Can Congress Mandate Weight Watchers?

[Two Thumbs]

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.

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.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

 

[kwc57]

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.

I refuse to believe that you are really that stoopid.

 

[chanel]

I watched an old movie a few weeks ago (can't remember the name) but it was a bizarre sci fi where a global govt was run by the insurance companies. All "freedoms" such as work, procreation, and travel were determined by one's ability to get "coverage" for that specific purpose. It was made in the 80s and I'm sure the writers didn't even realize how close we are.
Unbelievable.

 

[dblack]

This bill passed through both houses (elected officials of the people). Let's stop pretending and get to what this is really about.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. What this is all about is how much power we allow government to have over us. You seem to think that anything that passes congress should be allowed. But that's not how our government is supposed to work.

Do you want any limits to state power? What would they be?

 

[saveliberty]

Silly posters!

The government will want to set up the Bureau of Weight Management. Do you really think they will just let Weight Watchers benefit from the program?

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

I refuse to believe that you are really that stoopid.

Good, we'll refuse to believe it together.

I refuse to believe the fact that you ignored my response to your post yesterday. I'll assume you just forgot to acknowledge that you didn't read past the part of the bill that fit your argument.

 

[RDD_1210]

This bill passed through both houses (elected officials of the people). Let's stop pretending and get to what this is really about.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. What this is all about is how much power we allow government to have over us. You seem to think that anything that passes congress should be allowed. But that's not how our government is supposed to work.

Do you want any limits to state power? What would they be?

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.

 

[kwc57]

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.

I refuse to believe that you are really that stoopid.

Good, we'll refuse to believe it together.

I refuse to believe the fact that you ignored my response to your post yesterday. I'll assume you just forgot to acknowledge that you didn't read past the part of the bill that fit your argument.

I didn't answer it because I thought you were intentionally being obtuse. The penalties for not purchasing insurance goes on for pages and pages. All your quote says is that there will be no criminal prosecution if you don't buy it. They will still get their pound of flesh thru a penalty when you file your taxes. They have no need to take you to court as they already have the means to confiscate the money by other means. You will end up paying one way or another and there isn't a damn think you can do about it. You will be forced to fork over the cash.

 

[dblack]

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?

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

But can you understand how we see that as 'no limits at all'? Essentially, you're saying government should be able to do anything you think is a good idea. Or, rather, anything that Congress thinks is a good idea - since it's not actually you making the decision. That completely defeats the purpose of constitutionally limited government.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

So in other words, you wholeheartedly believe in majority rule and that the government can do whatever it wants so long as the majority decides "it is a good idea." The fact you say it has to be on a case-by-case basis proves this. But I am not sure if you realize the huge ramifications and consequences of such a belief made into policy. Pure democracy does not work. You need a constitutional Republic.

John Stuart Mill understood this danger:
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

 

[RDD_1210]

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

 

[ShackledNation]

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

Feel free to clarify or tell us why we were incorrect. But the way you put it makes it seem like you believe government can do anything it can justify is good for us.

 

[shintao]

God thats scary.

Like Bush told you, fuck the constitution, he will do it his way, and he did! LOL! Now stuck in the legal precedent of your own rope, you can be hung at will.

 

[RDD_1210]

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

Feel free to clarify or tell us why we were incorrect. But the way you put it makes it seem like you believe government can do anything it can justify is good for us.

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

 

[ShackledNation]

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

Feel free to clarify or tell us why we were incorrect. But the way you put it makes it seem like you believe government can do anything it can justify is good for us.

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

Of course I don't believe you think that. That is why I am debating you in the first place. Because of what you have said, it seems that you believe in unlimited government or majority rule, which go hand in hand. (majority rule is a form of unlimited government). Again, you seem to disagree with our characterizations of what you believe. If that is the case, please clarify what is incorrect.