They don’t support washing hands much less vaccinations. Don’t they know there is a difference in being a fool and a damn fool.
The Senator justified his stance that maybe employees shouldn’t have to wash there hands by saying that the business would just have to post a sign that their employees are not required to wash their hands. This is a weird way to promote “freedom”. His suggestion is that the business would then fail as people would decide not to eat in those establishments.
Perhaps he would also suggest that parents should not be required to make sure their children are vaccinated, but should just need to require their children to wear a sign that they are not vaccinated, if they opt out. Then other people could simply choose to avoid those children.
The Daily Show ripped him apart on this. The highpoint was when they pointed out, as TimB mentioned, that the senator’s solution was to require restaurants to post a sign that said employees didn’t wash hands…which of course is a regulation.
The Senator justified his stance that maybe employees shouldn't have to wash there hands by saying that the business would just have to post a sign that their employees are not required to wash their hands. This is a weird way to promote "freedom". His suggestion is that the business would then fail as people would decide not to eat in those establishments. Perhaps he would also suggest that parents should not be required to make sure their children are vaccinated, but should just need to require their children to wear a sign that they are not vaccinated, if they opt out. Then other people could simply choose to avoid those children.It wouldn't help in a class room or other confined close quarters. There is something satisfying about making them wear signs, however. What would be most effective is schools requiring immunizations before the kids can go, as was done in the past when many childhood diseases were on the way out. I've heard some doctors refuse to treat unvaccinated kids. That's a good idea, and I'd like to see more doctors make that stand. Another thing that would work, but I can't see happening--insurance companies should refuse to insure any kid who is has not received standard vaccines by the time he is two years old without a specific reason signed by two doctors that he has a condition that prevents vaccination. Insurance companies are always looking for reasons to not pay, so this might be right up their alley. They could alternatively hike the premiums substantially for unvaccinated kids without a medical reason for not being vaccinated. An excuse for higher premiums should make them happy, too. I can imagine the hue and cry and gnashing of teeth from the anti-vaxxers, though.
The Senator justified his stance that maybe employees shouldn't have to wash there hands by saying that the business would just have to post a sign that their employees are not required to wash their hands. This is a weird way to promote "freedom". His suggestion is that the business would then fail as people would decide not to eat in those establishments. Perhaps he would also suggest that parents should not be required to make sure their children are vaccinated, but should just need to require their children to wear a sign that they are not vaccinated, if they opt out. Then other people could simply choose to avoid those children.It wouldn't help in a class room or other confined close quarters. There is something satisfying about making them wear signs, however. What would be most effective is schools requiring immunizations before the kids can go, as was done in the past when many childhood diseases were on the way out. I've heard some doctors refuse to treat unvaccinated kids. That's a good idea, and I'd like to see more doctors make that stand. Another thing that would work, but I can't see happening--insurance companies should refuse to insure any kid who is has not received standard vaccines by the time he is two years old without a specific reason signed by two doctors that he has a condition that prevents vaccination. Insurance companies are always looking for reasons to not pay, so this might be right up their alley. They could alternatively hike the premiums substantially for unvaccinated kids without a medical reason for not being vaccinated. An excuse for higher premiums should make them happy, too. I can imagine the hue and cry and gnashing of teeth from the anti-vaxxers, though. Yeah, I was providing a sarcastic equivalent to his original statements, when I suggested that he would just as well require non-vaccinated children to wear signs. I suggested it to point out how crazy his original statement was. As far as vax go, it is best to work that out, I think, by more rational methods. Putting signs on a people who are of an undesirable group, is not a good tactic. Well, I mean, it worked for the Nazis, but only for a while.
The Senator justified his stance that maybe employees shouldn't have to wash there hands by saying that the business would just have to post a sign that their employees are not required to wash their hands. This is a weird way to promote "freedom". His suggestion is that the business would then fail as people would decide not to eat in those establishments. Perhaps he would also suggest that parents should not be required to make sure their children are vaccinated, but should just need to require their children to wear a sign that they are not vaccinated, if they opt out. Then other people could simply choose to avoid those children.It wouldn't help in a class room or other confined close quarters. There is something satisfying about making them wear signs, however. What would be most effective is schools requiring immunizations before the kids can go, as was done in the past when many childhood diseases were on the way out. I've heard some doctors refuse to treat unvaccinated kids. That's a good idea, and I'd like to see more doctors make that stand. Another thing that would work, but I can't see happening--insurance companies should refuse to insure any kid who is has not received standard vaccines by the time he is two years old without a specific reason signed by two doctors that he has a condition that prevents vaccination. Insurance companies are always looking for reasons to not pay, so this might be right up their alley. They could alternatively hike the premiums substantially for unvaccinated kids without a medical reason for not being vaccinated. An excuse for higher premiums should make them happy, too. I can imagine the hue and cry and gnashing of teeth from the anti-vaxxers, though. Yeah, I was providing a sarcastic equivalent to his original statements, when I suggested that he would just as well require non-vaccinated children to wear signs. I suggested it to point out how crazy his original statement was. As far as vax go, it is best to work that out, I think, by more rational methods. Putting signs on a people who are of an undesirable group, is not a good tactic. Well, I mean, it worked for the Nazis, but only for a while. Yes, I know it isn't practical. Probably wouldn't work and would go against the Constitution but it's one of those soul-satisfying ideas. A sign on cars, for example, instead of on people, might be helpful to the rest of us, such as UNINSURED or RECKLESS DRIVER or HAS MULTIPLE DUIs. If we could put signs on kids, RECKLESS PARENTS, might do the trick. ;) Maybe others can come up with a few more putative signs. Under the heading of "If Only". Lois
Just to be fair here is a video showing the republicans as the sensible ones and Bill Maher a democratic darling as being the idiot
Just to be fair here is a video showing the republicans as the sensible ones and Bill Maher a democratic darling as being the idiot http://www.amazon.com/Paint-Beast-Pretty-Fabian-Melgar-ebook/dp/B00KPWFN0K/ref=la_B00MCGTI4Y_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423355922&sr=1-2In this day and age there will always be a video by someone on the wrong side of every controversial issue. (Yes, I know I'm being one-sided, but I'm finally old enough to feel free to do that now, and I'm loving it.) Lois
After viewing the video and reading the article, in my opinion this has nothing to do with washing hands or vaccinations. His point was deregulation. He is using hand washing as means of showing how the majority of people are smart enough to do the right thing and thus government interference is unnecessary. Oh, if that were only true.
Republicans gleefully eliminated regulations for Wall Street during the Reagan administration because we could count on the free market economy to do the right thing. Perhaps we should rescind the 14th Amendment and go back to “letting the people decide” in each state what the definition of marriage is, that the Ten Commandments belong in front of every city hall and, heck, let’s go back to black slavery. Majority rules (aka Mob Rule)!
People cannot always be counted on to do the right thing. People cheat. People are selfish. People are too often ignorant and buy these straw man analogies.
The Senator justified his stance that maybe employees shouldn't have to wash there hands by saying that the business would just have to post a sign that their employees are not required to wash their hands. This is a weird way to promote "freedom". His suggestion is that the business would then fail as people would decide not to eat in those establishments. Perhaps he would also suggest that parents should not be required to make sure their children are vaccinated, but should just need to require their children to wear a sign that they are not vaccinated, if they opt out. Then other people could simply choose to avoid those children.He sounds like a libertarian: The government should do nothing and everything will fall into place. Survival of the fittest. All stupid, weak and undeserving people will be selected out. Lois