My schedule today has prevented any posting. I did comment a few times.
Here’s a question. I don’t believe that the federal government has the authority to mandate that people get vaccinations. We’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say about it. I do believe that the states have that authority and the federal government has the authority to regulate travel between the states.
I heard a story about a recent study which determined something I think is pretty obvious: obese people are at a higher risk of serious COVID-19. Here’s the question. Do the states have the authority to require individuals to lose weight?
I honestly don’t think any state would do that. I suspect it would cause an enormous uproar since from a statistical standpoint blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be obese than whites.
They probably have the authority to make us stand on our heads. No idea how they would enforce it or why they would try to pass such a law. Vaccines are easy and safe. Losing weight is hard for most people and takes a long time. I think rural areas would especially be up in arms.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/s0614-obesity-rates.html
Steve
An interesting sidenote to the “mandate” cases in the Supreme Court. While the OSHA mandate is definitely on contested ground, the CMS mandate for health care facilities looks to be in firmer footing as it was rooted in the Federal Government’s authority to attach conditions to spending grants.
If the CMS mandate stands; can and would the Federal Government attach a broader mandate to spending grants (For example, that a State must mandate immunizations for Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP enrollees to receive Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP grants?)
I think the feds could probably issue a mandate provided the authorization came from Congress in terms of legislation. Congress has yet to consider any such measure.
I don’t think obesity is comparable in terms of the legitimacy of mandates because it’s not contangious.
Like steve says, enforcement is another matter. And various government agencies have tried to convince Americans to not be obese for decades and look how well that’s turned out.
“If the CMS mandate stands; can and would the Federal Government attach a broader mandate to spending grants (For example, that a State must mandate immunizations for Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP enrollees to receive Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP grants?)”
In theory yes, but it probably depends on the details. Most likely it wouldn’t authorize a mandate directly but would compel states to do the mandate. This is how the federal government “mandates” most things. So it would probably work similarly to the “national” 21 drinking age.
But there seem to be limits – for example, the attempt to use federal funds to force states to accept Obamacare was struck down by Scotus.
And of course, such a measure likely wouldn’t pass the current Congress even without the filibuster.
“Do the states have the authority to require individuals to lose weight?”
And of course various comments. And then the next question, authority aside, will they?
We don’t (yet) mandate dietary habits. A comment was made that obesity doesn’t harm other people. But it does. It causes private insurer premium payers and public payors (taxpayers) to subsidize other people’s bad behavior. We have laws against drunk driving. We have judges who don’t enforce the law, or allow for multiple repeat offenders. This kills people. Politics; not good to prosecute voters, or politicians.
Obesity? Can’t offend the black vote. Politics. How about we mandate 10 hours a month to address mental health issues. Can’t have malcontents attacking innocents. We now have DA’s releasing criminals to the detriment of innocents. Politics. And on and on.
Covid is a selective enforcement issue; arguing otherwise is absurd on its face. We now have the CDC telling us (Hey, its only Monday, wait until Thursday) that 75% of “covid” deaths aren’t really covid deaths. They are deaths in the presence of covid. Like pneumonia and the cancer patient. I guess now that Joe’s deaths > Trumps deaths its time to redefine. (Next up: inflation)
As I’ve said from early days. All political. Selective concern bordering on absurdity. Costs all out of proportion to benefits. Non or selective compliance.
When you see something so completely absurd, you need to ask what’s really going on.
â€When you see something so completely absurd, you need to ask what’s really going on.â€
It’s all part of a global reset program, turning people’s lives upside down, weakening their self confidence and resolve to overcome obstacles and hard times. Harsh laws and iron-clad mandates crush many people, while they spark resistance in others. The only winners are the rich and powerful.
Generally, the police powers of the states are limited to prohibitions against well-defined acts with public, as opposed to private, consequences. I doubt any court would uphold dietary restrictions on individuals, regardless of the benefits. On the other hand, the courts can require parents to provide children with necessary nutrients, medicines, and blood transfusions regardless of parental beliefs.
I think it is well-established that schools, local governments, and the military can require certain vaccinations. Whether they can require any and all vaccinations is another matter. There has to be some well-defined need, like the prevention of smallpox (no longer needed, we hope) or polio.
The police powers of the federal government were supposed to be strictly limited, but decades of subversive Supreme Court justices (beginning with Marshall’s usurpation) have pretty much destroyed federalism in this country. There’s no going back. The evolution is one-way towards some sort of federal dictatorship. Covid shows that the people will gladly submit.
Basically we’ve given the unvaccinated carte blanche to spread a virus that can kill, make others really sick, crash our health care system, alter so many aspects of the economy, influence all parts of our lives in just about every way, etc., with no consequences!
steve: They probably have the authority to make us stand on our heads.
No. For instance, the federal government can’t simply mandate everyone buy private healthcare. They can impose a minimal, but not coercive, tax for those who don’t buy insurance.
CuriousOnlooker: While the OSHA mandate is definitely on contested ground
On statutory grounds, not constitutional grounds. The question is whether Congress has granted the authority, not whether Congress could grant the authority.
Andy: But there seem to be limits –
The limit is that the condition may induce, but not coerce. See South Dakota v. Dole.
Drew: We now have the CDC telling us (Hey, its only Monday, wait until Thursday) that 75% of “covid†deaths aren’t really covid deaths.
That false claim is based on a study which found that very few people who have been vaccinated and boosted have died. Of those who have died, 75% had severe comorbidity. That’s good news for vaccines.
Why are the voices of corporations, the money influencers of our governments, national, state and local so silent on this issue, or are they?
Who’s loosing, who’s winning by keeping the pandemic going?
” A comment was made that obesity doesn’t harm other people. But it does. It causes private insurer premium payers and public payors (taxpayers) to subsidize other people’s bad behavior. ”
The unvaccinated are a huge cost. Besides being more likely to spread to others most of the hospitalized are unvaccinated. Most in the ICU are unvaccinated. We have never had hospitals running out of beds due to a pandemic of obese people. Never had 20% of staff quit due to obesity. Never had to pay staff bonuses of $100-$200 per hour over regular pay to work with obese pts. The unvaccinated can go back to normal risk with 2-3 free, extraordinarily safe shots. (OK, someone pays so lets say $100 per shot.) Then add in all of the costs of people who miss work when sick, prolonged illness, etc. The unvaccinated are costing us lots of money.
” Of those who have died, 75% had severe comorbidity. That’s good news for vaccines.”
To amplify that a lot of these are people who are immunocompromised. We knew that vaccinations would be less effective for them.
“steve: They probably have the authority to make us stand on our heads.
No. For instance, the federal government can’t simply mandate everyone buy private healthcare.”
I was referring to the states and I do think they have much more power/authority than the federal govt.
Steve
It’s off-topic but what that statement made me curious about was whether there was a difference between the number of comorbidities of those who died of COVID-19 between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. As I’ve said before I think an underappreciated story of the pandemic is the role of serious comorbidities.
Dave Schuler: whether there was a difference between the number of comorbidities of those who died of COVID-19 between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
The study found that morbidities are higher in the vaccinated who died than the unvaccinated who died. In other words, vaccines are working effectively, and only the most vulnerable who are vaccinated die.
Yek et al., Risk Factors for Severe COVID-19 Outcomes Among Persons Aged ≥18 Years Who Completed a Primary COVID-19 Vaccination Series — 465 Health Care Facilities, United States, December 2020–October 2021, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2022: “Among 1,228,664 persons who completed primary vaccination during December 2020–October 2021, severe COVID-19–associated outcomes (0.015%) or death (0.0033%) were rare. Risk factors for severe outcomes included age ≥65 years, immunosuppressed, and six other underlying conditions. All persons with severe outcomes had at least one risk factor; 78% of persons who died had at least four.”
That’s all good news.
For those who dont really read, what it means is that among those who are vaccinated only those with lots of comorbidities are getting hospitalized and dying.
Steve
Just curious. The paper I cited showed a 6% difference between city and rural people. That is larger than the difference your paper cited between white and Hispanic and about the same as between white and black. Why emphasize only the difference between whites and minorities when we have a large or larger differences based on geography?
Steve