SCOTUS Ruling on Health Care Vaccine Mandate
a ‘Big Mistake,’ Stanford Professor Says
Epoch Times,
by
Mimi Nguyen Ly
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
1/14/2022 3:26:20 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Thursday allowing the Biden administration to continue mandating COVID-19 vaccines for most health care workers is “really unfortunate” and a “big mistake” from a health policy perspective, said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya a professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
Bhattacharya, a senior scholar of Brownstone Institute, told The Epoch Times the ruling presents a situation that is “FUBAR,” a military slang term that stands for “[expletive] up beyond all repair.”
“That’s what this is, right? This is FUBAR,” he said, adding, “From a health policy perspective, from a public health perspective, it is a big mistake.”
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Californian 1/14/2022 3:39:58 PM (No. 1038713)
The USSC should not make rulings based on whether or not a policy/law is stupid or not.
They should only rule based on it being constitutional.
If they determined the feds can make requirements for recipients of federal money then that makes sense to me in general even if in this specific case the administration is obviously stupid and making bad policy.
Activist courts are bad courts. They drew the line in the right place.
14 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
justavoter 1/14/2022 3:47:32 PM (No. 1038717)
What is horrible about this is that the next step is to require anyone on Medicare or Medicaid to be vaccinated or their benefits (which are paid for from premiums paid over the years) will be withheld. Watch and see.
33 people like this.
The justices also wrote that the HHS secretary, Xavier Beccera, cited data prior to the spread of the Omicron variant that suggested that the spread of the COVID-19 virus “is more likely when healthcare workers are unvaccinated.”
“Upholding the requirement that health care workers be vaccinated will undoubtedly save lives. HHS will enforce it,” Becerra said in a statement on Twitter late Thursday, referring to the SCOTUS ruling.
This is a lie on its face. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the spread of COVID is reduced one iota due to the vaccines. Even CDC and the manufacturers themselves no longer make this claim. The only benefit stated anymore is a possible lessening of symptoms.
Shouldn't the very fact that the head of Pfizer himself, who said that the first two shots really don't confer much protection, have been taken into consideration? Or does SCOTUS only rule in a vacuum based upon the arguments they hear. Do they not take the most current information into account?
While IANAL, I see scant evidence that HHS has this authority at all until Congress were to give it to them. The fact that these facilities take Medicaid and Medicare money is not really relevant at all. Hanging this entire authority on a very limited 1905 ruling smacks of cowardice on the part of Roberts and Kavanaugh.
18 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Rich323 1/14/2022 3:50:59 PM (No. 1038724)
Rule number one - never trust any thinking or logic that comes from California.
14 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
lakerman1 1/14/2022 3:56:28 PM (No. 1038725)
#3., as I understand it, the Court can take judicial notice of something, but beyond that, the written briefs and oral arguments provide the basis for their decisions.
I believe this decision was the correct one - he who pays the piper calls the tune, or something like that. And while it may be poor policy, it will be up to health care providers to make that argument.
2 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
earlybird 1/14/2022 4:01:13 PM (No. 1038730)
Hector Becerra. So bad that several local papers (usually leaning left) wrote repeated editorials recommending against his confirmation as HHS secretary. Nothing wrong with California. It’s those in DC who cherrypick these radical know-nothings for cabinet positions.
Painting all Californians with the same brush ignores the fact that - for most of its history - it was a Republican state. Even now, Democrats don’t have a simple 51% majority. More like 40% of the registered voters. But they still dominate - especially as long as lefty Dems dominate the presidency and the Congress.
11 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
earlybird 1/14/2022 4:02:52 PM (No. 1038734)
Xavier Becerra had no experience that would suit him for this job. Period. He was just a radical Latino pol who rounded out the diversity thing.
20 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
DVC 1/14/2022 4:23:38 PM (No. 1038745)
The government should not be able to order a person to take any sort of a medical procedure, shot, or anything else.
The one situation where I have heard a fairly reasonable case for this has been in the past....before the medical folks went all totalitarian crazy, and counterfactual. There used to be a very few people, usually homeless drug addicts who had multiple drug resistant tuberculosis and would not take the treatment necessary to clear it, and kept passing it on to others. There were a few cases of individual court orders to hold a patient and treat with antibiotics for weeks or even months in some cases until they were disease free.
With what the insane "medical leaders" and our worthless lying "medical experts" have done now.....I would be highly skeptical of ANY sort of treatments that they want to inflict on people.
They should NOT be able to tell anyone to get any "treatment", EVER.
I foresee a time, in the not very distant future when being fired for not taking these shots will be a badge of honor, proof that you are smart, aware and were not fooled by these lying pukes who have totally destroyed the credibility of our medical care system. Our entire medical care system lies in ruins, and they will have extreme difficulty being trusted ever again.
20 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Californian 1/14/2022 4:31:13 PM (No. 1038751)
4, thanks for the great advice and ad hominem. There's no arguing with that logic. A constitutional counter point would have been interesting and worth reading. Try that next time.
-real conservative in California
6 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
earlybird 1/14/2022 4:45:00 PM (No. 1038761)
Re #9, a few provincials get their jollies with that stuff. Not very well-informed.
3 people like this.
They are educated morons on the Supreme Court. They don't know much about much, apparently.
8 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
plainjane 1/14/2022 5:01:56 PM (No. 1038779)
The entire medical profession stood down as sick patients were denied Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and were simply allowed to die, except for those few who spoke out and lost their jobs for telling the truth about what they saw daily in working with covid patients. It's a perverted justice to see them now singled out for the forced immunization when they've seen the consequences of it in the rest of us. Maybe now they'll find their voices; or they will just lie for each other as they distribute covid passports to each and all.
12 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Heraclitus 1/14/2022 5:26:45 PM (No. 1038802)
Individual liberty, the right to bodily autonomy, ought to be preeminent. The fact that government (i.e., taxpayers) is paying for the medical care, etc,, should not supersede individual rights. All of 2020 healthcare workers provided amazing care with such bravery, and now they must comply with mindless government mandates? It stinks.
9 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
mc squared 1/14/2022 5:37:25 PM (No. 1038815)
Occam says that the Biden DemoCommies WANT US DEAD. Else, why low vax rates among blacks and NONE for illegals at the border?
4 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
franq 1/14/2022 6:01:34 PM (No. 1038824)
My body, my choice.™
Two of my sisters, and their spouses, are now dealing with COVID. Yes, they were vaxxed and proud of it.
4 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 1/14/2022 6:16:27 PM (No. 1038834)
The big mistake/crime is that the vaccination mandate was ever implemented. Our "betters" have no regard for personal freedoms and the Constitution.
6 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Luandir 1/14/2022 8:07:57 PM (No. 1038929)
Sorry, Dr. Bhattacharya, but there are considerations other than public health policy, such as the inherent limitation on governmental power. Had the SCOTUS established a precedent for compulsion in this area, it would require a smaller crisis next time, to justify an even further overreach.
4 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
This doctor is one who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration. He’s on our side. Read before jumping in with comments.