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."
I agree with what you’re saying, but I also think the 10th amendment just hasn’t been enforced or challenged directly yet. We have always complained, but inevitably we just bent over and took it. The encroachment on our healthcare (or gun rights) could be the turning point though (I hope).
Even if SCOTUS rules in favor of the fed, but the States refuse to bend and the States even threaten to withhold fed taxes by its residents and threaten to arrest any federal agents attempting to enforce the disputed fed law, then what can the feds actually do?
The federal government doesn’t have enough law enforcement to enforce these federal laws, if directly opposed by the residents, law enforcment, & guard units of these conservative states and it is illegal to use the military to enforce domestic laws. If the military were used, I think much of the military would refuse and it could lead to open rebellion by the states. Of course this would be a fantasy because I don’t think any of our politicians have the balls to instigate this type of states’ rights showdown anyways.
I'll take the second part first. What I would like to see happen is for conservatives to abandon the argument that the constitution would work fine if the politicians would only abide by it. To me, that's like saying a faulty lion cage, with bars too wide, and a latch that won't hold, would work just fine if the lions would only stay inside of it. The old 12-step line--the first step is admitting you have a problem. Until I'm convinced otherwise, I've arrived at the conclusion that the Constitution is in fact a problem.
As to your thoughts about it being a cop-out to tear something down, to criticize, without offering an alternative. Yes, I've heard that before. I don't agree with it. I refer you to some points made by the bard of baltimore, HL Mencken, in his essay (appropos for the times) entitled "A Cult of Hope":
Of all the sentimental errors that reign and rage in this incomparable Republic, the worst is that which confuses the function of criticism, whether aesthetic, political or social, with the function of reform. Almost invariably it takes the form of a protest: “The fellow condemns without offering anything better. Why tear down without building up?” So snivel the sweet ones: so wags the national tongue. The messianic delusion becomes a sort of universal murrain. It is impossible to get an audience for an idea that is not "constructive"—i.e., that is not glib, and uplifting, and full of hope, and hence capable of tickling the emotions by leaping the intermediate barrier of intelligence.In this protest and demand, of course, there is nothing but the babbling of men who mistake their feelings for thoughts. The truth is that criticism, if it were confined to the proposing of alternative schemes, would quickly cease to have any force or utility at all, for in the overwhelming majority of instances no alternative scheme of any intelligibility is imaginable, and the whole object of the critical process is to demonstrate it.
The point is that criticism has its place in its own right, and shouldn't be confused with reform. Am I saying, as Mencken did, that the problems are unsolvable? I am not ready to say that. I am definitely saying things are even worse than they appear--that it isn't abuse of the Constitution that is the problem, it is the Constitution.
If I am right, I believe it is worthwhile to understand it, even if that understanding unveils a dire view of things. I want to face the facts.
The problems, as they now exist, are in fact unsolvable. The conservatives, if I am right, cling to a romantic notion of the Constitution that will never win out in reality. As time goes by, this romantic ideal becomes further and further removed, and the mountain of federal law to the contrary becomes that much higher and harder to climb or knock down.
The people are ill-informed, and do not seem possessed of a love of true liberty to a level necessary to face the actual problems. They are not even aware of the actual problems. They are soft, and domesticated, and care mostly about material security and comfort. Nothing will fundamentally change in the short run, in my opinion. But if my view is correct, step one is to recognize the true source of our political problems. Then, at least, conservative intellectuals, thinkers, talkers, etc could lay the groundwork for real change. Then, perhaps, the Limbaughs of the world would stop insisting that the Federalists were right, and that reversion to some imagined interpretation of the Constitution will be our salvation. It would be the first step on a long quest.
The bill has been introduced in Oklahoma, but it hasn’t been passed. Therefore there are 50 states to go. And with regard to the Obama count, it would still be 57 until one or more states actually passed this or a similar bill.
What you are saying is that it basically comes down to politics. I agree. The 10th amendment begs the question, because it says the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved, but retains for itself the power to decide what those powers not delegated are. That is why the 10th amendment has no force behind it whatsoever. It basically says that whatever powers the national government doesn't claim for itself, you can have.
So it comes down to politics. The accrual of national power occurs gradually, and in such ways that the people at large do not understand or care. If the people oppose a law, there is a better chance it won't pass, because the jobholders like their jobs. And the people can vote in new people who will overturn such a law if it passes. But we have seen the power of incumbency, the complacency and outright ignorance of the people.
I actually don't believe nullification is proper. I view it as a sort of line-item rebellion. The proper thing would be to get a majority of states to agree. And then to hold a convention. But the politics of the people being the way they are, most people on our side believe that that cure would be worse than the disease, and they may be right.
Sorry. Look on the bright side. Knowledge is power. If my arguments are correct, then the sooner they are understood, the better. It sucks when you're driving and you don't realize for a while you took a wrong turn. But at some point, if you are ever going to reach your destination, you have to discover that the route you are on is incorrect, and does not lead to where you intend to go. You may have to chart a new course from there, or simply backtrack. But recognizing that your route is not correct is in fact progress.
We just have to man up and face facts.
The bottles stand as empty, as they were filled before,
Time there was and plenty, but from that cup no more,
Though I could not caution all, I still might warn a few,
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools.
A full understanding is important, but with our nation going under, this is just one more restraint that we cannot count on to help us.
Thanks for the comments.
Distinction without a difference. Your daily hate of the Constitution is a sickness.
With what would you replace the Constitution?
No piece of paper can preserve our liberties.
Then your voiced support for the Constitution is baseless.
Great idea, bert! Let’s get to work on it and knock on his door.
Ping-a-ling-a-ling ... what do you think of this idea and would you like to be involved?
Madison said, “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”
Ben Franklin was prescient when he stated at the end of the Constitutional Convention:
“In these sentiments, sir, I agree to that Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such, because I think a general government necessary for us ; and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered ; and believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall be so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”
It is ultimately up to the people to defend their God given, unalienable rights.
I’m not surprised Randy Brogdon is one of the ones behind this, he is the only true conservative choice for governor of Oklahoma in 2010.
I’m not trying to be unfair here.
This is what you stated: No piece of paper can preserve our liberties.
This is where you said it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2413487/posts?page=148#148
So why do you claim to support it?
Yes, ultimately you and I or others must take up arms if things get too far out of hand. That doesn’t mean the document hasn’t protected us, has not been useful as we stake claim to it’s premises.
That paper has definitely served to help preserve our liberties. Without it, we would have far less liberty today.
Look, I realize where you’re coming from, but I don’t care for the statement that no paper can preserve our liberties. That isn’t entirely accurate, and it just lays waste to the idea the Constitution is an important document. At least it does IMO.
Thanks for the response.
Our Constitution is a near miracle from God.
I swore to support to defend it almost 40 years ago and continue to do so.
Left alone, no piece of paper can preserve our liberties.
Our Framers got it right and unfortunately saw the future.
yeah, don't ya just love us? And we have two of the most powerful conservative Republican Senators in the country!
I would replace the "part national, part federal" system with an all-federal system.
The key is, left alone.
That document has not been left alone.
You wouldn’t own guns today without that document. You wouldn’t be participating here without that document. Police would be breaking down your door without a warrant without that document. You personal effects would be subject to search and taking sans warrant without it it.
Seriously, you don’t see any difference in our society today with that document, than we would see if it were not in existence?
The document is one half of the quotient, that does protect our liberties. The other quotient is our demand that it is adhered to by the courts. Without that document, we’d have no standing in court.
You say nothing. Tell me of the various departments, separation of powers, details, how the states fit in, powers of the judiciary, executive, etc if these departments exist in your utopia at all.
Without it, we would have been slaves long ago.
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.