The only people subsidizing my ER visits are myself and my employer. I'm in my early 30's, in good health, with no comorbidities. The chances I end up in the ER for covid are about as likely as ending up there for a blood clot in my brain.
This is my point: people are capable of making a cost/benefit analysis decision on their own. If you want to give them money, just give them money. Don't coerce them into making a healthcare decision that might not be right for them.
I was using the generic form of "you". A good fraction of people who end up in the ER are subsidized by the taxpayers. How is offering someone an incentive to avoid this situation coercion? If you have a well-paying job with good health insurance, you are unlikely to be a burden to the taxpayers and should not feel "coerced" by this lottery.
Look at it from the perspective of a line cook. The government ends your ability to make a living by enacting unscientific and capricious restrictions around indoor dining. You're now out of work.
All you need to do to secure a paycheck is take a couple injections of a drug that is not FDA approved for general use. If anything at all happens to you there's no one to sue because the manufacturers and health care providers have legal immunity.
You've been working odd jobs, gig work, etc to try to make ends meet so you've contracted covid a time or two. You know you're immune; or at the very least, not at much risk. But you have a child support payment, and another son living with you. What's the worst thing that could happen taking the shot?
It turns out the tail risk is quite high. But like a commenter said above: it's like the reverse lottery. High tail risk, but low risk overall and an immediate reward.
Maybe "coercion" is a little hyperbolic. I'll retreat to my earlier characterization of "unethical".
