Vaccines not mandated for those on welfare??

[TheGunner]

Where’s the venom from the left for this miss by Joe? 58MM the govt doesn’t think needs to get a vaccine…or at least mandate a vaccine.

Seems to me if you are on the government payroll you should get vaccinated. Isn’t that what the government is mandating for employers, that everyone on their payrolls get vaccinated?

More Democrat hypocrisy

Why does Biden’s vaccine mandate not apply to welfare recipients and others?

Biden’s vaccine mandate is narrowly targeted toward the 80 million to 100 million American citizens who get up and go to work, while ignoring the 60 million Americans on welfare.

thehill.com

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

Isn’t the simple reason that the mandate is being enforced via OSHA requirements? Those apply to people going to work and welfare is almost certainly not going to work.

I’d have no problem if they did expand it to include Welfare, but I’m guessing there’s not a way to do that.

 

[SKYDOG]

Where’s the venom from the left for this miss by Joe? 58MM the govt doesn’t think needs to get a vaccine…or at least mandate a vaccine.

Seems to me if you are on the government payroll you should get vaccinated. Isn’t that what the government is mandating for employers, that everyone on their payrolls get vaccinated?

More Democrat hypocrisy

Why does Biden’s vaccine mandate not apply to welfare recipients and others?

Biden’s vaccine mandate is narrowly targeted toward the 80 million to 100 million American citizens who get up and go to work, while ignoring the 60 million Americans on welfare.

thehill.com

That’s really a good point. Since they are forcing vaccines on people, then all people getting government assistance in any form should have to be vaccinated or the assistance stops.

 

[tjreese]

Isn’t the simple reason that the mandate is being enforced via OSHA requirements? Those apply to people going to work and welfare is almost certainly not going to work.

I’d have no problem if they did expand it to include Welfare, but I’m guessing there’s not a way to do that.

"Finally, Biden’s vaccine mandate does not apply to Congress, even though there are 535 members, which puts Congress well over the 100-employee threshold." I almost posted this article a couple of days ago. There is no rhyme or reason to threaten all those that pay for those not required to get it, with their tax dollars going towards pharma (follow the money???). Attacking the workers, and not the others, makes no sense as does the mandate in any fashion. TRansmission of the virus can take place whether having the shot or not...an "may" have less illness for those that had the shot, making it more likely they are unaware they have it, and possibly enhancing the transmission. We are into a strictly partisan facade with a lot of shots already bought by those paying taxes...workers that took the shot and others that didn't and they must be used.

I would like to understand the OSHA logic as well should that reason exist different than already mentioned above. Government overreach when the science is considered...

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

"Finally, Biden’s vaccine mandate does not apply to Congress, even though there are 535 members, which puts Congress well over the 100-employee threshold." I almost posted this article a couple of days ago. There is no rhyme or reason to threaten all those that pay for those not required to get it, with their tax dollars going towards pharma (follow the money???). Attacking the workers, and not the others, makes no sense as does the mandate in any fashion. TRansmission of the virus can take place whether having the shot or not...an "may" have less illness for those that had the shot, making it more likely they are unaware they have it, and possibly enhancing the transmission. We are into a strictly partisan facade with a lot of shots already bought by those paying taxes...workers that took the shot and others that didn't and they must be used.

I would like to understand the OSHA logic as well should that reason exist different than already mentioned above. Government overreach when the science is considered...

It’s the same answer. OSHA does not have jurisdiction over Congress (or many other governmental entities i believe). Whether you support or disagree with the vaccine mandate, the way it was implemented (via OSHA) limits who it governs.

Application of Laws to Congress -- Laws That Do Not Apply to Congress

archives-democrats-rules.house.gov

 

[tjreese]

It’s the same answer. OSHA does not have jurisdiction over Congress (or many other governmental entities i believe). Whether you support or disagree with the vaccine mandate, the way it was implemented (via OSHA) limits who it governs.

Application of Laws to Congress -- Laws That Do Not Apply to Congress

archives-democrats-rules.house.gov

my point was not the "legal" stance that companies "may" believe they don't have, but the logical stance for winning should OSHA be required to defend in a logical manner why it is a concern above and beyond workers not having the shot. I typed above not having read the link, because I'm not sure that is my discussion.

There is NO safety concerns any different for those that never took the shot...perhaps less concerns than those that took the shot as far as transmission across the country. That is what I was trying to say. I don't think science supports a hypothesis for OSHA to mandate this...again not having read the link at this time. I also believe that big companies have no issue for this.

 

[TheGunner]

Isn’t the simple reason that the mandate is being enforced via OSHA requirements? Those apply to people going to work and welfare is almost certainly not going to work.

I’d have no problem if they did expand it to include Welfare, but I’m guessing there’s not a way to do that.

Who is asking OSHA to enforce this? Is it not the President and Congress?

 

[tjreese]

Who is asking OSHA to enforce this? Is it not the President and Congress?

Shhhh, suggesting those you reference have a biased interest is frightening. It would be different if there was reason to suggest such due to the recent historical past, or the constant attack on the first and second.

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

my point was not the "legal" stance that companies "may" believe they don't have, but the logical stance for winning should OSHA be required to defend in a logical manner why it is a concern above and beyond workers not having the shot. I typed above not having read the link, because I'm not sure that is my discussion.

There is NO safety concerns any different for those that never took the shot...perhaps less concerns than those that took the shot as far as transmission across the country. That is what I was trying to say. I don't think science supports a hypothesis for OSHA to mandate this...again not having read the link at this time. I also believe that big companies have no issue for this.

Those are fair questions … i don’t know the answer. Most legal experts have opined that the OSHA route is defensible. So far i don’t think anything has successfully challenged it. Will see what happens.

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

Who is asking OSHA to enforce this? Is it not the President and Congress?

Of course, the President. He wanted a mandate and his team developed this approach because it had the maximum impact and was most legally defensible.

If he tried to add things outside of OSHA’s scope (congress, welfare recipients, etc) it would almost certainly be shot down in the courts.

I’m not defending the mandate (i personally agree with it, but understand those who don’t) .. just explaining the ‘why’ he didn’t add those. Fairly straight forward legal strategy.

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

Shhhh, suggesting those you reference have a biased interest is frightening. It would be different if there was reason to suggest such due to the recent historical past, or the constant attack on the first and second.

Wait what … a politician is doing things based upon biased political interests? Shocking.

 

[tjreese]

Those are fair questions … i don’t know the answer. Most legal experts have opined that the OSHA route is defensible. So far i don’t think anything has successfully challenged it. Will see what happens.

that was my point..."if" challenged and with a "fair" judge it would be hard to see a reason for the mandate standing..at least from my perspective on what I think science has concluded about transmission. This whole virus from China has changed talking points depending on who was talking...as well as gain-of-function that Fauci appears connected. The costs in life directly by the virus, quality of life for those that never required life saving surgeries, but needed surgery and financial ruins for so many has been devestating and yet I don't think there has been one step forward from loosening the reins China has on the USA.

The political winds change as needed. Prior to August 31 international travel back into the USA only needed the vaccine verification. Had that stood, then the picture presented even if science didn't support it, was that the transmission was not a concern for those vaccinated. This would be in error but consistent with the mandate from a logical view. Wrong, but consistently wrong. After August 31 international travel back into the USA required negative tests for the virus within 72 hour for "ALL". This suggested that it didn't matter who had the shot and who didn't since all could transmit it. This flip flop suggested what we know to be true in that all people could transmit it. As I understand it recently another flip flop has occured in only needing the vaccine proof to return to the USA...which still has the same logical error in science, but is consistent with the "mandate" in public or lose your job edict.

 

[TheGunner]

Of course, the President. He wanted a mandate and his team developed this approach because it had the maximum impact and was most legally defensible.

If he tried to add things outside of OSHA’s scope (congress, welfare recipients, etc) it would almost certainly be shot down in the courts.

I’m not defending the mandate (i personally agree with it, but understand those who don’t) .. just explaining the ‘why’ he didn’t add those. Fairly straight forward legal strategy.

Ahh, so they are using OSHA to (potentially) circumvent legal challenges on Constitutional rights. 🤔

 

[tjreese]

Wait what … a politician is doing things based upon biased political interests? Shocking.

sometimes there is a moral line in some, and is why I could never be a successful salesman if I truly understood the product was not the best for all encounters...

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

Ahh, so they are using OSHA to (potentially) circumvent legal challenges on Constitutional rights. 🤔

Pretty much every policy decision by a president (any president) is evaluated on what is legal and constitutional and generally designed to be defensible.