How does Inslee’s mandate change things for Rolo
- Thread starter CougEd
- Start date
Fair enough.....my intent was ICU care but you got me. However, you can go eat a d!ck with your race baiting. My conversation has never been about race and you are a gaslighting toolbag every time you bring it up.
It's got nothing to do with race or racism, so take your strawman arguments and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.
Last edited:
Yes he did. Cutting off healthcare to unvaccinated people means no healthcare for 60 percent of the Black population. Kind of like saying the illiterate should be banned from using the internet would mean no internet for CougEd.
By the way, affirmative is illegal in Washington. Rejected by voters twice.
Your backwardness is your problem. Your choice, you get to bear the consequences.
seriously, GFY. Every time you come back to post, it makes you look like an idiotic race-baiting twit. Nobody thinks that you are clever or smart for doing this.
It's the only defense he has. He's backed himself into such an inescapable corner he needs to change the subject and create a diversion. He's learned very well as a member of Cult 45. Taihtsat
Just pretend someone gave you the retort you have been looking for so you can make your “other point”.
Last edited:
It's not really difficult to get past walls. You must realize that when you are defending yourself by hurling ad homenim attacks, you're really just defending your walls which have become a little house. You're defending the house you built to protect yourself. You are trying to hide there inside this little house - way back in the corner. You're psyche has been challenged so you become highly defensive and resort to insults and attacks and not actual arguments. You have constructed a self-concept of yourself - an image - and now you defend that image with all you have left, inside your tiny house, in the corner. Come out. Taihtsat
Replying to yourself is unbecoming. Now you’re talking about walls instead of corners.
And you still haven’t answered the question.
Here’s another- is your Cult 45 line an hominem attack?
What about for adding a surcharge for unvaccinated? Or no sick pay when not fully vaccinated?
Delta Airlines imposes $200 monthly surcharge on unvaccinated staff
The US airline also says Covid sufferers won't get sick pay unless they are double-jabbed.
www.google.com
Have to think there will be more of this. How confident are you in your lawsuit prediction?
If youll re-read, corners were mentioned. Youre hiding in a corner.
AND, it would be " ad mominem" not just hominem. And no, it wouldn't because it describes your current state or "place", like where you are and doesn't address you in your being or nature.
Having said that, i called you "lazy" before, and since i like to hold myself accountable, that was kinda of an ad hominem attack. I don't know if you actually are lazy, but you're thinking and argumentation certainly is. That's all I have to say about that.
Last edited:
How confident are you in thinking that this will stick? Lawsuits are already popping up everywhere. We will see how it all unfolds.What about for adding a surcharge for unvaccinated? Or no sick pay when not fully vaccinated?
Delta Airlines imposes $200 monthly surcharge on unvaccinated staff
The US airline also says Covid sufferers won't get sick pay unless they are double-jabbed.
Have to think there will be more of this. How confident are you in your lawsuit prediction?
Cutting off healthcare for the unvaccinated is not going to happen, if they were to do this it will only create more issues. If you simply start cutting off healthcare coverage for people that won't listen to science, we can take it a step further, So we no longer cover cancer if you're a smoker, no more AIDS or sexually transmitted disease coverage, if you don't practice save sex. No more coverage for alcoholics ,.... the list can go on an on. You either have health coverage or you don't and you can't start plugging in exceptions for people that don't live a healthy lifestyle. They could add a surcharge like they do for smokers, which I think they should and will, but you can't eliminate coverage.
Legally, the surcharge will stick. Doubt we see a case challenging it. What would be your legal theory?
Maybe it will lead employees to find a different job if they don’t want to pay $2400 a year to be unvaccinated. But we’ll see how many other businesses adopt similar policies to mandate or coerce employees to get vaccinated. Seems to make sense from the business’ perspective.
I agree. The surcharge is what Delta Air Lines is doing. Otherwise it will be various mandates, other ways to incentivize people to vaccinate, or other ideas.
My legal theory? The company's main position is that they're trying to restore public trust in air travel. I'm not a lawyer and not sure of legal precedent for either side but what I do know is that you can't charge an obese person more for their insurance because its statistically known they have far more doctor visits and are far likely to develop diabetes type II as well as severe heart disease. I love the fact you say "Legally, the surcharge will stick", as if you know this for a fact. LOL ..... And yes, being a fatfvck is a choice, smoking is a choice, drinking is a choice.
How about for fat people? Edited to add: How about for people who don't receive the flu shot? It too kills people.
The smoking surcharge is typically much less than Deltas covid vaccine surcharge and harder to stop smoking than get a vaccine.
I'm just saying that companies are allowed to apply a surcharge to insurance if they want to.
My company charges $90 per pay period more ($195 per month) for smokers vs. non-smokers.
You asked how confident. I’m saying it will stick means i’m completely confident, just as you seem certain that can’t charge an obese person higher (you might want to check on that though).
maybe more than I thought. Ones I had seen were less but yours may be more typical.
Off the top of my head, wage and hour claims, breach of contract, potentially consumer protection act violations, other claims could depend on the state where the employee resides. The lead plaintiffs would be those who have recovered from Covid and not gotten vaccinated, of which there probably hundreds if not thousands in the workforce the size of Delta's.
That is definitely the complicated part of this. I've got several co-workers who've had the virus and they have all opted to pass on the vaccine for now. Even though I think they should get the vaccine in the future, I absolutely don't think that they should be punished in the short term.
lawsuits are always popping up, like trumps election lawsuits , filing a suit doesn"t mean you will succeed
Sure if Delta is applying this to an employee with a contract and the policy violates that contract some of these could apply. Seems unlikely to me Delta applies this in a way that subjects it to much litigation risk.
They weighed the risk. I am sure smarter folks than us figured out the cost of losing business and productivity is costlier than what they might have to pay in lawsuits .
Presumably they also considered a vaccine mandate as other businesses have done. That option also likely survives any litigation.
Ok, we’ll wait and see If Delta pays out billions in such lawsuits as suggested. Maybe you can represent these plaintiffs pro bono?
You asked about legal theories. I responded. Wage and hour claims don't require a contract. I never said anything about billions.
