Gene I too question the door to door thing. I need to learn more, whether they are really federal agents, and what coercion exists if any but I’m not comfortable with door to door actions for so many reasons not the least of which efficacy and reasonable use of resources. Especially if feds are doing it. If it’s church groups or other stakeholder groups on their dime I’m ok with it, even if they rely on the government to some extent for information etc. but feds…not so much.

teedubbya wrote:

Don’t care about uniforms. Just coin. No fed employees or direct coin. If it’s stakeholders on their coin so be it. That’s as American as apple pie and happens in virtually every community for various reasons and issues. Every day.

And getting real info out there to counter the insidious disinformation machine is a good thing. But choice is choice regardless of your info flow.

teedubbya wrote:

Thinking about the insurance thing maybe the better route is through premiums. Since most are age sex benefit driven maybe the benefit part should be on covid opt in or opt out. Opt in requires the shot. Opt out doesn’t. Or a third opt in no shot bucket with premium increases accordingly. Not putatively but actuarially sound to account for cost.

Government funded programs? Shot or no benefits.

teedubbya wrote:

Seems like all the crying about masks are coming from people that claim to be red but live among the blue.

bgz wrote:

So self funded groups supported with government collected compliance data going door to door is OK by you? Maybe they can spray paint a big red "X" on the sidewalk in front of the house that has someone who hasn't taken the shot (as long as they pay for the paint out of their own pockets). Then Brewha can find them easier for his internment camps. Maybe if they buy their own lumber and gas, they can burn a cross in front of the house. Its'all good.

I know that I'm taking it to an extreme but a year and a half ago most would have thought that government mandates for the number of people allowed to assemble and shutting down "non essential" private businesses a year ago would have been extreme but it's acceptable nowadays.

BuckyB93 wrote:

Thinking about the insurance thing maybe the better route is through premiums. Since most are age sex benefit driven maybe the benefit part should be on covid opt in or opt out. Opt in requires the shot. Opt out doesn’t. Or a third opt in no shot bucket with premium increases accordingly. Not putatively but actuarially sound to account for cost.

Government funded programs? Shot or no benefits.

teedubbya wrote: