Can Congress Mandate Weight Watchers?

[kwc57]

Good thing I have you guys here to explain to me what I think.

Nah, we're just listening to what you are saying and take you at your word.

 

[kwc57]

You seem to think I want government to have unlimited power simply because I am not belly aching about the insurance mandate. This is where you would be wrong.

That's why I asked the question. Because if you're willing to disregard constitutional limitations - what's left? What DO you see as the proper limits on governmetn power?

I can't give a broad stroke answer for this. It really has to be on a case-by-case basis. Like I said, I can see the reasoning behind mandating people have health insurance. I get it, I see the problem and I see how this aims to help fix that problem. Government is stepping in to help correct a situation that is hurting/affecting millions of Americans. To me, that IS what a government should do. Is it a perfect solution? Far from it, but that's a whole separate issue.

On the other hand, as an example, if government wanted to people able to spy on people at will in the name of national security, I would be against that as I don't see that truly being beneficial for the people as much as it is an increase in power for the government.

Can you show us in the constitution where that is the role of the government. It is either in the constitution or it isn't. This isn't the pirate code where they are "guidelines".

 

[RDD_1210]

That's why I asked the question. Because if you're willing to disregard constitutional limitations - what's left? What DO you see as the proper limits on governmetn power?

I can't give a broad stroke answer for this. It really has to be on a case-by-case basis. Like I said, I can see the reasoning behind mandating people have health insurance. I get it, I see the problem and I see how this aims to help fix that problem. Government is stepping in to help correct a situation that is hurting/affecting millions of Americans. To me, that IS what a government should do. Is it a perfect solution? Far from it, but that's a whole separate issue.

On the other hand, as an example, if government wanted to people able to spy on people at will in the name of national security, I would be against that as I don't see that truly being beneficial for the people as much as it is an increase in power for the government.

Can you show us in the constitution where that is the role of the government. It is either in the constitution or it isn't. This isn't the pirate code where they are "guidelines".

I'd say that is Promoting the General Welfare. But that will just start that whole argument up again.

 

[kwc57]

I can't give a broad stroke answer for this. It really has to be on a case-by-case basis. Like I said, I can see the reasoning behind mandating people have health insurance. I get it, I see the problem and I see how this aims to help fix that problem. Government is stepping in to help correct a situation that is hurting/affecting millions of Americans. To me, that IS what a government should do. Is it a perfect solution? Far from it, but that's a whole separate issue.

On the other hand, as an example, if government wanted to people able to spy on people at will in the name of national security, I would be against that as I don't see that truly being beneficial for the people as much as it is an increase in power for the government.

Can you show us in the constitution where that is the role of the government. It is either in the constitution or it isn't. This isn't the pirate code where they are "guidelines".

I'd say that is Promoting the General Welfare. But that will just start that whole argument up again.

Yes, it will.........because the framers didn't mean "carte blanche for whatever suits your fancy".

http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

 

[ShackledNation]

I can't give a broad stroke answer for this. It really has to be on a case-by-case basis. Like I said, I can see the reasoning behind mandating people have health insurance. I get it, I see the problem and I see how this aims to help fix that problem. Government is stepping in to help correct a situation that is hurting/affecting millions of Americans. To me, that IS what a government should do. Is it a perfect solution? Far from it, but that's a whole separate issue.

On the other hand, as an example, if government wanted to people able to spy on people at will in the name of national security, I would be against that as I don't see that truly being beneficial for the people as much as it is an increase in power for the government.

Can you show us in the constitution where that is the role of the government. It is either in the constitution or it isn't. This isn't the pirate code where they are "guidelines".

I'd say that is Promoting the General Welfare. But that will just start that whole argument up again.

Your conception of the general welfare clause is wrong. Let me remind you of my earlier post:

The general welfare clause refers to intent of laws, not laws themselves. Government may only exercise enumerated powers with the intention of "promoting the safety and general welfare of the nation." Congress has the power to declare war only if Congress has the intentions definied in the general welfare clause. It cannot declare war with the intention of political gain.

If the general welfare clause really means what people claim it does today, the entire constitution is meaningless and redundant. There would be no purpose for enumerated powers, for the general welfare clause would be the only necessary line of the constitution when referring to government authority. Government would have unlimited authority, and could force us to do anything so long as they claimed it was all "for our own good."

Brilliantly put by C.S. Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

If the general welfare clause was interpreted the way you interpret it, the rest of the constitution would never have been written because everything could be included under the broader general welfare clause. It would mean unlimited government but the entire purpose of any constitution is to limit government.

 

[dblack]

Perhaps you're under the assumption that I agree with you that this mandate is unconstitutional. Because I do not think that.

I'm trying to avoid making any assumptions by asking you direct questions - but so far you've been sidestepping them. The question of whether something is constitutional is moot if you don't believe that the constitution is supposed to limit government in the first place. Which is why I'm asking you. If you're saying you don't believe in unlimited government, if you're saying that the constitution does represent real constraints on government - what are they?

If those questions are too abstract, can you provide a few examples of things you would consider unconstitutional, with some explanation of why?

 

[Trajan]

George Will marvelously asked the group, "Does Congress have the constitutional power to require obese people to sign up for Weight Watchers? If not, why not?"

RICHARD STENGEL, TIME MAGAZINE

STENGEL: I don't know the answer to that.

WILL: You don't know.


MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, the beauty of that is, the not knowing -- and we can predict that Rick would say that because he's saying that's the color of the curtain. The basic foundation is set.

WILL: Is that a yes, Congress does have the power to mandate?

DYSON: It's open. If they decide that they will, they will have the power to do so.

Read more: George Will Asks This Week Panel: Can Congress Require Obese People to Sign Up for Weight Watchers? | NewsBusters.org

Video at the link.

dyson is a jerkoff. always has been.

and IF the gov. gets the mandate, they will use that opening to at some point in time, bascially make individuals conform to health standards they set ( caloric intake, smoking etc.) , in effect they and the private industry already do.

BUT when the gov. does do it, they will have a captive audience and there won't be a THING you will be able to do stop it.

 

[hboats]

Because the case can be made why everyone should have health insurance. Can the same be said for a requirement to buy a tree house? Are you so simple minded that you can only think in simple terms and can't separate issues and look at each on a case-by-case basis?

If congress one day said everyone must buy a tree house, I would be against that, why? Because it's a dumb idea that has no merit. I can understand however the reasoning behind the insurance mandate which is why I'm not getting worked up over it. You on the other hand are against something which will help us now in fear of some ridiculous scenario that you think might happen one day.

You wouldn't be against it, you would be all for it.

why?

Everyone must buy a treehouse, those that can't afford one will have one built for them. Those that refuse will be fined.

just like with obamacare

but thanks for proving that you would be against obamacare if you were not told to be for it.

Good point, just like you would be in favor of executing americans who don't have health insurance. I mean, they are going to die anyway, so you would be in favor of just executing them now so they don't drag it out and cost the rest of us more money. Glad we're on the same page.

Great, now any American who doesn't have health insurance is "going to die."

And the left thinks that Republicans use scare tactics?

Rick

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Similar to how you missed the point by trying to compare requiring everyone to own a tree house?

You don't think Congress can mandate that everyone buy a tree house? Why not, you think they can do everything else, what puts tree houses outside their purview?

Because the case can be made why everyone should have health insurance. Can the same be said for a requirement to buy a tree house? Are you so simple minded that you can only think in simple terms and can't separate issues and look at each on a case-by-case basis?

If congress one day said everyone must buy a tree house, I would be against that, why? Because it's a dumb idea that has no merit. I can understand however the reasoning behind the insurance mandate which is why I'm not getting worked up over it. You on the other hand are against something which will help us now in fear of some ridiculous scenario that you think might happen one day.

Can the case be made? Yes.

The case for Tree Houses

Congress, through the commerce clause, can regulate construction because the materials used in construction both cross state lines and have an impact on the national economy. Construction is also a highly regulated industry because we need to make sure buildings meet certain minimum standards in order to be safe for humans. this two pronged test is the same standard that is being used to justify Obamacare.

If we apply the standard used by judges who approve of the individual mandate in Obamacare we admit that Congress has the authority to force participation in a market if it will have a negative economic impact not to participate. Not buying a tree house has a negative impact on companies that build tree houses and on the people they employ. You cannot argue that choosing not to participate is an option because most people think about tree houses at some point during their lives, and thinking about a tree house is an activity.

​

Does the case make sense? No, but neither does the case for a mandate. Yet you support one and dispute the other.

Again I ask, what puts treehouses outside their purview? Remember during your argument against this that courts have already ruled that Congress can tell a person not to grow a vegetable garden for his own use, even if he has no intent to sell anything from that garden to anyone else.


​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because the case can be made why everyone should have health insurance. Can the same be said for a requirement to buy a tree house? Are you so simple minded that you can only think in simple terms and can't separate issues and look at each on a case-by-case basis?

If congress one day said everyone must buy a tree house, I would be against that, why? Because it's a dumb idea that has no merit. I can understand however the reasoning behind the insurance mandate which is why I'm not getting worked up over it. You on the other hand are against something which will help us now in fear of some ridiculous scenario that you think might happen one day.

You're completely missing the point behind constitutionally limiting government in the first place. The idea behind such limitations is to prevent the majority from forcing its will on the minority. 'The case can be made' for all kinds of things the majority might want to force on the minority. You seem to be of the opinion that anything that gets majority support in congress should be allowed. But our form of government prevents that except for specific authorized circumstances (the enumerated powers). That's the whole issue here. The question isn't whether the individual mandate is a good idea, or whether forcing us to buy treehouses is ridiculous, but the extent to which majority rule is allowed to dominate.

This bill passed through both houses (elected officials of the people). Let's stop pretending and get to what this is really about. Republicans doing everything they can to derail the president in any way possible even when the "issue" really isn't an issue. They've somehow convinced people that there freedoms are being taken away and scared them to think what kind of precedent this sets up in the future. A future where we will have to be on weight watchers and purchase tree houses.

What about what you just said contradicts any point dblack made in his post?

 

[saveliberty]

HUD will make them put in a really expensive stairway for your tree houses.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps you're under the assumption that I agree with you that this mandate is unconstitutional. Because I do not think that.

I'm trying to avoid making any assumptions by asking you direct questions - but so far you've been sidestepping them. The question of whether something is constitutional is moot if you don't believe that the constitution is supposed to limit government in the first place. Which is why I'm asking you. If you're saying you don't believe in unlimited government, if you're saying that the constitution does represent real constraints on government - what are they?

If those questions are too abstract, can you provide a few examples of things you would consider unconstitutional, with some explanation of why?

Which is why I came up with the absurd example of tree houses to find out where he draws the line. So far I am completely lost on what he actually believes. It seems to come down to whether or not he likes it, which is an absurd way to run a government.

 

[MikeFrank]

iT WON'T BE LONG UNTIL THEY DO IF WE LET THEM KEEP TAKING OUR FREEDOM AWAY.

 

[kwc57]

Rdd?

 

[ERdoc]

we have only a few ways to go on things like this

1. As a society we simply agree to accept that some people are going to be unhealthy totally because of laziness, sloth, and vice. We forgive them as weak and spend our taxpayer money to keep them alive at whatever cost, for as long as possible, whether they contribute by changing to a healthier lifestyle or not.

2. We penalize people who have diseases that can be prevented or reversed with proper healthy life styles, either by cutting them off from taxpayer funded healthcare, or with fines.

3. We mandate that people who are unhealthy due to their own bad habits go into a government run program that forces them into compliance with healthy living standards and take away their rights to free choices so long as they're dependent upon government money to maintain their crappy lifestyle.

4. We give monetary incentives to unhealthy people to become healthy so that they're dependence on government funded healthcare systems wanes over time.

I believe #1 is no longer an option. I see way too many people in the ER who believe it's my duty and job to treat them like they're guests at a 5 star hotel and I'm their bellhop. I'm done with it. To waste my time and the taxpayer's money on people who are so far removed from any semblance of normal behavior in a civil society is no longer tolerable.

 

[dblack]

we have only a few ways to go on things like this

1. As a society we simply agree to accept that some people are going to be unhealthy totally because of laziness, sloth, and vice. We forgive them as weak and spend our taxpayer money to keep them alive at whatever cost, for as long as possible, whether they contribute by changing to a healthier lifestyle or not.

2. We penalize people who have diseases that can be prevented or reversed with proper healthy life styles, either by cutting them off from taxpayer funded healthcare, or with fines.

3. We mandate that people who are unhealthy due to their own bad habits go into a government run program that forces them into compliance with healthy living standards and take away their rights to free choices so long as they're dependent upon government money to maintain their crappy lifestyle.

4. We give monetary incentives to unhealthy people to become healthy so that they're dependence on government funded healthcare systems wanes over time.

I believe #1 is no longer an option. I see way too many people in the ER who believe it's my duty and job to treat them like they're guests at a 5 star hotel and I'm their bellhop. I'm done with it. To waste my time and the taxpayer's money on people who are so far removed from any semblance of normal behavior in a civil society is no longer tolerable.

What you've expressed here is exactly why I don't want government to assume responsibility for my health care.

 

[ShackledNation]

we have only a few ways to go on things like this

1. As a society we simply agree to accept that some people are going to be unhealthy totally because of laziness, sloth, and vice. We forgive them as weak and spend our taxpayer money to keep them alive at whatever cost, for as long as possible, whether they contribute by changing to a healthier lifestyle or not.

2. We penalize people who have diseases that can be prevented or reversed with proper healthy life styles, either by cutting them off from taxpayer funded healthcare, or with fines.

3. We mandate that people who are unhealthy due to their own bad habits go into a government run program that forces them into compliance with healthy living standards and take away their rights to free choices so long as they're dependent upon government money to maintain their crappy lifestyle.

4. We give monetary incentives to unhealthy people to become healthy so that they're dependence on government funded healthcare systems wanes over time.

I believe #1 is no longer an option. I see way too many people in the ER who believe it's my duty and job to treat them like they're guests at a 5 star hotel and I'm their bellhop. I'm done with it. To waste my time and the taxpayer's money on people who are so far removed from any semblance of normal behavior in a civil society is no longer tolerable.

Or we could make people responsible for their own healthcare costs so they will have the incentive to have a healthier lifestyle.

 

[percysunshine]

Of course the answer would be "no", but that's not the point. Y'all are acting as if Obama had said "yes". How can we take anything the right says seriously, when they take as "fact" things that were never even said. Gore's "inventing" the internet comes to mind. Are we seeing one of the opening salvos of '12, where this "question" will become a "fact"?

Why is the answer No? If the Government can make you buy insurance, they can make you sign up for weight watcher.

The government can't make you buy insurance on yourself.

 

[saveliberty]

we have only a few ways to go on things like this

1. As a society we simply agree to accept that some people are going to be unhealthy totally because of laziness, sloth, and vice. We forgive them as weak and spend our taxpayer money to keep them alive at whatever cost, for as long as possible, whether they contribute by changing to a healthier lifestyle or not.

2. We penalize people who have diseases that can be prevented or reversed with proper healthy life styles, either by cutting them off from taxpayer funded healthcare, or with fines.

3. We mandate that people who are unhealthy due to their own bad habits go into a government run program that forces them into compliance with healthy living standards and take away their rights to free choices so long as they're dependent upon government money to maintain their crappy lifestyle.

4. We give monetary incentives to unhealthy people to become healthy so that they're dependence on government funded healthcare systems wanes over time.

I believe #1 is no longer an option. I see way too many people in the ER who believe it's my duty and job to treat them like they're guests at a 5 star hotel and I'm their bellhop. I'm done with it. To waste my time and the taxpayer's money on people who are so far removed from any semblance of normal behavior in a civil society is no longer tolerable.

#5 Stop programs which allow people to become dependent on government NOW.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

we have only a few ways to go on things like this

1. As a society we simply agree to accept that some people are going to be unhealthy totally because of laziness, sloth, and vice. We forgive them as weak and spend our taxpayer money to keep them alive at whatever cost, for as long as possible, whether they contribute by changing to a healthier lifestyle or not.

2. We penalize people who have diseases that can be prevented or reversed with proper healthy life styles, either by cutting them off from taxpayer funded healthcare, or with fines.

3. We mandate that people who are unhealthy due to their own bad habits go into a government run program that forces them into compliance with healthy living standards and take away their rights to free choices so long as they're dependent upon government money to maintain their crappy lifestyle.

4. We give monetary incentives to unhealthy people to become healthy so that they're dependence on government funded healthcare systems wanes over time.

I believe #1 is no longer an option. I see way too many people in the ER who believe it's my duty and job to treat them like they're guests at a 5 star hotel and I'm their bellhop. I'm done with it. To waste my time and the taxpayer's money on people who are so far removed from any semblance of normal behavior in a civil society is no longer tolerable.

You would rather waste time and taxpayers money trying to impose a standard on them that will be impossible to enforce? You might be a doctor, but you know nothing about psychology.