[hogFeast]

It always seemed very tiring to me: work out who the person is, work out what political allegiance they have, and then decide to agree or disagree with them/potentially having to reorder or reinterpret X or Y to make it all fit.

Regardless of that: if I am someone who believes that vaccines do not work (and btw, in the context of American politics...this does not seem a wild conspiracy, you see the same level of nonsense distributed by people on the left too) then am I likely to be convinced by the govt attempting to rescind support from me? No. If anything, that suggests to me that I am probably correct.

In other words, the point of removing unemployment insurance is to hurt people who disagree with me...this is not smart (and again, an ironic position to take from people who view themselves as very liberal and open...next-level stuff).

[abeyer]

> likely to be convinced by the govt attempting to rescind support from me?

Except rescinding support for anyone who would have qualified was never even discussed. The question is about making an exception to _extend_ support to a group that _wouldn't_ have otherwise gotten it. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but the status quo is that being dismissed for cause for refusing to abide by legal employment requirements is disqualifying for receiving unemployment.