No, not at all, because the government is in control of the health system. So hospitals cannot deny service to someone for almost ANY reason, not just for bigoted reasons. In the same way that a utility company cannot deny service. This is because these are essential services. The slight caveat being that a private hospital can deny services for insurance reasons. This would obviously be more of a problem in the US than here. However, would you put hospitals and utility companies in the same box as a bakery for example? Do you have the right to the services of a baker?Absolutely. Especially, if these other people are being paid to provide that service to others. If someone(regardless of race) comes to your home, and demands that you provide them with tea and biscuits, do you have the right to refuse that service? Of course you do. But if you go to a hospital injured, do they have the right to be refused service for bigoted reasons?
So in a population of 26M people, your chances of being infected(based on the current infection rate) is just a probability of 2 in 10K(0.0002) per year.
What's the math on this?
How do you get to 0.056?The odds of being in a motor vehicle accident(based on the number of insurance claims) is a probability of 5 in 100 drivers(0.056 x no. of years driving). So a probability of 0.0002(Covid-19) vs. a probability of 0.06(traffic accident)..., well you do the math!
Yes, which is a question.No, what your original comment was, "Is there a SINGLE Republican proposing this sort of stuff?
Which is a personal statement.I follow US politics VERY closely, and I haven't heard of any.".
The above question and personal statement is NOT a "truth claim!"I guess you needed to define stuff first! In either case, you simply assumed that if no one could disprove your truth claim, that it must be correct.
Sure, but again, there is not one single republican who has expressed their desire for a vaccine mandate. It is ENTIRELY possible that every single Republican politician in the land secretly desires vaccine mandates. However, this would mean NOTHING unless it translates into ACTUAL policy like the policy in New York City! Again, if you are unable to name any, then so far, New York City type vaccine mandates are specifically a Democrat policy. Simple!The point was, that it is YOU who must prove it, since you are the one who said it. To most people this is just your own confirmation bias, supported only by suppositions and speculations. But, in reality, it will take an actual proposed policy, or a vote on the floor to support your claims. But I am more than confident, that there will be a few Republicans voting along with many Democrats for a vaccine mandate.
The problem seems to be that you are misunderstanding what it means for someone to express their desire for something. Keyword: "EXPRESS!" Just because someone believes in something, and would vote in favour of it, how does that mean that they are expressing it unless they actually EXPRESS it?What? The crack is becoming bigger. First you are claiming that NOT ONE Republican is proposing, or in favor of a vaccine mandate. And, now you are claiming that you are not sure if even ONE Republican may vote yes to a vaccine mandate? I'm confused.
We're both against forced vaccinations. I believe that people should have the freedom to refuse the vaccine. You agree surely!Wow! what a deflection!! I almost got whiplash with that one. Context please!
I thought that America had moved on a little bit since slavery and Jim Crow. Perhaps I'm wrong.
It's VERY simple: America HAS DEFINITELY moved on from SLAVERY and JIM CROW! To say otherwise is frankly INSANE! By saying otherwise you are diminishing all of the gains which black people have fought to achieve, as if it counts for NOTHING! ALOT of black people would be MOST offended by this!You are. And most people of non color would say that.
If you actually think that the percentage of Americans who are racist today is the same as the percentage of Americans who were racist during slavery and Jim Crow, then you really are insane and I really don't know what to say to you.You can't change a person's core beliefs and attitudes.
Yes, "civil resistance" was the key. We saw this prior to the Civil Rights Act with the 1960 Greensboro sit-ins, where the Woolworths Company department store chain removed its policy of racial segregation without government intervention.If there were no laws, civil resistance, or the normalcy that you refer to, nothing would have changed.
After the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but what about after the Civil Rights Act of 1964?The simple answer is, that people ignored the civil and Constitutional rights of POC. Hence why the Jim Crow laws, the segregation laws, the Black Codes, the Separate but Equal policies, Blacks NOT allowed to own homes or property, suppression on the Black votes, and the systematic inequality in the American Democracy. This treatment of POC had been happening before, and after the Civil Rights Act of 1866(to protect Black Americans against racial discrimination).