Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: CAN THE CONGRESS force Fat People to join Weight Watchers?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 9, 2011, 1:23 p.m. EST by theaveng (602)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

My answer is no.

There is a whole host of proofs that the original Authors of the Constitution never intended the U.S. government to be an entity of near-limitless powers. Instead the central government is given a FEW powers (specifically enumerated) while most powers are reserved to the Member States and their legislatures (duly elected by the people).

Basically the U.S. Union was organized the same way the European Union is presently organized..... the central EU government is limited in power while most powers are still retained by its member states. Just in case that was unclear, the U.S. Founders added these two sentences to the Constitution: The rights listed shall not be construed to deny other rights reserved to the people. And: The powers not given to Congress are reserved to the State legislatures and the People respectively.

So. "No." The individual states have that power, but the Congress does not. They can't force fat people to join weight watchers. Or buy a hybrid car. Or a solar roof. Or any other product.

The Supreme Court Justices will be making their decision on the matter in just a short while. I am hoping they agree with my position, because if they say "yes" then it means the loss of liberty for individual citizens. No longer will we be a people free to run our own lives, but serfs to the Congressmen ~1000 miles away in DC.

LINK TO VIDEO - http://tinyurl.com/827z7t9

86 Comments

86 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by shooz (26680) 2 years ago

Stop trying to fight the civil war. It's over.

The "States rights" issue was solved by it.

Just more thinly veiled "libertarianism".

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

False. The Civil War never revoked the Written Law of the 9th and 10th Amendments. They are still in the Constitution.

Also you seem to forget that States Rights was used to FIGHT slavery when the northern states ignored the Congresses' Fugitive Slave Act. Would you have preferred that the northern states obey that unconstitutional law & deport escaped slaves back to the south? No. Better that they provide blacks like Harriet Tubman with asylum.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26680) 2 years ago

Give it up.

The war is over.

The States have never needed to be MORE united, not further divided.

That's just another thing I despise about libTs.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

"Unity" under the despotism of 536 corporate-bought oligarchs (including the president) who are located ~1000 miles distant and don't hear the voice of the people is NOT a preferred state of existence.

Federalism (division of powers between the Central government and the local State governments) is the preferable position that guarantees the most liberty and guards against oppression by any one person or group of persons.

Plus:

Federalism puts power closest to the people being represented. My State legislator lives on the same street as me and the people he represents. He knows it would be unwise to piss us off.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 2 years ago

That might have provided a guard 150 years ago, but not today.

It's much easier for a group or powerful individual to influence a State or city official.

Much harder for a State to research and investigate any form of malfeasance. Many would lack the resources to do so.

Why would you want to further divide the States against each other at this time? That's just foolhardy.

This kind of competition between the States would only quicken the race to the bottom.

Why would you want that?

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

That might have provided a guard 150 years ago, but not today.

BS. We need de-centralization of power NOW more than ever, because the central government is out of control. It regulate every little tidbit of your life, even what kind of toilet you can buy (lowflow), lightbulb you may use (CFL only), and insurance you must buy (healthcare or be fined).

The central government is now a tyranny. It tells us how to live and then refuses to hear the voice of the People when 80% of them say, "Vote no on TARP bailouts." Even NOW the government is refusing to listen and passing laws that will indefinitely detain citizens without a trial and with SOPA yank websites it disapproves of (like this one) from the internet.

Centralization of power IS the problem. Your support of it makes no sense.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 2 years ago

Restarting the civil war makes even less sense.

Sounds like you don't care, as you didn't respond to what I said, only continued your argument.

Let's not even get into how much it costs to support 50 State governments.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Strawman Argument. I never said anything about starting a civil war. What I said is that powers more properly are assigned as close to the People as possible..... at the State legislature level (close to home), not ~1000 miles away in D.C.

.

how much it costs to support 0 governments

The cost of putting all power in a central government is even higher (in lives killed by the tyrants).

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

Not to mention, The South never surrendered ^_^

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Let it be clear that should the South desire to have its cake and eat it too (all the benefits of being part of America and all of the autonomy of a separate nations) they are free to claim it just as they did in 1861. Let it also be clear that I, along with many others, would be more than happy to enlist in the US armed forces, burn half of it to the ground, and occupy the other half until it remembers its place just as we did in 1863-77.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Interesting view.

Do you think the same is true of the European Union? That the central EU government has a right to invade Italy or Greece or Turkey and stop them from seceding from the union? Or when Russia and the Ukraine seceded from the Soviet Union, should the central SU government have sent soldiers to stop them from quitting? (You appear to be leaning towards "yes".)

The weird thing about OUR system is that we do have three cases of successful secession in our own history. The first time was in 1776 when 13 States seceded from the United Kingdom. And again in the 1830s when Texico seceded from Mexico and declared itself an independent Texas Republic. And again in the 1860s when the western counties seceded from the Virginia Republic.

All three of these secessions were upheld by the Courts as being legal.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

After the Civil War, the United States effectively became a single, unified nation in which the states were allowed to retain a fair amoint of power out of respect for precedent. However, the compact theory of government (that the federal government is a compact between the states that may be dissolved at will, and that served as the ideological basis for things like nullification) was pretty much discredited and thrown on the scrap heap. All of a sudden I'm starting to hear it again, first from Rick Perry and now on here, and I don't like what I'm hearing. Like I said, feel free to secede, but don't come bitching to us when we show up with the army. The EU and the Soviet Union are irrelevant here because they run under different systems with different governing documents.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

the compact theory of government (that the federal government is a compact between the states that may be dissolved at will, and that served as the ideological basis for things like nullification) was pretty much discredited and thrown on the scrap heap.

The European Union uses that theory. I guess it's not trash as you suppose (since it's still being used in the present). And the Supreme Court in the U.S. has revived the theory by overturning Congressional laws that violate the 10th amendment. For example when Congress tried to outlaw guns with one square mile of a school, the Court said Congress may not exercise that power since it is reserved to the State government.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

The 10th Amendment is essentially the only major remnant of compact theory that we have left in our government, and even that isn't very meaningful or relevant, but we hold to it within reason anyway out of respect for the Constitution as a complete document. I honestly think that the words "to the States" should be stricken from the 10th Amendment, such that any powers not reserved to the federal government shall be delegated to the people and only the people.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I suppose if the court says it's acceptable to force you to buy health insurance because your inaction effects health care costs, they can also regulate any action that influences those costs too. I agree with you, my initial answer is no, but the decision, unfortunately, isn't mine to make.

[-] 2 points by WeUsAll (200) 2 years ago

We should force Congress to join Truth Watchers.

[-] 2 points by LSN45 (535) 2 years ago

No, but they can be bribed by special interests to support policies that subsidize corn production ( and thereby high fructose corn syrup) so that a nation is literally drowning in it, rather than support policies that improve the health of the nation. If we think the national budget is under stress now, just wait until 1 our of every 3 Americans has DIABETES. We are rapidly heading that way. I read an article a few years ago talking about how the Russian military was having a hard time finding enough young men that were physically fit for military service (because of a number of reasons). It was becoming a national security concern. We are not far behind with our soda pop generation.

[-] 3 points by Freebird (158) 2 years ago

So... Die from obesity = bad. Die in war = good. Got it.

[-] 2 points by LSN45 (535) 2 years ago

No - obesity is bad and a weak nation from diabetes is bad. The Chinese would not ever have to invade, just cut off the insulin supplies :).

[-] 1 points by klmcelroy (15) 2 years ago

"I read an article a few years ago talking about how the Russian military was having a hard time finding enough young men that were physically fit for military service." Perhaps we should keep pumping sugar, corn syrup and fat into our foods, after all ~ one way to keep our young people from going to war and shooting guns at people who pose no threat to our country.

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Boycott Sugar/sucrose and High fructose corn syrup. Only buy products sweetened with glucose or pure corn syrup (also glucose).

Ever looked at yogurt? That supposedly healthy food has so much sugar added to it, that it's actually a very fattening food.

[-] 1 points by jijiya (1) from Cedar Rapids, IA 2 years ago

Well lets just put it this way... If they are going to make this kind of requirement.. of overweight people.. then me being overweight.. do not mind personally joining weight watchers but they best be willing to pay for it AND pay for the damn expensive food that will have to go with it.. Here it is expensive to eat healthy.. and I am low income so I have to staple on shit like mac n cheese, cheese quesodillas and pancakes >.>...since I get sick off of ramen.. But hey if they will pay for the diet and weight loss process I will do it :F.. Tho I do not think that weight loss should be a decision of anyone but the person who needs to loose weight.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

I don't know whether this is scary or funny.

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

you will be surprised what BIG Liberal Democrat Government has planned for you.

sure republicans have been portrayed as Pirates, freedom Fighters, Capitol Whores. Individualists and Anarchists, but the Truth is they are you and I. Americans with an American Dream to Prosper, and only restricted by the Big Government Broad Brush Painting by the Liberal Left Democrats who THINK they know whats best for you.

Sure Today it is "Yes We CAN " provide you better health care than Private companys (which you still pay for) and "Yes We CAN" make you have auto Insurance (owned by the mafia) and "Yes We CAN" tell you when to eat, drink, sleep, shit or Fart. Today it is the supposedly "US" vs. "Them" the Free Businesses in America, Tomorrow it will be The Soviet Republic of America ran by Barack Osama and MSNancy PukeLosi representing the PINK state, and the New World Order, the Better Government who knows Better than YOU.

Govenment is a Shit, why keep voting Democrat? Why keep voting for more?

Blinded by the Newspapers and mainstream TV who are Invested in Socialism and the Democrat Party.

wake up and have a chance, stay asleap and your Messiah will have you bowing to the NWO very soon.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

We will see what happens but I don't really trust the Supreme Court after the Citizens United debacle in 2010. Even if I agree with universal single payer health care I don't think that you can trust our corpratacy government they will make this into an nightmare or a bureaucratic nightmare. Do you really want the government dictating about the most important single asset that a person has: their health. I understand the the cost of health care is crippling if people do not have it and I understand, but I will give you an example of how socialized health care does not work. I had an uncle my dads brother in a leading European country who had to have a bypass surgery he had to wait something like 9 months for bypass surgery well anyways he was out taking care of his farm one day and he had a massive heart attack and died. The next year my dad had the exact same surgery done in the United States do you think that he had to wait for this: no he waited two weeks to have this surgery, and my dad is still alive today because of this. So I am not a big fan of socialized health care it is not all peaches and cream as liberals think it is if someone has to wait 9 months for a life saving surgery that's a huge problem. And don't think the "oh America will be different it won't in America something like this will be worse."

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I don't know why people were surprised by the Court's decision. They've been treating corporations like pseudo-people since the 1890s.

[-] 1 points by klmcelroy (15) 2 years ago

If so, you could probably count alot more Senators and Congressmen/women at WW Meetings than you would on the HILL.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

They would exempt themselves (of course). Just as they exempted themselves from the laws that forbid insider trading.

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 2 years ago

The gov decided we didnt need to be informed about GMO food

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

And yes Why should my health insurance be so high when literaly millions of people have type 2 diabetes, a disease that can so easily be controlled with weight loss and a proper diet. No I should not be forced to pay higher premiums because you don't want to stay at a healthy weight and eat a vegetable every now and again like I do. Yeah just eat anything you want and get every meal at the drive thru and sit on your couch watching fox news all night and then go comlain to your doctor that you don't feel well and then raise my health insurance so that the doctor can give you medicine rather than hurt your precious feelings by telling y0ou you need to get on a normal diet of less meat more fruits and vegetables and actually walk a few times a week. Jesus are we that PC now that even doctors can't tell you you are killing yourself by being fat, and costing everyone in your healthcare plan billions of dollars, seriously eat a vegetable and get off your ass

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

The truth is that your doctor, your insurance company, the AMA, and any other health or dietary association is not there to promote good health. If they did, they would go broke. It took me 40 plus years to figure this out and why and there are many reasons that are hinged to trade agreements, globalization, harmonization, etc... but ultimately the reasons are all steeped in greed of course. Type II diabetes can be cured but dr's are not allowed to teach you how to do that and frankly, those doctors are trained by and in industry funded curriculums geared toward selling drugs. From the first day in med school you're deluged with big drug company marketing. Dr.'s are only allowed to prescribe medications and or send you to a nutritionist or dietitian who is being funded by the pharma companies and the AMA. This is why they recommend bagels, diet sodas and other toxic and unhealthy foods to type II diabetics. Dr.'s are not taught anything about nutrition which is truly idiotic- much like a car mechanic not being taught about the need for fuel. I never donate money to the american cancer society or any other society because they have absolutely no desire to seek a cure. They are using your donations to develop new drugs that will treat disese, not cure it. Dr's like Dr. Oz, Dr. Mercola, Dr. Weil and many other intelligent, honest and passionate doctors are always at risk of being sued and losing their license for making dietary recommendations. Each of these three doctors have been attacked, threatened by the FDA in the past two years for suggesting supplements or warning about pesticides in our foods. The entire healthcare system wreaks of corruptoin and is based on corrupt research methods. It's astounding to me the number of people who die each year due to medical care ( 750,000 reported at least each year) and yet, there is no initiative to change the system other than to mandate people use the system! The school systems were mandated to remove sugary drinks from their vending machines but were allowed to leave ' fruit juices' made from concentrate and HF corn syrup and diet sodas ( aspartame linked to type II diabetes and worse). This type of behavior is what America thinks of as ' healthy'. Americans also equate being thin and sexy with being healthy. The truth is that even overweight folks can be healthier than thin. I had to learn about the system the hard way. I finally educated myself, found a great doctor who doesn't believe in using drugs unless absolutely necessary and he changed my life in countless ways. He is a teacher and he encourages me to educate myself about my health relative to lifestyle, age, family history and other factors that I need to consider. He doesn't accept insurance though and that's ok because I dumped my insurance years ago when I realized that it only paid for things that were bad for me- including cheap labs that are not reliable.

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

Could not have said it better! Glad you found a decent doctor who is willing to educate that is extremely rare today. WE must educate ourselves, I was shocked to learn from a friend who just finishing up med school, that he was not required to take a nutrition class!!! What?! How can you combat disease if you do not take even one class on how diet effects your health. Unbelievable, I think most people would be better off if they went to a nutritionist first before they went to the Doctor.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

You nailed it when you said that WE NEED TO EDUCATE OURSELVES. My doctor appreciates it so much when I make an effort to do that. Other doctors would be offended and become arrogant and defensive. Years ago, I asked my doctor why insurance would not pay for supplements and he told me that foods are not drugs and so they are not even considered to be of any value. Dr. Weil also stated in an interview that until about 10 years ago, that nutrients were not considered to have any value in a person's health. How stupid can anyone, especially a doctor or scientist be? Nutritionists and dietitians are not always a good source of health unless they are working for an Integrative doctor. You would be best to see an NMD , Naturopath Medical Doctor or someone who practices Holistic Medicine.
Now, back to the ' foods are not drugs' topic- if you are not aware, the drug companies are attempting to manuf their own synthetic version of natural/whole food nutrients which apparently is fine with the FDA and all the other corrupt cohorts of industry. A month ago they reported that vitamins were deadly in an attempt to instill fear in people and deter them from using natural remedies and OTC vitamins because they are attempting to ban our access to such nutrients without a prescription. We'll need a prescription for a multivitamin and any other nutrient. Do they think we are idiots? I mean are then going to tell us that we can only have 1 orange a week? 1 banana? Yet, they are hell bent on removing our access to nutrients. God help us all.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Yeah just eat anything you want and get every meal at the drive thru and sit on your couch watching fox news all night

Are you saying only FOX viewers are fat? According to the recent AMA survey, 85% of Americans over age 30 are overweight. That would include CNN and MicrosoftNBC viewers too.

And no I don't think Congress should be able to FORCE you to join Weight Watchers. Are we free people, or not? Perhaps if Congress excluded overweight people from receiving medicare..... that would be constitutional. Might as well exclude smokers and alcoholics too. (You engage in damaging behaviors, you get zero taxpayer-funded handouts.)

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

agreed if you engage in behavior that we know will increase the amount you will visit the hospital over your lifetime you should be penalized, jus tlike car insurance, if you have a bad driving record you are more likely to cost insurance companies more. On the other hand if you engage in good dietary/excercise behavior you should be rewarded with very low health care insurance costs. Vegetarians who excercise 3 times a week, don't smoke, are in the average weight range with no high blood pressure are not going to be racking up as much costs as those who chose to destroy their bodies. Currently there are no incentives for people to be healthy if your insurance covers everything no matter how irresponsible you are even a program that just lowers your rate as you lower your weight would be more fair.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

These Marxist filth don't care about freedom. To them it means submission to authority.

[-] -3 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Tough shit Red scum. You may want a tyranny forcing people to do what you think they should do but rest assured they would force YOU to do something you don't want. Not that I expect such a lobviously limited intellect to figure that out....

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

What the F are you talking about. No one is suggesting passing a bill that forces fat people to go to weght watchers. This is the typical nonsense that is spewed by fox news. This is ridiculous. The question of whether or not all americans have to participate in a health care system is a different question, which by the way we continue to be the only industrialized country on the planet that does not have a healthcare plan for its people. should people who are wealthier be allowed to live longer than poor people because they can afford it. Should upper middle class families go bankrupt because their child gets lukemia as no fault of their own and the hospital bills come to over a half a million dollars (much more common than you think) The number one reason for bankruptcy in america is medical bills. No other industrialized country in the world would ever force a child to die because the family can't afford healthcare. This is such a non-issue in the rest of the world as 99% of people agree your wealth should not determine your access to healthcare. equal access to healthcare should be a basic human right in a modern society. There are dozens of healthcare models that work just fine all over the world. If congress would have allowed obamas original healthcare plan he wouldn't have to do this version. And by the way you will not be forced to change your healthcare plan all this plan does is allow those who can't afford acccess to doctors access now. your plan stays exactly the same. yes it forces your boss to pay for healthcare as it used to be before businesses started treating their employees so poorly by cutting all benefits.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

This is the typical nonsense that is spewed by fox news.

ABC.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20546) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Nope, Congress cannot legislate your fat ass into Weight Watchers . . .

but with the right kinds of cybernetic seclusion and a bit of very very subtle positive reinforcement with all ah your right fringe buddies, we can probably ship you off to Gitmo . . .

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I thought Obama said he'd close that place?

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

Haven't you learned by now, 0bama lies.

[-] 1 points by PatriotSon01 (157) 2 years ago

No. Can we walk into a Senate or House voting session and make a Citizens Arrest of key senators to 'prevent them from making a serious voting error'? Someone should try that...

[-] 1 points by Misfit138 (172) 2 years ago

This is a problem with lifetime, career, politicians. They gain power, do everything to hold it and then start abusing it. When the nation first formed, service as a politician was a patriotic burden one did to serve the people, but it has mutated into a country club where you can get paid well, have benefits for life and get rich off of insider trading in as little as five years. I fully support term limits as the voting public seems to always hate Congress...just not their Representative or Senator. If DC doesn't change, nothing else will. Wall Street is a symptom of the corruption spewing from DC.

[-] 2 points by LSN45 (535) 2 years ago

Well said - one of the few to address the real problem. Most posts are just discussing the myriad symptoms. Here's my 2 cents: There are a lot of improvements that need to be made. The list reforms people Americans want to see is long and varied depending on who you talk to. That said, I believe there is one reform that would provide the American people the best chances of seeing other meaningful reforms actually happen - that is REAL, loop-hope free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! I have seen others on this site calling this the "fulcrum" or pivotal issue. Right now the current legalized bribery, pay-to-play system of campaign donations and paid lobbyists has disenfranchised the American voter. Until this is fixed, any other reform the politicians may try to placate us with (be it a change to healthcare, clamping down predatory school loans, new financial regulations, etc.) will be about as effective as a farmer putting a new roof on his CHICKEN COOP, but still letting the FOX guard it.

We need to go back to the original political currency. Instead of the current system of who can collect the most money from corporations and special interests it should be who has the BEST IDEAS to EFFECTIVELY RUN THE COUNTRY (we don't need "Wealth Redistribution," what we need is "Political Influence Redistribution")!

For the sake our our children and future generations of Americans, we need to take back our democracy from the rich and powerful who are using their vast sums of money to "speak" as if they represent millions of Americans. This "Corporate Personhood" that has crept into our laws is allowing them to manipulating our policies in their favor at the expense of the average American (the recent "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling is a miscarriage of justice and must be reversed. The $50 or $100 a normal American may give to a political campaign becomes meaningless when corporations or other special interests are handing our millions to buy political access to the decision making process.

For decades now the corporations and special interests have had our "representatives" bought and paid for (both on the right and the left). Concentrating our efforts on getting the money out of our politics is the best way we can create an environment in which further reforms can be realized. Until we end the current system of legalized bribery (campaign donations) and paid lobbying our politicians will continue to be the LAP DOGS of the corporations and special interests. What we need first and foremost is real, loop-hole free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!!! If the corruption is not dealt with first, the chance of any other meaningful reforms becoming a reality is almost zero - the special interests will just use their money to buy votes and put forward bills that create loop-holes or otherwise twist the law in their favor. If we want our children to live in a country where there vote matters, we need to get the money out of our politics, otherwise they will increasingly become the 21st century version of the "landless peasant." Spread the word - End the LEGALIZED BRIBERY!!! CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM needs to be THE main goal of the protests!!!

[-] 1 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 2 years ago

The U.S. Supreme Court, sadly to say, is now nothing more than a rubber stamp for the New World Order, which Republican President George H. W. Bush often talked about.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Sure they can and obama will not veto it as long as the military can torture them and not be subject to international laws. Obesity is a form of terrorism, look at all the fat fawks in DC.

I think airlines, boats, trains and other forms of pay to transport should be able to charge by the pound for human transport.

Why should a 500 pound morbidly obese person get to fly for the same price as myself, at 190 pounds? The only way that is fair is IF I get to bring 310 pounds of lugagge to the fatty's ZERO.

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

What will they do about the wookie( mrs. 0bama)? She's has a backside that could be rented out for advertising space.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Under the present administration, the government can and will, force fat people to purchase weight watcher products. In fact, we can take this even further, there is an undercurrent within the liberal thinktank that actively supports eugenics as the means of defining the future face (and figure) of humanity. I've been hearing similar muffled statements for at least three years now.

The Constitution is a living document; it can be usurped or rewritten at will, and virtually any decree can and will be justified.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Let's see, I just finished reading a report that has been making the 'rounds' for the last 25 years...this report outlines eugenics. Claiming that the liberals or the conservatives support this concept is fear mongering at it's worst.

This is nothing new, it isn't something that is being considered.

After all, we have the 'let them die' contingent, who needs to go active?

The 'let them die' reference is merely a comparison to the above posting.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Nope, I've actually heard this mentioned as a way of eliminating our minority "problem." It IS something that is circulating in liberal, scientifically informed, thinktanks.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I think I said that, I read the report it's been discussed for at least 25 years. Any time there is unrest it 'pops up' as a conversation topic.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

You're on the mark there my friend.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes. If you are fat....and not following your weight loss regimen....or if you smoke, you should pay both higher insurance rates and you should be required to contribute more substantively to medicare.

[-] 0 points by Freebird (158) 2 years ago

LOL. You people are unbelievable. Okay. Let's say I'm fat and smoke. I refuse to buy your forced insurance. Or maybe I'm unemployed or poor and can't afford it. Then what? 50% of the US is overweight. What are you gonna do about it genius?

[-] 4 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

So, currently uninsured people recieve care at emergency rooms at taxpayer expense.

I assume your solution is to turn them away at the door and step over their bodies, right?

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 2 years ago

This discussion was about forcing people onto weight loss programs. My question was "How are you going to back that up?" There's MILLIONS of fat people. What are you gonna do if they don't get with your program? Throw them all in jail? Take their kids away? Take their money? Install a nutritionist in every home? What?????

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Puff said it - charge them (slightly) higher insurance and/or medicare withholdings. And penalize them (anyone) if they don't have coverage. Which is exactly what the affordable care act does. Otherwise they just transfer the cost onto other taxpayers when they do inevitably need care (emergency room comment)

Of course there are provisions for those that can't afford it. Duh, that's what liberals do.

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 2 years ago

"And penalize them (anyone) if they don't have coverage."

Could you be more specific, please.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Overview_of_provisions

2nd bullet point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Effective_by_January_1.2C_2014

More detail, also 2nd bullet point.

It would make sense to modify those penalties for smokers, obese, etc. IMO. Not a hot button for me but I would support it.

[-] -1 points by Freebird (158) 2 years ago

Ah, yes. Poor people and the religious get to be fat, penalty free. And what about if you don't or won't pay the penalty? Jail? Millions of people oppose this. Just curious how you're going to handle a mass revolt if it happens. If you're gonna force people to buy or participate in something, you have to back it up with force. How far are you willing to go?

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I hear revolutions are good exercise. Might solve the obesity problem and, voila, no surcharge. As to the mandate itself, we shall see. I think you'll find the percentage of people, over 25, without employer health coverage, but who can afford coverage, but refuse to pay for it, will be remarkably small. They'll be treated like any other tax evaders.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

And penalize them (anyone) if they don't have coverage.

In the entire history of the U.S. nobody has been forced to pay an additional IRS tax just because they did not buy a product. Why? Because the 10th Amendment forbids it. The State governments can do it, but not the Congress.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The requirement to purchase health insurance falls under Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2011/June/29/6th-circuit-health-law-ruling.aspx

So at least some judges disagree. We'll find out at the supreme court.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

What the Commerce Clause actually says is "commerce among the states". Buying insurance is not commerce among the states, but among individuals (me and my agent), so the national government has zero authority. Per the 10th the power to fine people for lack of insurance belongs to the People and the People's State legislatures.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

it doesn't really matter what you think it says. There are decades of interpretation and precedent that determine how the commerce clause and the 10th are applied.

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

If the Supreme Court can overturn the 7-decade old decision that made segregation legal, they can overturn the 7-decade old decision that gave Congress power to regulate how much wheat a farmer can grow, or force individuals to buy a product.

As for interpretation of the Constitution:

I don't put us much weight in the hands of 9 unelected Oligarchs as you do. The Constitution was written by the People's deputies and ratified by the States. They have every right to make their own interpretations of the document they created(see amendment 9). I agree with Thomas Jefferson: "You seem to consider the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; certainly not a word of it appears in the constitution.

"This is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy, whose power is all the more dangerous since they are not subject to the elective restraint of the people. This power to interpret what is or is not constitutional is 'reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' (10th amend.)." - 1819

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Spoken like a person that has never attempted to get medical care without insurance, or written off noncollectable medical bills, or even more ghastly, attempted to get medical care actually paying up front with green dollar bills!

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

care at emergency rooms at taxpayer expense.

At corporate expense.

And no I'm not going to cry for the corporation because they stole ~7.7 trillion from taxpayers. They can afford to give some of that back to the poor who can't pay the ER bill.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

In order to offset some of these losses, federal and state governments provide subsidies for hospitals identified as critical or last-resort medical centers; often, these centers are university teaching hospitals or hospitals located in very poor areas. Subsidies are paid for with tax money, but these hospitals run a loss even with the subsidies. Universities often underwrite teaching hospitals (usually with federal grant money) and remaining costs are spread equally in the form of higher prices for insurance companies and private payers.

Read more: How Do Taxpayers Pay for the Uninsured? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6193180_do-taxpayers-pay-uninsured_.html#ixzz1g5KL1uAk

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

That's nonsense. When a bill goes unpaid, the loss has to be covered by the corporation that owns the hospital. Not us. It's just the same as when department stores give free giftwrap. That represents a loss out of their own pockets.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Ok, we'll just accept as fact your simplistic understanding of the issue.

[-] 1 points by klmcelroy (15) 2 years ago

Sorry you seem to have so little grasp of how business actually works. You see when corporations suffer loss, they simply build that cost into the price of their goods or services, so ultimately it is the consumer (THAT IS US, that is YOU, that is ME) who pays the price. Hence when people rip off insurance companies, for example, the insurance companies simply build that into the cost of current policies and gosh, up went your insurance premium. get it?

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

You see when corporations suffer loss, they simply build that cost into the price of their goods or services

SOME of the loss. Not all of it. Some of the loss when people visit an ER, but don't pay the bill, is subtracted from the managers' and directors' salary (which is a good thing IMHO).

.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I would then like to thank you for paying into Social Security.....because, YOU won't be using it for very long.

Hey, thanx buddy.

[-] -2 points by Freebird (158) 2 years ago

Nice avoidance of answering the question. You do-gooders never want to admit you would have to use violence or force or threats or jail to back up all your "compassionate" prescriptions for society's problems. Must. Be. Avoided. At. All. Costs. It would expose that you are just evil bastards that want everyone else to pay for your shit.

By the way, where's all the love for the poor and unemployed in your response? Stop pretending like you give a shit about anyone. At least you were honest about liking SS and the ability to live off other people's labor.

[-] 1 points by klmcelroy (15) 2 years ago

Freebird! WHere do you get the idea that living on Social Security is living off other people's labor??

I have paid enormous sums of money into Social Security all my working life. Now at 58 I wont even be able to benefit from it because of the indebtedness that Republicans- YES, REPUBLICANs- check the actual deficit record-- administrations have put us into and Obama has now furthered along with more senseless invasions and occupations. All this so the Department of Offense can keep lavishing their billions on their latest cherished war toys, on their best buddy contractors like Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Bechtel, and, above all, HALLIBURTON, Our children and civilians in countries that could never threaten the U.S,. are dying for these profits, and our seniors, our middle class and our poor are left holding the bag. WAKE UP, Moron.

[-] 0 points by Freebird (158) 2 years ago

The boomer generation will take out, on average, hundreds of thousands more than they put in. SS is broke, a ponzi scheme, and there will be nothing left for GenX and Millenials but the bill. You bought into the SS scam ... You're the one who needs to wake up. By the way, I'm not a repub. Assumptions like that make you look like the moron.

[-] -2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

blah blah blah black helicopters blah blah blah liberal elites blah blah blah my wife can't stand me blah blah blah

[-] 2 points by Freebird (158) 2 years ago

Thanks for proving my point genius. Lol.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

50% of the US is overweight.

It's actually 70% now. And when you remove the young people (who are naturally thin due to high metabolism), then the number of overweight Americans goes up to 85% for ages 30 and up.

.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

if that number is so huge than why is it when i go out side I don't see seven out of ten people over weight?

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 2 years ago

In 1998, the U.S. Government changed the standards by which body mass index is measured. As a result, close to 30 million Americans were shifted from a government-approved weight to the overweight and obese category, without gaining an ounce.

There's considerable controversy as to what is "officially" overweight or obese. Still, it doesn't take a college degree to observe with one's own eyes that people are pretty porky now though.

By the by, did you know that school lunch programs were originally instituted to fatten up all the skinny Americans who were too thin for military service? It was deemed a national security threat. LOL. Now Michelle Obama wants to thin down all the kids 'cause they're too fat for the military - another national security threat.

Being porky might just save your life until you're past the age for military slaughter - then go on a diet.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Actually the U.S. standard of BMI >25 equals overweight is pretty lax. In Asian countries (and even some european countries) the cutoff is only 23.

BTW I'd like a cite of that so-called change. What we the BMI standard prior to 1998?

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Thanks.

I think BMI=25 makes sense. I've been that high and I was pretty porky. I couldn't even sit down without hurting my stomach. I can't imagine being BMI=27 and still being considered "healthy" weight.