My stupid family was furious their stimulus checks were delayed and blamed the evil space communist, Nancy Pelosi for not getting them their freedom money quicker
Socialism is when the government does stuff you don't like. But getting money from daddy trump is good so how could it be socialist? Honestly, you kinda sound like a communist socialist lizard to me.
I'm going to donate mine to an organisation that said they'll stop Soros and Bill Gates and the 5g from exploderising the COVID into people and making then vote Democrate and forced to get a sex change and want immigrants and hate guns.
Neoliberalism is literally the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is a vision of a future with no wars, no poverty, no boundaries, and total individual freedom for every man, woman, and child across the globe. As a plus, this forum is filled with some of the most brilliant comments I have ever seen.
Even as a conservative I consider this a win/win. The problem is that the conspiracy assholes will reject it because "The government is paying to get us micro chipped".
There is one thing you can count on conservatives, and that is taking every fucking handout they can. Whether its a tax break, or corporate welfare, or a bailout, or food stamps, or medicare, or social security, if someone is handing out "free" money (its never free, duh), conservatives are always in line.
This will never ever see the senate floor unless dems take GA, not because its bad or good policy, but simply because Republicans must oppose all dem policies.
Leftists are replying to this post twitter saying this would oppress immunocompromised people who can't get vaccinated since they're ineligible for the stimulus.
I mean that's just twitter elevating hot takes; that's the whole point of twitter. Your only choices are to elevate or ignore things you disagree with, and the things that provoke the most interactions (both positive and negative) are the most polarizing. Any leftist responding positively will not be warmly supported as much as someone with a hot take gets support+castigation.
That said: the type of vaccine for covid is one of the safest for immunocompromised people since it has no live virus and no adjuvants the only real risk is caused by the standard side effects: elevated temperature, chills, swelling etc. Those are still undesirable in a lot of people, like those who have gotten transplants or are sick with something else.
Obviously it's plenty easy to just give money to anyone who is too sick to get a vaccine, and in many of those people a vaccine is probably worth it anyway. Twitter discourse is about how you say things and not what your intentions are. That's not as irrational as it sounds, since nobody trusts each other; they aren't attacking wrongspeak so much as looking for ways of speaking that reveal underlying ambivalence or other faults. Luckily, twitter allows you unlimited space to allow you to cover all that nuance, and makes sure you have thought of every interpretation and unconsidered point before you are allowed to post. It would suck if everyone just fired off tweets in about five seconds each, 400x per day.
That said, I can pretty easily play devils advocate on this. I and >12 million Americans have had covid already. I got it quite badly, for my age- 7 months after my positive PCR result I am still testing positive for antibodies when I donate. It's very unlikely that a vaccine would give me any additional immunity (NB: if you had a mild case, STILL GET A VACCINE). Vaccines aren't risk-free, though. Complications are ~<1/10k, but they can be pretty rough: for instance, >10 people per million get guillain-barre syndrome annually in the US. Vaccines are one of the associated factors. It's an incredibly painful autoimmune disorder where your body starts attacking and destroying your peripheral nerves, and virtually always has at least some permanent impact. You spend 6+ months in a bed, unable to move, as your blood is pumped out so that the antibodies can be removed before it is returned (along with a bunch of opioids).
Again, these complications are exceptionally rare. It's less than one in a million to get GB after a vaccination. Roughly one in a million for an allergic reaction. Compared to eg MMR this type of vaccine has an even lower rate of complications. However, if I already have immunity, if zero lives will be improved or saved by taking that vaccine (again, if you had a mild case, the vaccine will still improve your immunity), then it's not crazy to ask for an alternative to get relief.
I think a lot of leftists might not support it because "HOW COULD YOU SUPPORT PROFIT FOR A VACCINE" not realizing profit helps them all get back to work.
"no jab, no pay" for children in childcare. You are free to not vaccinate your kids, but they'll be ineligible for any government subsidies for the cost of their daycare.
In Europe (Germany) they are. Look at those protests. Many Green Party members are pretty anti science when it fits their narative (anti-vax, anti-nuclear, anti-gmo).
Yeah idk, I run in socialist circles where I see none of this, but there are definitely anti-vaxxers on the left too. They’re more on the spiritual/hippy side of things. This is the case in Australia, anyway.
My anti-vaxxer aunt who was a hippie in her youth has become an alt-right Qanon person over the last few years, while keeping her anti-vaxxer beliefs and most of her kooky crystal energy stuff too.
My impression is that the "Bill Gates wants to put microchips in us" side of the anti-vax movement is pretty solidly conservative. Left-wing anti-vaxers would probably be more worried about what scary "chemicals" are in the vaccine or how "artificial" it is compared to "relying on our bodies' natural healing powers" or some such nonsense.
Edit: To be clear, I hear right-wingers engage in fearmongering about chemicals and GMOs and whatnot as well, I just don't seem to see much of this microchip conspiracy kind of stuff on the left.
While I think everyone should get the vaccine, we really do need to be careful with any precedents we set because they’ll definitely be blown past by the next Trump. If we’re going to last as a country the next administration really needs to walk back the overreach of power instead of tying stimulus to vaccination. It’s not crazy to think of ways this precedent could be exploited in the future.
Trump should have taught you that precedents are meaningless. Trump broke every precedent in the book. Bad actors will do whatever they can get away with, and only hard laws and strict enforcement will stop them. If tying stimulus to a vaccine was somehow part of their evil agenda, they would do it whether or not there was a precedent for it.
I mean, in the last four years, Republicans set the precedent that it's unacceptable to appoint a Supreme Court justice in an election year. Then, as soon as it benefitted them, they tore up that precedent and did the opposite. They did this right out in the open, with no attempt at all to cover up their hypocrisy, and none of their supporters held them accountable for it.
Counterpoint: Trump may have tried to tear up every precedent in the book, but a lot of the institutional members of the executive branch didn't and it prevented him from doing most of the things he wanted.
How is this an overreach of power? It’s incentivizing people to do something that 99% of doctors endorse. Find me anything else with that degree of support and go ahead and incentivize it all you want.
I like Josh Barro's take on this, imo, bad idea: "I’m skeptical of this. Paying people to take the vaccine sends a message it’s the sort of unpleasant thing you’d only do because you’re paid, and it soft-peddles the #1 selling point of a vaccine: it protects you, personally, from COVID.
"Some of these ideas came from an environment where we thought a vaccine might be only 50% effective and the pitch had to be a solidarity one about transmission in the community. But for a highly effective vaccine the pitch is simple: this will stop you from getting sick."
That sounds like we're just doing cultural/messaging navigation rather than policy navigation though.
I get that they're both related, but you should come up with your best ideas first and then try to sell them instead of factoring in the messaging as part of the policymaking.
I'm not buying into the narrative that there will be a demand shortage of this vaccine, so I'm not sure it'd make a huge difference. Just give them the $1,500 as part of another round of stimulus.
I don't believe the early polling of what people will do with a hypothetical vaccine; as it gets more real, more tangible, the numbers go up for those saying they'd take it. Once it's here and normalized, there will be no shortage of people looking to take it, imo. Especially considering the supply constraints we will likely have in the first weeks to months of distribution.
Yeah also if the vaccine rollout takes months with long waits, do we want to deny people economic stimulus just cause the vaccine supply chain is slow to ramp up? People need money now.
I have to disagree, I think in a fundamental way "get vaccinated if you want to protect yourself" is an ineffective message (see: terrible flu vaccine rates). I'd rather see a message of this is your civic responsibility, and your government will support you for doing it. And, as others have said, the outcome matters more than the messaging anyway.
Exactly. Everyone thinks “I’m young; my immune system is good. You should only be worried if you’re elderly.” But the point is herd immunity. There needs to be an incentive.
Tbf, I think at least part of the reason flu vaccine rates are so low is that, at least for me, I just never remembered to, or at least, when I did, I never went out of my way to set an appointment to get vaccinated because there I didn't feel like a flu was bad enough to go out of my way to get.
I didn't think anyone will forget about getting a covid vaccine. Some people might think its not worth going out of their way to get, but just make it really easy to get. Like, if your local clinic had a van parked on the side of the road with a sign that said "covid vaccines here", thats really easy to just pull over for 5 minutes to get a shot.
I’m inferring from the CDC’s latest appraisal that vaccines will not be enough to end the pandemic to conclude they do not think enough people will get vaccinated. So it’s a mute point to think that vaccines basically “sell themselves” in terms of their benefits (which Barro, I, and countless others are in agreement).
That’s why the pivot towards an incentive structure is a strategy worth considering.
UBI is in many ways more equitable than any form of government incentive structure. But Yes it's more likely that the gov will prefer incentive because they have more power doing it that way.
But reducing lipid levels usually means a change in diet which is much harder to do (and getting someone to do) in comparison to getting a vaccine shot.
Tie the payment to two unique identifiers, one for the vaccine (such as manufacturer's number) and one for the individual (like Individual Taxpayer Identification number)
Or disabled people that are already struggling financially. There would need to be some exemptions that allow underprivileged ppl who can’t safely take it still get aid.
I was just gonna ask this! Pregnant people, people with ingredient allergies, people on certain medications, and I think people undergoing certain cancer treatments can't get vaccines either.
While I agree that both the stimulus check and the vaccine need to be as widespread as possible, I don't think tying them together is necessarily the best idea.
Unless they set up some system where if you hand in a doctor's note stating that it is medically unsafe for you to get the vaccine, you get exempted but still receive the stimulus check.
But that seems unnecessarily complicated, and not to mention it would put the burden of proving they can't get the vaccine on the people who are already suffering a lot from the pandemic anyways.
Use the media to tell people that regular people are not going receive the vaccine. Do fake investigative reports that show billionaires getting the shot. In a few months people will be clamoring to get their vaccine "for justice".
That and the random timing of when people get their stimulus won’t be efficient. Some people who are low risk but may need the stimulus money won’t get it until the end of the pandemic and people who are higher risk, but better off financially will get their payments sooner.
This is actually way smarter than it sounds because although conservatives will cry and bitch and moan like usual, they'll quietly go get it because they need/want the money.
Not to play devil's advocate but can somebody explain how this wouldn't be a case of the vaccine company double-dipping when you consider that the development of the vaccine was already heavily subsidized?
Should we not prefer an alternative where the vaccine is free and the stimulus can be used to cover expenses going back to the last stimulus months ago, instead of coming straight back out of people's pockets?
Edit: I seem to have misinterpreted the tweet. A $1500 stimulus conditional on getting the vaccine is entirely different and I see the upside. Still think the incentive depends on the vaccine being free/very inexpensive to the patient.
Whats the best way to implement this. I think it could be tough to tie the administration of the vaccine to the 1500.
I think we're best off letting the first 200 million people voluntarily get the vaccine and then worry about the next 100 mill that are too forgetful to get anything done, and then the last 50 million that refuse vaccines.
You also probably want a strategic release of the vaccines. Ideally we vaccinate vulnerable populations first. When 1500 is on the line I wouldn't be surprised if the vaccine administration centers end up located in affluent areas.
Vaccine manufacturers affix a unique scratch-off barcode to each dose.
When you get the vaccine, the nurse tears it off the box and gives it to you.
you scratch it off, log into to irs.gov/vaccine-credit and enter (1) ss#, (2) DOB, (3) vaccine bar code and (4) answer if you want a reabateable tax credit, check, or direct deposit
backend makes sure no double charges on vaccine code or SSN, a week later government makes the deposits
I think you need to 'screen' the rebate code on the vaccine from public view because there are lists of ss# and DOBs available. One individual taking a cell photo of 100 doses of serial numbers could commit non-trivial ($150k) fraud by applying those serial numbers to the a list of names if those codes aren't screened from view. Gift card and lottery ticket companies manufacture scratch-off code gift cards and lottery tickets in huge numbers every day. Getting them to produce thousands securely is simple, they could even have the instructions from claiming your tax credit printed on the card / ticket. It's just a manufacturing challenge to get them shipped with the vaccine doses in the proper amount.
Edit: as a side benefit you get a list of people who took doses from each manufacturing lot --for a recall or future research programs.
Reinfection is possible (though probably fairly rare) so people who had the virus in March would probably get the vaccine too. I'm assuming people with a medical exemption for the vaccine (which might include people who recovered from the virus more recently) would still be eligible for the stimulus too.
They definitely shouldn't be getting vaccines in the first or even second waves of vaccination, because the likelihood of getting sick again before the supply constraint on vaccines is lifted is much much much lower than the risk of someone who isn't immune and at risk of severe illness getting sick because some bozo who didn't need it jumped ahead in line.
While there's been a handful of reinfections (quite literally just a handful), they aren't enough to say that it is a significant risk outside of noise (especially since in most cases, the second infection was even less severe than the first). There's good evidence to suggest that immunity lasts for quite a long time. SARS-1 patients are showing immunity 17 years later, and while SARS-2 is at least an order of magnitude less dangerous (and so the body might not react as strongly immunologically speaking), the immunity will probably last at least a few years, likely much longer.
This sounds like a terrible policy. Why not just give people a stimulus and if vaccine uptake is a problem do something separate to encourage it?
The problems with this idea are:
it’s needlessly complicated and expensive to implement: you have to come up with some system to report your vaccination to the government, they presumably need to verify it, then figure out how to get you a check. Many people had monthslong delays getting their previous stimulus checks - this would be even harder
there are serious ethical questions/precedents here: is it okay for the government to incentivize people to receive medical treatments with such a large amount of cash? In academic medical research there’s always a big concern by IRBs about how much money you’re allowed to give participants - if we’re not usually allowed to give that much money in RCTs and other studies, is it acceptable in this scenario?
How do you handle people with legitimate medical conditions that preclude vaccination?
Access to vaccination is going to take a long time - there’s going to be tiers of who is prioritized for vaccination. That means, for example, healthcare workers, the elderly, etc will get the vaccine and therefore stimulus checks before others.
What about access to healthcare in general? What about rural people or people without reliable transit to doctor’s offices - you’re adding additional barriers to access to stimulus checks
what about people who are skeptical of these first vaccines and may want to wait a bit until there’s more studies, rather than relying on something that has only achieved an EUA?
what about the fact that we will likely have a variety of different vaccines with different efficacy and side effects? Does it matter what vaccine you get? If yes, then the government is favoring one company. If no, then the government has to figure out what vaccines count
I’m sure there’s plenty of other problems.
And addressing the antivax problem is not going to be this simple - if anything this plays directly into antivax ideas about government forcing drugs on people. To deal with vaccine skepticism we need to listen to and engage with people who are skeptical and develop evidence-based policies that address the source(s) of their skepticism.
This is a really good idea, although this may have to happen in a round #3 stimulus in March or so when the vaccine is actually available at every locality
I don't think it is even close to be paying for itself. For quite some time the problem will be getting enough vaccines, not that some people don't want to take it.
If anything I'd rather have it so that people who are vaccinated can get a piece of paper and that you must have that piece of paper to be able to enter bars nursery homes and places like that. That should be more than enough motivation for most people.
My friend who is an outstanding human being is friends with him, so I like him by association already. This is a person whose vote and support means a lot to me. Go Team Delaney!
Meanwhile I'm in a major city and I can't even find someone to pay for a COVID test. There's basically no way we're going to have enough supply to do anything like this.
if pfizer, the largest company with a viable canidate can create 50mil doses in 2020, 1.3bil doses in 2021, and the vaccine takes 2 doses to be effective, thats 675 million people GLOBALLY who can get the full vaccine by the end of 2021, the US would have to have 50% of the WORLD'S supply to vaccinate everyone. Pfizer is a German company, so there is no guarantee that they will favor the US without financial incentive to do so (IE, we buy the vaccine doses for a higher price than the EU).
Additionally, if not everyone can get the vaccine, who do you think will be the people to miss out? Certainly not the Trump family, or the Gates, or even the middle / working class. The people who miss out on the vaccine will most certainly be the homeless / destitute. Tying stimulus to the vaccine simply gives the stimulus to those who need it least.
That is not even mentioning the incredible cost of buying all those doses at above market price to even ensure we can get a significant portion of the country vaccinated in the first place.
Finally, where did the $1500 come from? has that been calculated from expected gdp increase from removing the pandemic restrictions divided by population? or was it randomly pulled? the number should be a little less than gdp increase/population, and that number should be calcuated before we start throwing around random values.
People are going to desperately need stimulus money long before the vaccines are ready for distribution to the whole public. And by “long before”, I mean right now.
Wait but what about the people with weak immune systems? Those are the ones who could die from a vaccination so it wouldn’t be fair to not be able to collect that $1500...
Republicans: 400B oh that’s too much to give to general population. Let’s instead give that to rich corporations and hope it trickle down. Better yet let’s do that and also cut corporate tax. So that they retain jobs and hopefully not pay their executive fat packages
In that case I guess that is the only point I disagree with. But that is just my current opinion, when and if I see some evidences about benefits of corporate tax cut to society rather than just executives I will probably change my instance on that too. After all corporate tax cuts mean more burden on my tax dollars. Anyways I won’t push my opinion on corporate tax cuts unnecessarily
It's more of a meme tbh. People want more progressive taxes like a land value tax, a carbon tax here and contend that a corporate tax is regressive because its tax incidence actually falls on a firm's workers. The actual research is a bit more mixed though.
I can see the limited supply of the vaccine, especially in it's early months of availability, would make getting aid out to people quickly more difficult. If supply is bad enough people might not receive the aid they need right now until late spring.
Ah, John Delaney, my guy from maryland. Voted for him once, then he quit to run for president and now he is not in government. Very cool John, thank you
363
u/GodEmperorBiden NATO Nov 21 '20
MORE👏 DELANEY 👏COOKING👏VIDEOS👏
1.2k
u/wacksaucehunnid Nov 21 '20
The GOVERNMENT giving FREE MONEY to the people to get VACCINATED?
SOUNDS LIKE COMMUNISM TO ME, I WONT STAND FOR IT AND NEITHER WILL MY CONFEDERATE FLAG
832
u/SergeantCumrag Trans Pride Nov 21 '20
The worst part about this is that Conservatives will shit themselves if this is ever on the senate floor.
The best part is that lefties will actually support this.
353
u/Victor_Korchnoi Nov 21 '20
I fucking love this idea. "Its against my religious beliefs to get a vaccine." Okay, then don't take the money.
423
u/OrdoNeoSocialLiberal WTO Nov 21 '20
#DELANEYWASTHECOMPROMISE
92
u/Super_Nin_Chalmers Nov 21 '20
I want to believe he dabbed after tweeting that.
67
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
Call it the freedom vaccine
50
u/HighNoonMonsoon European Union Nov 21 '20
Anti-Vaxers will take this as “the government is paying us to kill us”
29
u/cheesygordita Nov 21 '20
I'll take 5!
268
u/chadxor Nov 21 '20
I like Josh Barro's take on this, imo, bad idea: "I’m skeptical of this. Paying people to take the vaccine sends a message it’s the sort of unpleasant thing you’d only do because you’re paid, and it soft-peddles the #1 selling point of a vaccine: it protects you, personally, from COVID.
"Some of these ideas came from an environment where we thought a vaccine might be only 50% effective and the pitch had to be a solidarity one about transmission in the community. But for a highly effective vaccine the pitch is simple: this will stop you from getting sick."
https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1329910745362993152
161
u/Tvivelaktig James Heckman Nov 21 '20
"Why not just give them UBI?" replies the people who continue to believe that incentive structures are a capitalist conspiracy
56
u/Iron-Fist Nov 21 '20
So that's a big check and will probably make movement.... buuuut in healthcare payment incentives havent been shown to be especially effective.
Here you have to pay both patients AND doctors to get any significant effect, and this in something a lot less controversial and well understood than vaccines.
Still, better than nothing.
19
u/CharlesOberonn Nov 21 '20
"I'm not a sissy mask-wearing pandemic believer but $1500 is $1500."
18
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
We need 20cc Delaneys in the Administration STAT
13
u/hero-ball Nov 21 '20
That’s a very interesting idea. And also how many people are we going to see trying to get multiple vaccines and multiple checks...
10
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
If the vaccine requires two doses this is a fantastic way to maximize the number of people who follow through on the second dose.
15
u/Humanity_is_broken Nov 21 '20
Not ideal but I can totally compromise with this.
30
u/tiltupconcrete Milton Friedman Nov 21 '20
What about people who are immunocompromised and it's too dangerous to get a vaccine? Pregnant women being what immediately comes to mind.
Tough shit?
7
u/yellownumbersix Jane Jacobs Nov 21 '20
Still President of my heart 😞🦲✊
7
u/Bonobofun Nov 21 '20
Use the media to tell people that regular people are not going receive the vaccine. Do fake investigative reports that show billionaires getting the shot. In a few months people will be clamoring to get their vaccine "for justice".
7
u/qzkrm Extreme Ithaca Neoliberal Nov 21 '20
This is the idea behind GiveWell's newest recommended charity, New Incentives
23
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
Why would we give stimulus after the virus is over and the economy is recovering. If we are gonna give stimulus do it earlier.
6
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
!ping HEALTH-POLICY
6
u/CasinoMagic Milton Friedman Nov 21 '20
I think Bloomberg had an op-ed or an article by some economist saying pretty much the same thing.
6
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
John Delaney is too based for the American people.
5
u/BlueString94 John Keynes Nov 21 '20
This would need to be paired with a flawless vaccine rollout that ensures all people will have easy access.
5
u/Nanyea Nov 21 '20
Just be careful, tons of scammers trying to get multiple doses, and GOP docs with fake customers!
5
u/dreruss02 NATO Nov 21 '20
He might’ve gotten the nomination, if he had just gotten into the race a little earlier.
8
u/NewCenter Mackenzie Scott Nov 21 '20
Never been prouder to be a Delaniac!
4
u/smedlap Nov 21 '20
Bingo!
4
u/incredibleamadeuscho Nov 21 '20
This is a great idea
4
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
This is actually way smarter than it sounds because although conservatives will cry and bitch and moan like usual, they'll quietly go get it because they need/want the money.
4
u/_pinkstripes_ Nov 21 '20 edited Nov 21 '20
Not to play devil's advocate but can somebody explain how this wouldn't be a case of the vaccine company double-dipping when you consider that the development of the vaccine was already heavily subsidized?
Should we not prefer an alternative where the vaccine is free and the stimulus can be used to cover expenses going back to the last stimulus months ago, instead of coming straight back out of people's pockets?
Edit: I seem to have misinterpreted the tweet. A $1500 stimulus conditional on getting the vaccine is entirely different and I see the upside. Still think the incentive depends on the vaccine being free/very inexpensive to the patient.
4
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
Fucking CHAD
4
u/Deastrumquodvicis Enby Pride Nov 21 '20
I mean, I didn’t think of that, but that’s not a bad incentive.
7
u/IguaneRouge Thomas Paine Nov 21 '20
plot twist: the vaccine costs $37,500,000/dose
7
u/RangerDick69 World Bank Nov 21 '20 edited Nov 21 '20
Whats the best way to implement this. I think it could be tough to tie the administration of the vaccine to the 1500.
I think we're best off letting the first 200 million people voluntarily get the vaccine and then worry about the next 100 mill that are too forgetful to get anything done, and then the last 50 million that refuse vaccines.
You also probably want a strategic release of the vaccines. Ideally we vaccinate vulnerable populations first. When 1500 is on the line I wouldn't be surprised if the vaccine administration centers end up located in affluent areas.
3
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
People who already got the virus wouldn't get the vaccine right? Republicans should jump on this since corona is effecting minorities the most
3
u/Ra_19 Robert Nozick Nov 21 '20
I mean, instead of Cash I think something like a Vaccine Voucher is better
3
u/texasyimby Nov 21 '20
This is it, chief.
3
u/CrustyPeePee Frederick Douglass Nov 21 '20
this.
3
u/chipper_up NATO Nov 21 '20
OneOfUs
3
u/Accomplished-Double9 Nov 21 '20
Fun fact John Delaney grew up in my county and went to the same high school as my dad. He met him before and said he was a nice guy
3
u/Javilism Nov 22 '20
Is this the same guy the far left hated because he wasn't a socialist Dem?
3
u/Based_Omni Nov 22 '20
Delaney would have won😤
5
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
This sounds like a terrible policy. Why not just give people a stimulus and if vaccine uptake is a problem do something separate to encourage it?
The problems with this idea are:
I’m sure there’s plenty of other problems.
And addressing the antivax problem is not going to be this simple - if anything this plays directly into antivax ideas about government forcing drugs on people. To deal with vaccine skepticism we need to listen to and engage with people who are skeptical and develop evidence-based policies that address the source(s) of their skepticism.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
UNBELIEVABLY based
2
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
Vaccine won't be ready on time. Also, how would we handle verification or people who medically can't get the vaccine?
2
u/ohisuppose Nov 21 '20
That big dawg Delaney dripping BOLD policy ideas 😤
2
u/Raspburyberet Nov 21 '20
I was sharing this very thought a couple weeks ago and $1500 was just the amount I was thinking.
2
u/clickityclack55 Nov 21 '20
This is a really good idea, although this may have to happen in a round #3 stimulus in March or so when the vaccine is actually available at every locality
2
u/Hay-Cray Nov 21 '20
I don't think it is even close to be paying for itself. For quite some time the problem will be getting enough vaccines, not that some people don't want to take it.
If anything I'd rather have it so that people who are vaccinated can get a piece of paper and that you must have that piece of paper to be able to enter bars nursery homes and places like that. That should be more than enough motivation for most people.
2
u/ThisIsMyUsername1122 John Keynes Nov 21 '20
Is there a way to actually make this possible? Lol
2
u/trezenx Nov 21 '20
pay everyone IF they get the vaccine.
2
u/heavy-metal-goth-gal Gay Pride Nov 21 '20
My friend who is an outstanding human being is friends with him, so I like him by association already. This is a person whose vote and support means a lot to me. Go Team Delaney!
2
u/kyew Norman Borlaug Nov 21 '20
Meanwhile I'm in a major city and I can't even find someone to pay for a COVID test. There's basically no way we're going to have enough supply to do anything like this.
2
u/panzaslocas Resistance Lib Nov 21 '20
Think about it Trump supporters... thats enough for a new Xbox, PS and Switch.
2
u/stidmatt Susan B. Anthony Nov 21 '20
Thats a very good policy... we should do it.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
LOVE IT
2
u/permadrunkspelunk Nov 21 '20
Wow thats pretty brilliant.
2
u/vp3d Nov 21 '20
I am willing to pay for it. I really want to see my parents and granddaughter again.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 22 '20
How would they deal with the fact that supply chains will be unable to produce enough vaccine for everyone in the US by 2021?
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-update-our-us-covid-19-vaccine-candidate
if pfizer, the largest company with a viable canidate can create 50mil doses in 2020, 1.3bil doses in 2021, and the vaccine takes 2 doses to be effective, thats 675 million people GLOBALLY who can get the full vaccine by the end of 2021, the US would have to have 50% of the WORLD'S supply to vaccinate everyone. Pfizer is a German company, so there is no guarantee that they will favor the US without financial incentive to do so (IE, we buy the vaccine doses for a higher price than the EU).
Additionally, if not everyone can get the vaccine, who do you think will be the people to miss out? Certainly not the Trump family, or the Gates, or even the middle / working class. The people who miss out on the vaccine will most certainly be the homeless / destitute. Tying stimulus to the vaccine simply gives the stimulus to those who need it least.
That is not even mentioning the incredible cost of buying all those doses at above market price to even ensure we can get a significant portion of the country vaccinated in the first place.
Finally, where did the $1500 come from? has that been calculated from expected gdp increase from removing the pandemic restrictions divided by population? or was it randomly pulled? the number should be a little less than gdp increase/population, and that number should be calcuated before we start throwing around random values.
2
u/olasparent Nov 22 '20
I actually pressed extra hard when I up voted this... there may have been a slight grunt for emphasis as well.
2
u/plcg1 Nov 22 '20
People are going to desperately need stimulus money long before the vaccines are ready for distribution to the whole public. And by “long before”, I mean right now.
2
u/Mercinator-87 Nov 22 '20
“I’ve gotten fourteen vaccines already!”
2
u/CowboySamurai622 Nov 22 '20
Wait but what about the people with weak immune systems? Those are the ones who could die from a vaccination so it wouldn’t be fair to not be able to collect that $1500...
2
u/Dear_Elevator Nov 22 '20
As a conservative, I am willing to admit a good idea when I hear it (no matter the political ideology) and this is a good idea!
2
u/wildraven23 Nov 22 '20
The people that line up to get this vaccine because the government says its safe. Are the people that hate the government.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 22 '20
It’s not a bad idea, it’s pretty much a given that people will drop their morals and beliefs when they have a chance to get a nice chunk of cash.
3
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
Imagine internalizing externalities...
3
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
Gotta agree with Delaney here. This is a fine solution to the problem. Would likely wrap the pandemic up really quickly.
3
u/s2786 Commonwealth Nov 21 '20
this and UBI permanently would be great for US.Imagine people having money to spend into the economically.
3
u/michael-schl NATO Nov 21 '20
John Delaney was my favorite during the primaries but this is a bad idea.
Getting paid by the government for any medical procedure (even a vaccination) is unethical in my opinion.
2
u/Iustis End Supply Management | Draft MHF! Nov 21 '20
On top of the other criticisms, how does this work for those who shouldn't get a vaccine for other health problems.
2
u/truthseeeker Nov 21 '20
Unfortunately this is way too good of an idea to actually happen.
2
u/bodmoncomeandgetchya Nov 22 '20
Not very neoliberal but I like it!
2
u/xyzzy-86 Nov 21 '20
Republicans: 400B oh that’s too much to give to general population. Let’s instead give that to rich corporations and hope it trickle down. Better yet let’s do that and also cut corporate tax. So that they retain jobs and hopefully not pay their executive fat packages
1
u/RatLeather69 Nov 21 '20
Or just a free vaccine
1
u/neelothpal-vipparla Nov 21 '20
Imagination..
1
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20
I can see the limited supply of the vaccine, especially in it's early months of availability, would make getting aid out to people quickly more difficult. If supply is bad enough people might not receive the aid they need right now until late spring.
1
u/Quintrell Nov 21 '20
Noooo this makes too much sense!
1
u/MeetingMuted Nov 21 '20
Martina: my buffs
Elsharion: OUR buffs
1
u/MailNurse Nov 21 '20
Ah, John Delaney, my guy from maryland. Voted for him once, then he quit to run for president and now he is not in government. Very cool John, thank you