Subjectively, not objectively. My thoughts & desires are more important to me than to anybody else.
~Max
I believe that it’s better to live in a society of people who follow rules than in a society where people do not follow rules. I also believe that the overwhelming majority of people feel the same way.
But I was wrong to assume you feel that way. If you believe a society where people don’t follow rules is the better society, you’re entitled to your opinion. I think you’ll have a difficult time in convincing people to adopt that belief.
And fair warning, those of us who do believe in a rules-following society will not exempt you from our rules because of your belief system.
But the individual breaking the rules doesn’t decide if he gets away with his rule breaking. Society does. It just happens that we live in a society where one of the rules is that we tolerate a certain level of rules breaking.
I know I’m responding to a sort of old pos but, If y’all will give me a little latitude (because I’m a dimbulb)…
I believe the idea of charging anti-vaxxers more for health insurance/healthcare has appeared on the SDMB more than once. I always think to myself when I read it, “I agree, but I doubt it will happen.”
gnarator’s post is the first time I’ve seen an actual report of it, indeed, happening. The reason I say I’m a dimbulb is:
I very much should have heard about this if it’s at all widespread but, mea culpa… is this really going on? Is this a thing? Did I miss stories about this? I would think it’d be a HUGE deal for frothing, vitriol-drinking anti-vaxxers.
Fill in the slow guy.
I don’t know how widespread this is (yet). The idea is widespread, and being kicked around. Last August, Delta Airlines announced they were going to do this. That was all over the news then. I don’t know what other companies are doing this, or talking about it.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/25/business/delta-unvaccinated-insurance-cost-increase/index.html
Oh damn. I remember that now that you mention it. 
I guess the example in this thread noted above is not the revolutionary event I thought it was. That’s fine, it’s still, IMO, an idea who’s time has come… some months ago!
So I remember the Delta story… now I wonder what the follow-up is? Who is paying $$ for the “privilege” of remaining unvaccinated (and not getting fired)?
I think if that was going to happen, it would have been in this last Delta variant surge. There are starting to be various treatments available like the Pfizer oral antiviral that will take a lot of the urgency out of needing to be vaccinated in order to avoid death or serious complications.
So now they’re going to feel like they won- “See, we don’t need to get vaccinated, and you can’t make us. Nyah, nyah” sort of nonsense.
Which we all know is foolish; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that, but they’re not going to see it that way. A fairly right-wing (although NOT a Trumper) friend of mine was going on about it a couple of weeks ago- about how this Pfizer pill is a game changer, etc… and the rest of us were like “What pill? Oh that? I saw the article but didn’t bother to read it because I’m vaccinated and don’t really care.”
And that is why they were made free. I don’t know what my personal cut off would be, but it would probably be far less than $800.
It depends on who you are getting your second opinion from. If you are seeking out a doctor who is against the vaccine in order to confirm your position, that’s not really going to be a “rational” choice. Though it is one that one would make if they wanted to confirm their own biases.
There are going to be some who, for medical reasons, should not get the vaccine. That’s perfectly fine and understandable, however, they should then become the biggest advocates of others getting the vaccine, as herd immunity is all they have to rely on to keep them healthy.
The problem with this, is that that very belief is what is irrational.
I would too, sure.
But some would steal food from a store if the alternative is eating plain hamburger rather than filet mignon.
That provides a greater amount of benefit than following the rules, does it not?
Even the person that has eschewed society, and live out in the wilderness scabbling for roots and grubs still depends on society to make it illegal for someone else to come out and kill that person for the roots and grubs they have collected.
Sure, and those are the people that we put into a room that they are not allowed to leave until they agree to follow the rules.
I think that should be the case for all anti-vaxxers, not just COVID.
They charge more for smokers, and I think that’s perfectly acceptable, as someone is doing a voluntary but legal activity that puts them at higher risk of needing medical treatment. I think the same should be the case for people who refuse any of the recommended vaccines.
Have they said how much this will cost?
Even if it decreases negative medical problems, it may still be financially ruinous.
And when someone bigger and meaner than you comes along and steals your stuff, you won’t complain to the cops because, after all, he’s just being rational.
Just two rational buddies skipping down the road hand in hand, except the bigger one has all the stuff.
Oh, so do I. By repeating this, you lead me to believe that you misunderstood my point. I prefer a society where everybody follows rules over anarchy, yet still do not concede that a society of rule-followers is the best society for me.
No, you would “exempt” a rules-breaker because rules have exceptions and/or are not always enforcable.
Society doesn’t always “decide” whether to tolerate someone who violates the rules or laws. People can commit crimes without getting caught. Whether that means claiming you are vaccinated without actually having been vaccinated, or stealing food from a grocer, it is in each case possible to commit the act without giving anyone a choice about toleration or punishment.
~Max
I agree with everything else you wrote, but I have some thoughts on this part.
I would not say belief that a vaccine causes autism is, ipso facto irrational. It is plausible to arrive at that conclusion, not only for vaccines but most conspiracy theories, without being willfully ignorant. It all comes down to your sources of trusted information - and for a significant part of the U.S. population, that does not include scientists or government.
If we assume arguendo that scientists and government cannot be trusted, what does that leave? Your neighbors, Facebook feeds, and… news media. But not all news media, only the ones you trust. If you live in a blissful bubble your worldview will reflect that, without necessarily making you an irrational person.
Is it irrational to distrust scientists and government and certain news media? That is a question I can’t answer generally, or personally (since I do largely trust scientists/government/liberal news media).
~Max
Not worth it, in my opinion. Self preservation is a much stronger interest than eating better food, and the risk of consequences almost certainly dominates the latter interest.
~Max
Could we say that the world-view proposed by @Max_S is “amoral” (not to be confused with immoral) and “transactional”?
And solipsistic.
He says, trying to rationalize the verbal slip.
Did I get that right?
To quote a philosophy professor I had many years ago, “Man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one.”
Hmmm It seems your preference then is for a society where everyone follows rules for your protection and convenience and safety, but you and selected others don’t have to do the same.