Do vaccine refusers have an ethical duty to pay for their own Covid care?

[Swerd]

One issue is that the vaccines are not 100% effective. It would not be possible to know with certainty that particular person would not have gotten sick if they’d gotten the vaccine. I realize that wouldn’t necessarily rule out the idea but reduces the force of the equitable argument somewhat (at least to my mind)

No vaccine is 100% effective. It's the rare one that is >90%. The annual flu vaccines are much less than 90% effective. On the good years, it's 40 or 50% effective. Yet, hospitals can require all employees to get the annual flu shot, with the usual exceptions for people with known allergies or medically valid reasons for avoiding those vaccines. That's not the same as refusing to pay for hospitalization costs if a vaccine refuser got seriously ill with Covid-19, but it does have legal teeth.

Also, some people get COVID and recover without requiring medical treatment, thereby developing immunity without the cost of a vaccine. I’d imagine that at least some of them would argue that they shouldn’t be required to cover the cost of vaccines for others.

Most children who got measles recovered without medical treatment. But enough died that, once a measles vaccine was available, it became required for attending public schools (with the usual allowable exceptions). Same for polio.

Vaccines are cheap and highly effective preventative medicine. Hospitalization is very expensive.

 

[Mr._Clark]

You can't force people to take vaccines.

It depends on what you mean by “you” “can’t” and “force.”

By “you” do you mean the federal government generally? State government? Military? Private employers?

By “can’t” do you mean there is not presently a federal law (or state law where you live) in place that authorizes the executive branch to “force” people to get vaccinated? Do you mean that such a law would not pass both houses of Congress and be signed into law by the president because it would be too unpopular? Do you mean that there are existing laws in place that prohibitprivate employers from requiring vaccination as a condition of being hired or continuing employment? Do you mean that if the federal government were to pass a mandatory vaccination law it would be impractical to enforce it because the government would not know people’s vaccination status due to existing HIPPA laws?

By “force” do you mean that if the federal government were to pass a law mandating vaccination in order to obtain federal benefits, enter federal buildings, etc or impose a fine if someone refused a vaccine, such a law would be struck down by the courts on the basis that it is unconstitutional? (Editorial comment, not directed at you, I hear a lot of statements about the constitution that have absolutely nothing to do with how the courts would actually rule on a particular issue)(these types of wishful thinking statements come from law professors, complete imbeciles, and everything in between).

My dad used to say “I can’t make you do something but I can make you wish you had.” Based on personal experience this was a generally true statement.

Simplifying, if Congress were to pass a law right at the constitutional limit of the federal government’s power (its grant of power under the constitution and within the limits of the Bill of Rights), I predict that a law purporting to authorize federal officials to enter people’s homes, strap them down, and administer vaccines against their will would be struck down by the current Supreme Court on the basis that it is unconstitutional. I also predict that a law such as this will not be passed or signed into law.

Nevertheless, there are probably any number of somewhat coercive laws that would survive a constitutional challenge. This gets more into the making a person wish they had category.

Ultimately I do not expect the federal government to test the limits of it’s power in this area for political reasons. In my estimation the raw power of the federal government exceeds the public’s willingness in this area, and the executive and legislative branches go against the public will at their peril due to the democratic process

 

[jinjuku]

One issue is that the vaccines are not 100% effective. It would not be possible to know with certainty that particular person would not have gotten sick if they’d gotten the vaccine. I realize that wouldn’t necessarily rule out the idea but reduces the force of the equitable argument somewhat (at least to my mind)

If you opted into the vaccine then you wouldn't be out of pocket.

 

[jinjuku]

Also, some people get COVID and recover without requiring medical treatment, thereby developing immunity without the cost of a vaccine. I’d imagine that at least some of them would argue that they shouldn’t be required to cover the cost of vaccines for others.

Many do and that has no societal cost or a reduction of available medical resources to others that would have need through no fault of their own.

 

[jinjuku]

You can't force people to take vaccines..

I agree. But you can incentivize. I think an argument can be made for paying for easily preventable health interventions that you opted out of. A vaccine is efficacious, cost effective, non-invasive, and not time consuming.

I want people to have the choice but I also want them to pay for their choices. I don't want to pay for poor decision making personally.

 

[lp85253]

I agree. But you can incentivize. I think an argument can be made for paying for easily preventable health interventions that you opted out of. A vaccine is efficacious, cost effective, non-invasive, and not time consuming.

I want people to have the choice but I also want them to pay for their choices. I don't want to pay for poor decision making personally.

i agree with you in theory , but *how* are you going to legislate it in reality...

 

[lp85253]

It depends on what you mean by “you” “can’t” and “force.”

By “you” do you mean the federal government generally? State government? Military? Private employers?

By “can’t” do you mean there is not presently a federal law (or state law where you live) in place that authorizes the executive branch to “force” people to get vaccinated? Do you mean that such a law would not pass both houses of Congress and be signed into law by the president because it would be too unpopular? Do you mean that there are existing laws in place that prohibitprivate employers from requiring vaccination as a condition of being hired or continuing employment? Do you mean that if the federal government were to pass a mandatory vaccination law it would be impractical to enforce it because the government would not know people’s vaccination status due to existing HIPPA laws?

By “force” do you mean that if the federal government were to pass a law mandating vaccination in order to obtain federal benefits, enter federal buildings, etc or impose a fine if someone refused a vaccine, such a law would be struck down by the courts on the basis that it is unconstitutional? (Editorial comment, not directed at you, I hear a lot of statements about the constitution that have absolutely nothing to do with how the courts would actually rule on a particular issue)(these types of wishful thinking statements come from law professors, complete imbeciles, and everything in between).

My dad used to say “I can’t make you do something but I can make you wish you had.” Based on personal experience this was a generally true statement.

Simplifying, if Congress were to pass a law right at the constitutional limit of the federal government’s power (its grant of power under the constitution and within the limits of the Bill of Rights), I predict that a law purporting to authorize federal officials to enter people’s homes, strap them down, and administer vaccines against their will would be struck down by the current Supreme Court on the basis that it is unconstitutional. I also predict that a law such as this will not be passed or signed into law.

Nevertheless, there are probably any number of somewhat coercive laws that would survive a constitutional challenge. This gets more into the making a person wish they had category.

Ultimately I do not expect the federal government to test the limits of it’s power in this area for political reasons. In my estimation the raw power of the federal government exceeds the public’s willingness in this area, and the executive and legislative branches go against the public will at their peril due to the democratic process

we can start with the fact it's probably unconstitutional as law.. employers can (but probably shouldn't) make it more advantageous to get one .. you *tell me* how you plan on doing it.. i say it can't be done in practicality and it's better economically(based on experience in my home state) to treat covid patience rather than assume all the defaulted debt...school kids are a completely different can of worms...anti vax parents and all...

 

[lp85253]

Not for much longer. The main reason why we haven't seen people forced to get a Covid-19 vaccination is because of the way the FDA allow their use by Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Technically, those vaccines got early but temporary authorization for use under emergency conditions. For example, hospitals routinely require their entire staff to get annual flu vaccines, but not the Covid-19 vaccine.

That's about to change. The Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials began last July and August. As soon as those companies can submit a full year's data on the safety & efficacy, the FDA can convert those EUAs to full authorizations. Once that happens, you'll soon see hospitals require their employees to get vaccinated or find another job. As soon as a full year's data is available for kids, you'll see the same requirement for attending school.

that's employers and a limited case situation.. you aren't going to have fed mandates ..at least i can't see it getting past the SC...

 

[Swerd]

You can't force people to take vaccines.

Actually you can. But the laws will be state or local, not federal.

In 1990-91 there was a measles outbreak in Philadelphia. More than 1,400 people, mostly children, became sick with measles, and nine children died. Six of those nine deaths were associated with a fundamentalist church, the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, that believed in faith-based rather than medical interventions of any kind, including vaccinations. The church ran a school with about 1,000 kids, none of whom were vaccinated.

A law protects these church members' right to refuse vaccination on religious ground. However, the US Supreme Court had ruled years earlier that parents cannot deny lifesaving medical treatments to their children for religious reasons. That ruling set a precedent that made it difficult for Faith Tabernacle to find legal representation. Local public health officials succeeded in getting court-orders to vaccinate the children in that school.

I'm not certain this legal precedent applies for the corona virus vaccines. @Mr._Clark , comments?

1990–1991 Philadelphia measles outbreak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why A Court Once Ordered Kids Vaccinated Against Their Parents' Will

Measles infected hundreds of children at a Philadelphia church whose members didn't believe in modern medicine. In a rare step, health officials moved to compel the families to vaccinate the kids.

www.npr.org

 

[lp85253]

You mean kids can attend school without immunization? Military cannot require vaccinating the troops?

limited cases .. job school (federal tax money involved).. lets see how forcing private schools to require immunizations goes over , i don't think it will

 

[lp85253]

Actually you can. In 1990-91 there was a measles outbreak in Philadelphia. More than 1,400 people, mostly children, became sick with measles, and nine children died. Six of those nine deaths were associated with a fundamentalist church, the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, that believed in faith-based rather than medical interventions of any kind, including vaccinations. The church ran a school with about 1,000 kids, none of whom were vaccinated.

A law protects these church members' right to refuse vaccination on religious ground. However, the US Supreme Court had ruled years earlier that parents cannot deny lifesaving medical treatments to their children for religious reasons. That ruling set a precedent that made it difficult for Faith Tabernacle to find legal representation. Local public health officials succeeded in getting court-orders to vaccinate the children in that school.

I'm not certain this legal precedent applies for the corona virus vaccines. @Mr._Clark ?

1990–1991 Philadelphia measles outbreak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why A Court Once Ordered Kids Vaccinated Against Their Parents' Will

Measles infected hundreds of children at a Philadelphia church whose members didn't believe in modern medicine. In a rare step, health officials moved to compel the families to vaccinate the kids.

www.npr.org

covid vax as "life saving" would be challenged and probably fail in this climate.. we'll see.. i like the research though...

 

[Swerd]

limited cases .. job school (federal tax money involved).. lets see how forcing private schools to require immunizations goes over , i don't think it will

The school run by the Faith Tabernacle was private. That court-ordered vaccination went without legal challenge. As far as I know, there has not been a more recent case. So that US Supreme Court ruling still stands.

 

[Swerd]

covid vax as "life saving" would be challenged and probably fail in this climate..

Covid-19 has been far more lethal in the past year than measles or any other childhood viral disease. Any challenge about it not being life saving would likely fail.

 

[Danzilla31]

I believe on the news today there were a hundred some employees at a hospital that were terminated due to refusing the vaccine. They took there case to court and lost. I really wish I had been paying more attention so I could give you guys some type of link.

At my job it's encouraged but not required. I'd say the amount vaccinated is 65% to non vaccinated is about %35. I was kind off surprised work did not make it mandatory. I just assumed maybe legally they couldn't

 

[Danzilla31]

I guess because of my psych background I've been very curious to ask a lot of my coworkers who didn't why they felt the way they did about not taking the vaccine. They are very good people many highly educated.

I found some of there answers surprising honestly. It was very interesting to hear theyre take on it.

 

[lp85253]

Covid-19 has been far more lethal in the past year than measles or any other childhood viral disease. Any challenge about it not being life saving would likely fail.

Really.. Have you looked at the make up of the sc lately..??? I'd probably take that bet..

 

[Mr._Clark]

we can start with the fact it's probably unconstitutional as law.. .

This is a good place to start. Cite a U.S. Supreme Court case that supports your assertion.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Oh great, now the "War On Drugs" guys are gonna' show up and you know the "Gun Control" guys won't be far behind and my f#%kin' coffee isn't finished percolating yet!
Fine, everything wrong with the world is the fault of those refusing the vaccine. Let insurance companies raise rates. Just raise em' for assholes who eat, drink and smoke too much as well. They charge more for kids who drive too fast. Why not for those who live too fast? People only give a s#%t these days when it comes to money, anyway. Isn't the spending of money the real concern of this thread? Good thing most people in this country cannot afford health insurance on their own. Can't raise the rate on a guy who can't afford the policy. Where's my f#%kin' cup?!! I kid folks. Wear your seat belts. You wanna' gobble down Hot Pockets and do meth or anything else cooked up by some crackpot looking to make a buck, have at it. Just don't have any delusions about government officials giving a s#%t about anybody's health. Their sponsors are interested in profit. A farmer is f#%ked if his livestock all get sick and they lose all of the meat. Yeah, and we are the cash cows. MOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

You seem a bit tense. Have you checked your blood pressure lately...?

 

[cpp]

In the news "
Judge rules in favor of a Houston hospital requiring employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19""

Judge rules in favor of a Houston hospital requiring employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19

"The plaintiffs are not just jeopardizing their own health; they are jeopardizing the health of doctors, nurses, support staff, patients and their families," a judge said. The lead plaintiff "can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however if she refuses she will simply need to...

www.cnn.com

 

[Danzilla31]

In the news "
Judge rules in favor of a Houston hospital requiring employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19""

Judge rules in favor of a Houston hospital requiring employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19

"The plaintiffs are not just jeopardizing their own health; they are jeopardizing the health of doctors, nurses, support staff, patients and their families," a judge said. The lead plaintiff "can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however if she refuses she will simply need to...

www.cnn.com

That's the one I heard about thanks for posting the link