(Oklahoma) Lawmakers File "Freedom of Healthcare Choice Act"

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.

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."

So, you want a "perfect" compact/contract/agreement that is self enforcing? Har; fat chance!

I'm not asking for perfection. I'm asking if there isn't a form of government that would be more conducive to liberty than what we have, less conducive to expansive centralized power. It's demonstrably possible to have a less centralized system. The old confederacy was such an example. The problem there was that it actually contained too little power to sustain itself. So my question is whether or not there could be a form somewhere between the two extremes, perhaps a federal system--a confederacy--that contains enough power to sustain itself, yet does not give so much power to the general government that we end up where we are today. I believe the Constitution should be judged not on the intent, but on the results, and if the results are not good, our thinking should be directed towards correcting it.

We The People are the only sovereigns within this arrangement and it is up to us to enforce it.

I understand and I hear this all the time. I compare it to a lion cage at a circus. Imagine the USA is a circus. We have several lions that perform in our circus (the politicians). And we have a lion cage (The Constitution) to hold them securely in their place. Now let's say the lion cage is faulty. The bars are spaced to widely, and the latch doesn't hold on the door. The lions get out, and attack several of the circus workers and spectators.(the people). I don't blame the lions (politicians) for escaping and causing harm. I accept that lions, though necessary for our circus, are dangerous and have it in their nature to do harm. The trick is to keep them in the cage. I don't blame the people for being harmed when the lions escape--after all, that's what the cage is for. I blame the cage. I say if the cage is faulty, it must be fixed or replaced. If there is no way to keep the lions in a cage, we're basically in peril. We must devise a way to confine them.

In summary, politicans by their nature are avaricious and dangerous to the people at large, and yet remain necessary. The people are naturally vulnerable to unrestrained politicians. In such an arrangement, the politicians have the upper hand. The Constitution must restrain the politicians or else the people are in grave danger.

The question is quite rational, though to some here merely raising it is treated as if it were outrageous blasphemy---could their be a better form of government for securing liberty? This part national, part federal system was the first of its kind, with its mixed sovereignty. Can we not now look at the 200 years of data and assess its utility in the real world, and conceive of changes that might be warranted?

If we don't enforce it, we have only ourselves to blame for the consequences.

First, each generation is subjected to the errors of all the preceding generations. You and I were not around when Alexander Hamilton and George Washington used the "implied powers" doctrine to create a national bank, over the objections of Madison, Jefferson, and others. We were not alive when the 14th amendment was passed, and later used by the Court to establish "substantive due process." We were not present in the 1800s when the commerce clause (known to lawyers and judges as the "everything clause") was being expanded to cover more and more "implied powers." We were not around when the FDR administration passed all those new deal entitlements and expanded the power of the national government (and look at FDRs electoral results--he was winning with 400-500 electoral votes---massive victories). We didn't have anything to do with any of that, and yet we are subject to its results.

We are NOT to blame. We are unwitting victims of the national system, as it has been administered throughout its history, and the people who failed to resist, or who erred in judgement and supported the changes at the time. And those changes, once made, and once established over a period of years, are very difficult if not impossible to eliminate. Just look at Social Security and Medicare.

Second, the government holds the upper hand. We all want to change it. We all want to reduce its power, and yet we find ourselves powerless to do so. Are we now to blame? Is it our fault if we find ourselves not only unable to roll back past expansions of power, but unable to prevent further encroachment? What is it we are supposed to do that we are not doing?

Yes, the people have responsibilities. But the government has awesome power. They have the purse and the sword. If it were so easy to overcome tyrannical rulers, don't you think it would be more common in human history? Quite the contrary. The aim then, MUST be to limit the power of the government in the first place, so that they don't possess the power.

You might argue that the Constitution did just that. I would only submit that I find it had several fatal loopholes and powers that made this gradual expansion of power inevitable. Do I know what the better system would look like, down to the specific details? I do not. At this point, I merely raise the question--could there be a better system? My next question to you would be, do you believe it's too late to turn back the feral beast short of taking up arms?

I think it is. The hardest thing to undo, it seems to me, is SCOTUS jurisprudence. Commerce clause jurisprudence alone goes all the way back to the early 1800s (McCulloch v Maryland). The court doesn't like to undo well-established precedent. They follow common law principles and they also guard their own institution, by not overturning their own court's rulings willy-nilly. Hence you get Scalia using Wickard v Fillburn to justify federal drug interdiction.

To try to rewind all the way back to the "few and defined" powers envisioned by Madison would take nothing short of revolution. There are so many jobholders living off of the system as it is, and the people, desiring peace and ease above all else, are tempermentally opposed to radical change of any kind. That's why we have so much debt. The people are unwilling to roll back the national power, and unwilling to pay the taxes necessary to finance it.

I see the amount of powers that need to be reversed as so great and massive and comprehensive, that truly, if you think you have the people ready to go that far, it makes sense to contemplate a new system, and correct some of the things that brought us here in the first place.

The other method would be to try to undo it in the way it's been done--gradually. But the expansion seems to overwhelm such attempts. Again, if Scalia is willing to use new deal COmmerce clause jurisprudence to support current programs, how much hope do you have of getting real change through the SCOTUS. If the people are not ready, how do you get such changes by amendment?

So, in the end, I'm asking the same question the rest of us are asking: Where do we go from here?

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.