit embarrassed about it either.
If a person has a Constitutionally protected right to decide what happens with their body ...
Then that right doesn't cease to exist at abortion, or when it becomes inconvenient for the next foolish desire.

That's the problem ... It has nothing to do with the public good, but compliance.

.
It has everything to do with the public good. You'll not change my mind on that, so don't waste your breath.
 

MisterBeale

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
28,859
Reaction score
10,463
Points
900
Hello.

Smerconish had a great poll question on his site and I wanted to get our board's input.

Essentially it goes like this. When we have our second round of stimulus tie getting your direct payment from the Government to whether you have taken one of the vaccines. The amount being talked about is $1,500. For a family of four, that is $6,000.


www.Smerconish.com
Well that didn’t take long for you people to go full fascist.
If you're too scared of a needle, don't take the stimulus. No one is making you get the shot.

I wish there was a way we could make you, though.
Don't Taz Me is right.

Due to HIPA, this would be clearly Unconstitutional, it would violate equal protection laws.

Those who object based on philosophical and religious grounds are not being protected.
Then they could amend HIPA on this specific issue as part of the stimulus bill.
That would only enable them to see who has, and who hasn't taken the vaccine, it still would not let them get around the equal protection of the law. Certain groups, both religious, and philosophical health groups, see no need for it. The government might know who they are by doing away with HIPA protections, and thus be able to administer the program, but then?

It becomes discriminatory. It would be the same as if the government decided that it wanted to have a program that only benefited Atheists, Christians and Jews. . . but decided if you are a Christian Scientist or naturopathic, you aren't allowed to partake in the government's entitlement program.

I really don't think you understand "equal protection," or else your world view doesn't give a shit. . . it is totalitarian and belongs somewhere like China.

In the United States, we make a way for all points of view, and all types of life styles. . . and we don't steal the taxes of the people to support some folks view points, and not others.
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,169
Reaction score
4,879
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
It has everything to do with the public good. You'll not change my mind on that, so don't waste your breath.
I wouldn't try to change your mind, Little Stalin ... You are lost and not worth saving.
I just present alternatives to your dark foolishness.

.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
65,668
Reaction score
16,449
Points
2,220
It has everything to do with the public good. You'll not change my mind on that, so don't waste your breath.
I wouldn't try to change your mind, Little Stalin.
I just present alternatives to your dark foolishness.

.
See, I don't see it that way at all. I see it as a ray of light in the darkness of selfishness, ignorance and hostility.
 

MisterBeale

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
28,859
Reaction score
10,463
Points
900
You know I put the public good first in some situations. I'd shut some people up, too. Not one bit embarrassed about it either.
If a person has a Constitutionally protected right to decide what happens with their body ...
Then that right doesn't cease to exist at abortion, or when it becomes inconvenient for the next foolish desire.

That's the problem ... It has nothing to do with the public good, but compliance.

.
It has everything to do with the public good. You'll not change my mind on that, so don't waste your breath.
. . . and YOU won't change your mind on what you believe is the "public good."

This disease has a mortality rate less than the Hong Kong flu of '68, yet you want to force folks to take the product of BIG PHARMA, based on some abstract, "public good?" Who decides that?

You can't prove harm here, nor can you prove this vaccine has a better success rate than the populations own immune systems.

You can't give a good reason why it should be anything more than voluntary. I see no reason why anyone other than high risk populations should take it.
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,169
Reaction score
4,879
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
See, I don't see it that way at all. I see it as a ray of light in the darkness of selfishness, ignorance and hostility.
Of course you do ... And you think making sure someone else does what you approve of is selfless, smart and non-aggressive.
I'm not arguing with you ...You do a good enough job of explaining exactly what you think.

.
 
OP
candycorn

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
72,892
Reaction score
15,201
Points
2,180
Good idea, lets see how quick the needle penetrates the tinfoil.
Nice.

My thing is this. Any 2 choice plank pretty much creates 4 scenarios.

You want the check but not the shot
You want the shot but not the check
You want both the shot and the check
You want neither the shot or the check

I think a winning position is this?

If the shot is made available in 1/1/2021 for example.
If you get the shot between 1/1/2021 to 6/1/2021, you get a stimulus check
After that....you can get the shot but no check.

The idea is to get the population inoculated. If it's framed that way...I think it works better. Just either/or is too coercive as far as it goes. My "no" is a soft no.
I'll do it for $10,000,000.

Otherwise, I will ride the Valkyrie and go to Valhalla before I let ANYONE shoot that shit in me. FUCK OFF!!!
Good to know.
 
OP
candycorn

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
72,892
Reaction score
15,201
Points
2,180
Hello.

Smerconish had a great poll question on his site and I wanted to get our board's input.

Essentially it goes like this. When we have our second round of stimulus tie getting your direct payment from the Government to whether you have taken one of the vaccines. The amount being talked about is $1,500. For a family of four, that is $6,000.

Smerconish.com
nothing like a little fascist government control to brighten our holidays,,,
Not sure how that is control. It's an incentive.
How do we prove we had the vaccine filling out an online application? It's a clever incentive, but #1) technically difficult to implement and #2) it will be summer, at least, before everyone can be immunized. Hopefully, they aren't waiting that long for the next stimulus check?
It would be relatively easy to implement. As the place you go to get your injection (clinic, Walgreens, CVS, hospital, VA, etc....) will send the information to the government.
It would cause an immediate shortage which I think is one reason not to do it. I think there'll be a line anyway but now you put $1,500 into the mix and you may have people clawing at each other to be first.
 
OP
candycorn

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
72,892
Reaction score
15,201
Points
2,180
Hello.

Smerconish had a great poll question on his site and I wanted to get our board's input.

Essentially it goes like this. When we have our second round of stimulus tie getting your direct payment from the Government to whether you have taken one of the vaccines. The amount being talked about is $1,500. For a family of four, that is $6,000.

Smerconish.com
nothing like a little fascist government control to brighten our holidays,,,
Not sure how that is control. It's an incentive.
It would be an incentive to awaken mass murderers.
You guys are so dumb....
so says the useful idiot that would let a government pay them to take a vaccine,,,
I'm getting it either way as a healthcare worker so fuck off.
 
OP
candycorn

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
72,892
Reaction score
15,201
Points
2,180
Hello.

Smerconish had a great poll question on his site and I wanted to get our board's input.

Essentially it goes like this. When we have our second round of stimulus tie getting your direct payment from the Government to whether you have taken one of the vaccines. The amount being talked about is $1,500. For a family of four, that is $6,000.


www.Smerconish.com
Seems reasonable to me.
I see plusses and minuses. I come down on the "no" side myself. But I thought it was an interesting proposition so I made the poll.
 
OP
candycorn

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
72,892
Reaction score
15,201
Points
2,180
Hello.

Smerconish had a great poll question on his site and I wanted to get our board's input.

Essentially it goes like this. When we have our second round of stimulus tie getting your direct payment from the Government to whether you have taken one of the vaccines. The amount being talked about is $1,500. For a family of four, that is $6,000.
I doubt that would be Constitutional
Not sure why you would say that. We incentivize things all the time.
 
OP
candycorn

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
72,892
Reaction score
15,201
Points
2,180
If you are basically having to bribe people to take one of vaccines isn't that saying you don't really have any confidence in it and make even more people not want to take it?
The way the congressman described it....it isn't a bribe to take the vaccine. Its a way to engender public health which benefits the greater good through mass vax. It will help stop the spread, the infection rates, the hospitalizations, and the deaths. If we're going to shell out another $500B-$2T in relief...doing so in a way that ensures more will get inoculated makes more sense than pushing the monies out and having another spike that we could have avoided.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top