SARS-2-CoV (COVID-19)

[expendable]

24 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

A friend of mine had an interesting suggestion. Let folks choose whether or not they want the vaccine. Don't force them. But if someone chooses not to get the vaccine then they lose their right to get medical treatment should they need it. Or at minimum, be put at the bottom of the list for a ventilator. Right now there are only 5 ICU beds available in the Knoxville area. I realize this idea would never happen but seemed reasonable to me. 

That’s a great idea. 
then we can also not treat people that are obese, smoke, drink and so on. 
 

I like the way your friend thinks

[Chucktshoes]

17 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

Not sure I follow. Maybe you are focusing on the financial burden of treating said people? I was more so focusing on the resource side. I just got off the phone with my friend that's a nurse in WA and he said the ER he works at is in the worst shape it's ever been. Staff morale is at an all time low and they are just flat out exhausted with treating covid patients. 

I was just making a light quip regarding the desire to unsubscribe from both receiving and paying for government services. You know, standard anarchist stuff.

[gregintenn]

1 hour ago, Hozzie said:

Do you also not believe that it is a business' right to run their business how they see fit?  For me, as long as it is not the government, a business should be able to run things however they see fit.  That actually includes discrimination for any reason. (Not looking for a response to the last part as I know it would have a quick death).  

In seriousness though, we do too much talking out both sides of our mouth's.  It sucks for some people for sure.  Greg, I hope your wife does what she wants.  I suspect you are in a better position than most that she can actually have a decision to make. 

I believe in that right for businesses. It doesn’t make sense to me, but they can definitely do as they please.

I also believe that this should also open the company to any possible liability that could ever arise from such a mandate.

[Erik88]

13 minutes ago, expendable said:

That’s a great idea. 
then we can also not treat people that are obese, smoke, drink and so on

None of those conditions are highly contagious or currently filling up the hospitals. Still a drain on resources at times but not at the level we are seeing with Covid patients. 

[gregintenn]

4 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

None of those conditions are highly contagious or currently filling up the hospitals. Still a drain on resources at times but not at the level we are seeing with Covid patients. 

I propose we stop treating folks who can’t or won’t pay the bill. That’ll open up resources for those of us who do.

[deerslayer]

13 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I was just making a light quip regarding the desire to unsubscribe from both receiving and paying for government services. You know, standard anarchist stuff.

Doesn’t seem like a quip.  If services are withheld from certain individuals, they should be refunded some tax money that funds those services.  

[E4 No More]

7 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

None of those conditions are highly contagious or currently filling up the hospitals. Still a drain on resources at times but not at the level we are seeing with Covid patients. 

So people who cannot take the vaccine, (like my daughter who has severe CRPS), are to either pay for their care or by put on low priority? Brilliant idea...NOT!

[Chucktshoes]

2 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Doesn’t seem like a quip.  If services are withheld from certain individuals, they should be refunded some tax money that funds those services.  

I referred to it as a light quip because it’s very deep into the territory of “sh’t that ain’t ever gonna effing happen.“

[deerslayer]

1 minute ago, Chucktshoes said:

I referred to it as a light quip because it’s very deep into the territory of “sh’t that ain’t ever gonna effing happen.“

Same thing was probably said about school vouchers in the past.  

[Erik88]

8 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

So people who cannot take the vaccine, (like my daughter who has severe CRPS), are to either pay for their care or by put on low priority? Brilliant idea...NOT!

Very fair point. People like your daughter should still get care. Again, all this is hypothetical because as Chuck said it will never happen. I just thought it was an interesting idea. You have people like Phil Valentine that went on air and told people he wasn't going to get the shot, and now they are struggling to keep him alive. 

 

[deerslayer]

I do wonder if/when we will see an insurance company reject someone’s life insurance claim because they were taking a non FDA approved drug.  I wouldn’t put it past the insurance industry.  

[gregintenn]

25 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

So people who cannot take the vaccine, (like my daughter who has severe CRPS), are to either pay for their care or by put on low priority? Brilliant idea...NOT!

Of course not! Just the ones Erik and his buddy don’t approve of.

[Hozzie]

17 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

I do wonder if/when we will see an insurance company reject someone’s life insurance claim because they were taking a non FDA approved drug.  I wouldn’t put it past the insurance industry.  

I actually think it would go the other way.  Get vaccinated or we aren't covering any expenses remotely related to Covid.  Or with the transmissions rates as they are, drop you all together.  I can imagine costs are up, but not sure.

To be honest, I am not really sure who is responsible for what at this point when it comes to treatments requiring any significant hospitalization.  Is the .gov picking that up?

Edited August 11, 2021 by Hozzie

[FUJIMO]

This last page brings up a good question.

How many are out there unvaxxed and draw a welfare check ? Would it be ok to drop them from receiving health care when they get it ? I am willing to wager a great number of them fall within the high risk category. And since they receive and NOT put in the kiddie they are 100% a burden to the system already.

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by FUJIMO

[Hozzie]

2 minutes ago, FUJIMO said:

This last page brings up a good question.

How many are out there unvaxxed and draw a welfare check ? Would it be ok to drop them from receiving health care when they get it ? I am willing to wager a great number of them fall within the high risk category. And since they receive and put in the kiddie they are 100% a burden to the system already.

 

As much as that sounds good, we don't want that.  What else then are we willing to let the .gov dictate we must do in order to get some cheese.  

The solution to the welfare problem is literally cheese.  Rice, beans, dried milk, bread, and eggs.  You get all of that you want.  We will give you enough to keep you alive, but the rest is up to you.

[FUJIMO]

2 minutes ago, Hozzie said:

As much as that sounds good, we don't want that.  What else then are we willing to let the .gov dictate we must do in order to get some cheese.  

The solution to the welfare problem is literally cheese.  Rice, beans, dried milk, bread, and eggs.  You get all of that you want.  We will give you enough to keep you alive, but the rest is up to you.

From where I am sitting they are turning a blind eye to sorry asses on the gvt dole and trying dicate how I live my life, the working man.

[Omega]

 

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

A friend of mine had an interesting suggestion. Let folks choose whether or not they want the vaccine. Don't force them. But if someone chooses not to get the vaccine then they lose their right to get medical treatment should they need it. Or at minimum, be put at the bottom of the list for a ventilator. Right now there are only 5 ICU beds available in the Knoxville area. I realize this idea would never happen but seemed reasonable to me. 

I would be ok with that if the ones that get a reaction to the CCP virus shot also get refused any help.

[deerslayer]

24 minutes ago, Hozzie said:

I actually think it would go the other way.  Get vaccinated or we aren't covering any expenses remotely related to Covid.  Or with the transmissions rates as they are, drop you all together.  

Not sure that would fly.  That would require re-writing a policy, which is specifically tailored to an individual based on age, health, blood pressure, blood sugar, weight, family history, etc. and these risks are used to calculate premiums.  The insurance companies would risk losing a customer who is committed to paying premiums for X more years.  But we are talking about insurance companies, so who knows.  

[Chucktshoes]

The insurance companies have zero worries regardless of which path they choose to take. They’ll have the regulations rewritten to cover them while getting bailed out by the taxpayers. So while y’all have been carping about the single mom in the trailer on the other side of town getting a thousand bucks a month. The insurance companies and other megacorps have been getting billions in corporate welfare annually. (Like Jeff Bezos who got a $10 billion subsidy for losses on his Blue Origin ego stroke after losing out to SpaceX for the NASA contract.)

 

I would feel pretty safe in saying that none of us here are in the tax bracket where the government actually works for us. But they and their friends in the media (all arms and levels of it) are doing a helluva job of ensuring that we’re all too busy fighting each other to focus on who’s really ####ing us over. 
 

Let me put it more plainly, Tucker Carlson isn’t on your side anymore than Rachel Maddow is but they’re both extremely adept at playing all of us for profit. 

[FUJIMO]

16 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 

Let me put it more plainly, Tucker Carlson isn’t on your side anymore than Rachel Maddow is but they’re both extremely adept at playing all of us for profit. 

This has never been more clear than in the last year. 

We have a thread on it elsewhere but ill post it here since you mentioned Bezos. A recent story about the USPS stated they lost 9.2 billion last year. This was per their annual fiscal report. Interestingly enough they claim it would be worse had it not been for the deal they made with Amazon during O's last term. After digging a little deeper it turns out Bezos made some kind of deal with USPS using their logistics in turn for a undisclosed profit.  While it may be a common practice I personally didn't get a warm fuzzy feeling from anything he has control of. 

[AuEagle]

REAL RISKS - COVID VACCINATION: Patient Toolbox (cchfreedom.org)

[QuackerSmacker]

5 hours ago, gregintenn said:

Mrs. Tn got the notice today. Take the jab by Sept. 30 or your employment is terminated.

This company is willing to fire a 20+ year employee with a stellar record who is never within 60 miles of the place of employment.

I'm glad Tennessee is a right to work state, but wow.

FWIW, I think "right to work" is being confused with "at will employment" in this thread.  The former describes a state where employees cannot be compelled to join a union.  The latter describes a state where employees can quit or be fired for any (legal) reason at any time, in the absence of a written contract to the contrary.  Tennessee is both.

[Moped]

5 hours ago, Hozzie said:

Do you also not believe that it is a business' right to run their business how they see fit?  For me, as long as it is not the government, a business should be able to run things however they see fit.  That actually includes discrimination for any reason. (Not looking for a response to the last part as I know it would have a quick death).  

In seriousness though, we do too much talking out both sides of our mouth's.  It sucks for some people for sure.  Greg, I hope your wife does what she wants.  I suspect you are in a better position than most that she can actually have a decision to make. 

A business should be able to run as the owner sees fit and I have the right to tell them to stick it where the sun don’t shine and walk when I don’t like their rules, which I have done twice in the past. 

[gregintenn]

1 hour ago, QuackerSmacker said:

FWIW, I think "right to work" is being confused with "at will employment" in this thread.  The former describes a state where employees cannot be compelled to join a union.  The latter describes a state where employees can quit or be fired for any (legal) reason at any time, in the absence of a written contract to the contrary.  Tennessee is both.

You are correct, sir. I got my wording all screwed up. Thanks for the correction.

[Danger Rane]

5 hours ago, Erik88 said:

None of those conditions are highly contagious or currently filling up the hospitals. Still a drain on resources at times but not at the level we are seeing with Covid patients. 

Erik, I’m not sure how many COVID patients you’ve dealt with lately that ended up in the hospital, but I can tell you from my experience, that alot of them are having the hard time with it that they are precisely because of their past health decisions. Obesity, diabetes, and history of smoking are absolutely contributing factors in how severe an individual’s reaction/symptoms will be vs someone of good health. So yes, these conditions are a drain on resources, just as they are without COVID.