Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Oklahoma) Lawmakers File "Freedom of Healthcare Choice Act"
rightsidenews.com ^ | 12/22/09 | Mike Ritze

Posted on 12/22/2009 6:38:39 PM PST by TornadoAlley3

OKLAHOMA CITY - The voters of Oklahoma will have the opportunity to preserve the existing health care system in Oklahoma under legislation sought by three state legislators.

State Reps. Mike Ritze and Mike Reynolds and state Sen. Randy Brogdon announced today that they will file legislation enacting the "Freedom of Healthcare Choice Act," allowing voters to preserve the existing healthcare system in Oklahoma regardless of congressional action at the federal level.

The legislation will allow a vote of the people to opt out of the proposed federal system.

"It's clear the overwhelming majority of Americans want the current doctor-patient relationship preserved instead of having Washington bureaucrats dictate medical decisions," said Ritze, a Broken Arrow Republican who is also a board-certified family practice physician and surgeon. "The proposals under consideration in Congress are likely to result in reduced access to a family doctor, rationing of services, or even outright denial of care if a pencil-pusher decides it is not a 'best practice.' My legislation would give the voters the ability to protect and preserve their existing health care coverage."

"The United States' health care system is the envy of the world and the people of Oklahoma should have the opportunity to maintain the top-notch care they have received while also avoiding the onerous burdens the proposed federal law would impose on working families," said Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City.

"The proposed legislation in Washington is a massive overstepping of the bounds placed on Congress by our U.S. Constitution," said Brogdon, R-Owasso. "It is time that we the people tell Congress enough is enough - and now Oklahomans will have the opportunity to do so."

Modeled on an Arizona proposal, Ritze and Reynolds' legislation would place language on the ballot to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to declare what types of health care systems could lawfully exist in the state.

The proposed constitutional amendment would

Prohibit any law or rule from directly or indirectly compelling any person or employer to participate in any health care system; Allow any person or employer to pay directly for lawful health care services without paying any penalties or fines; Permit a health care provider to provide directly purchased lawful health services without paying any penalties or fines; and Stipulate that subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person's options, the purchase or sale of private health insurance will not be prohibited. The amendment would not change what health care services a provider is required to perform or what health care services are permitted by law.

"This is an issue that could have serious consequences for all citizens and it is only right to allow voters a direct role in the outcome of this debate," Ritze said.

"I was not surprised that the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate kept the specific language of their bill from the public and most of their members," Reynolds said. "In comparison, the language of our "Freedom of Healthcare Choice Act" will be fully disclosed as soon as it is filed, probably later this afternoon. We welcome any discussion."


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; freedom; healthcare; lping; military; obama; obamacare; oklahoma; sovereignty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-190 next last
To: Jim Robinson

If I read this right any Oklahoma citizen could stop paying Medicare taxes


121 posted on 12/23/2009 6:44:28 AM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

You kind of threw me with your last sentence there.

I do think there’s a lot to fix, but I’m not sure where liberal mindset agrees with that.


122 posted on 12/23/2009 7:07:12 AM PST by DoughtyOne (H.C. Bill, saves more in second decade, despite taxation w/o benefits for first 4 years. Suuurre...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I do think there’s a lot to fix, but I’m not sure where liberal mindset agrees with that.

Liberals have great respect for judicial precedent, so long as it went THEIR way, even if it overturned a CORRECT precedent that had lasted 150 years or more. (Basically, their doctrine on stare decisis is "Decisions we like, sacrosanct; Constitutional ones....not so much")

123 posted on 12/23/2009 7:10:45 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Thanks. Now I understand.

I agree that they like what goes their way. I’m not so sure they truly respect judicial precedent. They seek to destroy our system of justice at every turn.

The ACLU for instance does everything it can to tear down or defeat our system. The left just loves it.


124 posted on 12/23/2009 7:32:00 AM PST by DoughtyOne (H.C. Bill, saves more in second decade, despite taxation w/o benefits for first 4 years. Suuurre...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
I'd take two more Thomases over eight more Scalias.

You and me both.

125 posted on 12/23/2009 7:57:00 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Perhaps "rebellion lite": just ignore them and don't participate. See how bad the feds want to make an issue of it and what they're willing to do to enforce it.

Nullification. It's been tried. I think politically, it would be as effective as shutting down the Congress was. Meaning, the dumb people of America wouldn't like it. But who knows? Times are hard, maybe people are grumpy enough to go along.

126 posted on 12/23/2009 7:58:28 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Then why does Section II of the Articles of Confederation state, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and Independence and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”

Reads like the 10th Amendment, right?

The decisive difference being "expressly" delegated. Nothing was left to interpretation. If it wasn't expressly described, it didn't exist. There's a reason why "expressly" delegated powers were replaced with mere delegated powers in the Constitution. The federalists wanted it that way.

127 posted on 12/23/2009 8:00:30 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: All

Are you listening, Rick Perry??


128 posted on 12/23/2009 8:03:59 AM PST by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
You contradict our Declaration of Independence. ". . . that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it . . . "

You reject our Constitution daily. Do you now reject the Declaration?

I didn't say the right to rebel doesn't exist. I said it's not guarenteed by the government. The other poster said the second amendment guarentees the people the right to rebel. That's not so. The right to rebel against the government is a national right that must be asserted without permission. The Declaration was not submitted to the King for approval. That's absurd.

The 2nd amendment right to bear arms has clearly been imperiled for years, and despite the recent ruling, remains imperiled. The national government can decide what it means, and what limits can be placed upon it. The national government has the power to repress rebellion. They are under no legal obligation to sanctify rebellion against itself. That is absurd.

Rebellion is extra-constitutional. Force is what it is. You don't ask for permission. You take it and use it at your own peril. You remember that saying, "we hang together or we'll all hang separately"? That's what that means.

129 posted on 12/23/2009 8:05:02 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The second amendment doesn't guarantee jack diddly. Its meaning is under threat at any time. The right to rebel is not guaranteed. That's a right you don't ask permission to excercise.

Its meaning may be under threat but take it away and see what happens. It's a right that will be enforced by the people not against the people.

We have had enough and if the USSC can't read the tea leaves or see what is blowing in the wind then its up to the people. A Constitutional Convention would be a mistake. I don't trust the domestic enemies to do anything in a fair and just manner.

If you want to hand over your guns and Constitution go ahead, I'm prepared to keep mine and honor our forefathers who founded this great nation and fought for it over the last 200 plus years. I feel sorry for you, go ahead live on your knees, if you call that living.

130 posted on 12/23/2009 8:06:41 AM PST by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: magellan
The real Constitutionality test for ObamaCare will be if Congress has the right to demand an individual purchase something or otherwise have a tax levied.

It seems to me that Social Security and Medicare both fit this description...ergo...

131 posted on 12/23/2009 8:06:46 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Nullification. It's been tried. I think politically, it would be as effective as shutting down the Congress was. Meaning, the dumb people of America wouldn't like it.

A little different situation here, though. If we accept the notion that there are red and blue states, then statist tyrant-fellators aren't evenly distributed in all 50 states. So in the states that might try this, there is probably a majority of voters who would approve. I sense resentment of federal overreach growing every day. Hell, Obamacare/deathcare is so unpopular even liberals might boycott it!

132 posted on 12/23/2009 8:09:02 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

The country does appear to be in a foul mood. We’ll see. I don’t think they have the stomach for a real constitutional crisis.


133 posted on 12/23/2009 8:10:22 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Probably not, especially if American Idol is on that night. :-(
134 posted on 12/23/2009 8:12:57 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: bvw
“Implied Powers”! Yes but that’s just modern idiot’s Dicta.

Only if you consider Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Marshall modern idiots.

"Implied powers" are those powers authorized by a legal document(from the Constitution) which, while not stated, are deemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers. Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.

Even Hamilton's adversary, Thomas Jefferson, used the principle to justify his Louisiana PurchaseLouisiana Purchase in 1803. Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland .

I got that synopsis from an online encyclopedia. You can look it up for more info if you like.


135 posted on 12/23/2009 8:18:33 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

They don’t call em sheeple for nothing.


136 posted on 12/23/2009 8:19:11 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
If you want to hand over your guns and Constitution go ahead, I'm prepared to keep mine and honor our forefathers who founded this great nation and fought for it over the last 200 plus years. I feel sorry for you, go ahead live on your knees, if you call that living.

I'm not saying that. Quite the opposite. I'm saying when it comes to the right to abolish or resist the government, you don't ask for permission. And though the 2nd amendment declares an existing natural right, it is in fact at risk, in legal terms. So you don't rely on legal terms to protect a natural right which is under threat. You don't rely on the government to protect your right to resist the government. That's absurd.

137 posted on 12/23/2009 8:21:36 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

The Tenth Amendment lives... only 50 states to go.
++++++++++++++

Is that your obama math? Only 56 states to go? :)


138 posted on 12/23/2009 8:28:33 AM PST by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country - Keep on Tea Partiers - party like it's 1773!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Laserman

If all the good conservative states do this, all the welfare scam artists and illegals will move to the liberal states!!
++++++++++++++++

And vice versa - all good Conservatives will be driven from the cesspool liberal states to the good Conservative states...Game ON. Believe me, I’ve got my eye on Idaho...lol...


139 posted on 12/23/2009 8:30:20 AM PST by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country - Keep on Tea Partiers - party like it's 1773!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

Believe me, I’ve got my eye on Idaho...lol...
++++++++++++++++

Or Alaska!


140 posted on 12/23/2009 8:30:51 AM PST by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country - Keep on Tea Partiers - party like it's 1773!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-190 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson