The only consistent people these days seems to be the true extremists who are so far from either party's official platform that they can call it how they see it.
Regardless of that: if I am someone who believes that vaccines do not work (and btw, in the context of American politics...this does not seem a wild conspiracy, you see the same level of nonsense distributed by people on the left too) then am I likely to be convinced by the govt attempting to rescind support from me? No. If anything, that suggests to me that I am probably correct.
In other words, the point of removing unemployment insurance is to hurt people who disagree with me...this is not smart (and again, an ironic position to take from people who view themselves as very liberal and open...next-level stuff).
Except rescinding support for anyone who would have qualified was never even discussed. The question is about making an exception to _extend_ support to a group that _wouldn't_ have otherwise gotten it. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but the status quo is that being dismissed for cause for refusing to abide by legal employment requirements is disqualifying for receiving unemployment.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
In my opinion, the unvaccinated should simply not go to the hospital if they get infected and instead recuperate at home. Sadly, they’ll continue to leech off of the work of those that have taken the bare minimum steps.
I don’t know if that’s liberal or not. I don’t really care about the ideological underpinnings to know it’s an asinine incentive design.