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."
If I read this right any Oklahoma citizen could stop paying Medicare taxes
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.
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")
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.
You and me both.
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.
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.
Are you listening, Rick Perry??
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.
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.
It seems to me that Social Security and Medicare both fit this description...ergo...
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!
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.
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.
They don’t call em sheeple for nothing.
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.
The Tenth Amendment lives... only 50 states to go.
++++++++++++++
Is that your obama math? Only 56 states to go? :)
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...
Believe me, I’ve got my eye on Idaho...lol...
++++++++++++++++
Or Alaska!
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.