No jab = higher health insurance premiums

[Left Coast]

Yes, you think others are wrong. In this case it is clear that the airline is doing the ethical thing. Their workers are not unionized. Not because of union busting for lower wages, but because they pay them well enough so that in a competitive job market the employees still see that there is an advantage to represent themselves. They are well paid, so the argument "what if they cannot afford the extra $200 fails".

...I'msorry, but that is an absurd oversimplification of why non-union employees don't unionize. "We get paid plenty here" is rarely the reason. Do you know how much a typical flight attendant makes?

No one is saying that they will lose their coverage. They will only pay an extra $200. per month because they refuse to perform a reasonable act.

And again, if they can't afford to pay that, what happens?

And do you know who else supports this sort of surcharge? Obama. In the AOC a surplus can be charged to smokers. And not a small one either. Smoking is an act that everyone else has to pay for if that is not the case. That is not ethical. Covid care is something that everyone else has to pay for that is not fair to do their part to end this.

If they can charge extra for smokers, which is an addiction by the way, very hard to quit, they can charge extra for not getting a vaccine that is so close to painless that I did not feel when I tried to:
What You Need to Know About Smoking and Health Insurance

"Obama supports it" is just an appeal to authority, so I don't find that terribly persuasive.

Again, my preference is for a system of universal care that addresses social determinants of health rather than the carrot/stick individual behavior approach. You disagree. Okay.

 

[Left Coast]

Nope. Is context a problem for you. You made this claim:

It's about what factors influence their decision to get vaccinated.

Then you posted some "doctors recommendations" and that really is not going to help at this time. We are far past that. One has to be deaf blind and dumb if one needs a doctors recommendation and people that have not been vaccinated are unlikely to do so because of that reason. I know too many deniers. The hep from doctors saying "Well you really should get the vaccination" will not help.

Okay, then you're not interested in the academic literature on the subject. Which is ironic, given your rightful criticism of anti-vaxxers. Your anecdotal experiences do not outweigh what research has shown actually moves the needle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

...I'msorry, but that is an absurd oversimplification of why non-union employees don't unionize. "We get paid plenty here" is rarely the reason. Do you know how much a typical flight attendant makes?

Not a lot but not a little. And yes, pay is the number one consideration for unions. After that it is how one is treated on the job and they are reconsidering due to that. But pay does not appear to be an issue. You have been making claims and rarely supporting them. Never properly.

And again, if they can't afford to pay that, what happens?

But they can. That has already been established. Now you may have a higher wage than flight attendants, but that does not mean that they cannot afford the basics of life.

"Obama supports it" is just an appeal to authority, so I don't find that terribly persuasive.

Again, my preference is for a system of universal care that addresses social determinants of health rather than the carrot/stick individual behavior approach. You disagree. Okay.

And a proper one. An appeal to authority is not a fallacy if it is an appropriate authority. The experts that wrote the AOC could see that it was fair that people pay for their behavior that puts them at risk.

And lets' not forget. The problem with the unvaccinated is much bigger than it is for smokers. They only put themselves at risk. The unvaccinated put others at risk too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, then you're not interested in the academic literature on the subject. Which is ironic, given your rightful criticism of anti-vaxxers. Your anecdotal experiences do not outweigh what research has shown actually moves the needle.

By just the titles they did not seem to do what you claimed.. Sadly there were no hard numbers that I saw, just claims of "more likely". You really need a bit more than that.

 

[Left Coast]

Not a lot but not a little. And yes, pay is the number one consideration for unions. After that it is how one is treated on the job and they are reconsidering due to that. But pay does not appear to be an issue. You have been making claims and rarely supporting them. Never properly.

That is ironic given that you made a bunch of claims just now and didn't support them.

But they can. That has already been established.

No, it's been claimed. Not established. Particularly not regarding Delta specifically.

Now you may have a higher wage than flight attendants, but that does not mean that they cannot afford the basics of life.

Speaking for myself, an extra $200/month bill would be a considerable financial burden. I don't know how much you make but for a typical American that is no small chunk of change.

And a proper one. An appeal to authority is not a fallacy if it is an appropriate authority. The experts that wrote the AOC could see that it was fair that people pay for their behavior that puts them at risk.

Firstly, do you mean the ACA? Affordable Care Act?

In terms of what's "fair," again that places the onus on individuals to earn the right to have coverage. The ACA is not a system of universal coverage. Coverage under the ACA remains unattainably unaffordable for many.

Which again, is why I'd prefer a system that focuses on systemic change to actually ensure universality of coverage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is ironic given that you made a bunch of claims just now and didn't support them.

Then debate one point at a time. Don't Gish Gallop.

[quote[



No, it's been claimed. Not established. Particularly not regarding Delta specifically.[/quote]

It has been, but you deny it. What sort of info do you need? I am tired of your Gish Gallops. Try to calm down a bit.

Speaking for myself, an extra $200/month bill would be a considerable financial burden. I don't know how much you make but for a typical American that is no small chunk of change.

I would not want to pay it but I could. But once again this is a matter of personal choice, There is an easy fix if it is excessive.

Firstly, do you mean the ACA? Affordable Care Act?

Yes, sorry, my mistake.

In terms of what's "fair," again that places the onus on individuals to earn the right to have coverage. The ACA is not a system of universal coverage. Coverage under the ACA remains unattainably unaffordable for many.

No, it just says that if one is going to be foolish that they have to pay for it. You seem to have a strange idea of what "earn the right to coverage" means. That is probably due to the fallacy embedded in the claim. There is no "right to coverage". Nor should there be. Calling it a "right" is a bad idea.

Which again, is why I'd prefer a system that focuses on systemic change to actually ensure universality of coverage.

Even then there should be penalties for actions that cost others money.

 

[Left Coast]

By just the titles they did not seem to do what you claimed.. Sadly there were no hard numbers that I saw, just claims of "more likely". You really need a bit more than that.

Okay, so you did not actually read them very carefully, it sounds like.

I'm signing off for the evening. Before I go, I do hope that you recall that we actually agree on quite a bit more than we disagree, it seems to me. I'm not your enemy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, so you did not actually read them very carefully, it sounds like.

I'm signing off for the evening. Before I go, I do hope that you recall that we actually agree on quite a bit more than we disagree, it seems to me. I'm not your enemy.

I did eventually. I do have to admit that I initially read just the titles. It seems that all they have re tactics to increase the odds of someone accepting the vaccinations. And that is not a totally worthless cause. But it seems to be far short of being effective. And I do agree that healthcare sucks in the US. I do know quite a few people on the lower rungs and they have a higher level of distrust and do not even have an opportunity to regularly see a doctor. The AOC has fallen far short of its goals. They got perhaps halfway to their goal if that. It is time for government healthcare, but if that becomes such a thing we may need to find a way to eventually eliminate tobacco.

 

[Nakosis]

Race is a social construct, it is not a genetic one. People do not have to follow the actions of their race if they are involved in destructive behavior. There is no "it is my racial heritage" exception when one is tried for various felonies.

I don't think it is entirely a conscious choice. Our culture, upbringing, genetics, environment all effect who we are. Some elements about us we can't escape.
If we are smart or innovative or educated perhaps we can mitigate it somewhat but never entirely where/what we came from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think it is entirely a conscious choice. Our culture, upbringing, genetics, environment all effect who we are. Some elements about us we can't escape.
If we are smart or innovative or educated perhaps we can mitigate it somewhat but never entirely where/what we came from.

That is true. But we are supposed to be adults too. I don't want to five the government too much to power.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And at this point anyone that is not vaccinated is some sort of antivaxxer.

So...

So, exempt people are against vaccines too?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So...

So, exempt people are against vaccines too?

Nice quote mine.