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."
They're going to run into this:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
And as far as "In pursuance thereof" goes, again, who, under the Constitution, gets to decide what is and isn't in pursuance thereof? So much of that has already been well established, as I already outlined. Very hard to undo.
If it is truly the people's job to undo it, as it is, then the one mode offered under the Constitution that would work is calling a convention. But no one wants that. The outcome would be worse, it is supposed. Why? Because the people are ignorant and we are devoid of real leadership on the question.
One last thing, the government is able to shape the people. Each generation grows up in the system that exists when they are born. Unless they are taught otherwise, they accept it as it is. They grow accustomed to it. In my view, one area where change should be pursued is education. If conservatives want to win in the long run, they should infiltrate and overtake the educational system. They should flood the school boards, they should become teachers en masse, they should infiltrate children's educational programs, they should create children's cartoons and games that subtley embue conservative principles. They should infiltrate the culture in discreet ways--make first person shooter video games that have subtle conservative messages built into the story line. They must influence the people, educate and indoctrinate the children, and win the battle of ideas by every means necessary. In this way, over the course of a few decades, they might begin to make a dent and see a glint of light among the people.
That's what I did. I left corporate life and became a music intructor. Even in this role, I can subtly and imperceptibly pass on principles and ideas that might take hold in young minds.
It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.
Niccolo Machiavelli
I challenge anyone to name a government that did not end up abusing the rights of the people.
“Well I definitely liked what Sheriff Joe had to say, “I dont care what the Feds or Napolitano says..I don’t answer to the federal govt. I answer to the people who elected me. I’m an ELECTED Sheriff”.”
Amen to that response!! States will be forced to stand up to the FEDS by outraged citizens - esp. if this healthcare mess passes.... and it’s about bloody time they did!!!!
I submit the jury is still out on whether Americans will be up to the challenge of once again guarding the lions. The 2010 elections should give us a pretty good idea.
This rememdy is problematic. First, appeal to arms--what Madison called the ultima ratio (last resort?)--is extraconstitutional. It's a natural right, to be sure, but not a Constitutional exercise. Therefore, you are asking that every time the government oversteps its perceived limits, there should be violent insurrection.
As you know, the national government under the Constitution has the power to subdue such insurrection. Further, the government as it currently stands possesses standing armies and various forms of military police able to quell such rebellions.
It is also notable that the perceived transgressions of power have taken place over long periods of time. If you and I, today, believe that the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s warranted rebellion, do we now rebel, even though none of the politicians who passed it remain alive? Do we ignore the massive electoral victories of FDR, which demonstrate that the people at the time acquiesced to these new laws?
And how to you determine when a violation is so agregious as to warrant armed rebellion? Some of the framers themselves who first thought a thing unconstitutional, later found the same thing within constitutional bounds. How do you allow for error of opinion?
Last, the same people who advocate armed resistance, usually when asked, oppose a Constitutional Convention. It seems to me, then, they are asserting the right to defend a Constitution that they are afraid or unwilling to live under. The Constitution allows for a Convention whenever 2/3rds of the states shall propose it. What justifies the use of arms if it is not the last resort? The Declaration of Independence claims that they had tried everything else. They had gone to the British government and tried all legal means for redress. It seems contradictory to me that one would seek to use arms to defend a system when one is unwilling to use legal, non-violent means within that system to address grievances.
Only for our would-be masters.
You wish. Let's take the Civil War as an example. That was as significant a rebellion as you are likely to see. And yet, some even believe that the national power wanted a pretext for armed conflict. Even if they didn't, let's look at the outcome. Setting aside the awful loss of life, what were the political consequences? Did the conflict enlarge or diminish the power of the states? Did it enlarge or diminish the power of the national government?
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
Sun Tzu
Armed resistance would be a boon for the national power. The outcome is woefully easy to predict. The armed resistors are put down. They are demonized as racist, atavistic, extremists. The national power uses the conflict as a pretext for grabbing even more power. The ideals of the resistors become discredited among the common people, and success becomes that much more difficult to attain.
The points you continue to hawk tend to the fatalistic; that is, NOTHING can be done to defeat tyranny in the long run. Given Man’s nature that may be true, but if the cycle can be broken, Americans probably stand as good a chance as anyone of breaking it. We shall see. Your attitude on the matter certainly doesn’t lend any support to the notion. Could your time and talents be better spent doing something else?
Actually my point is the exact opposite. The fatalistic view is the one that holds that the system we have now is the best we're ever going to have, that there's no point trying to conjure up a better one.
Anyway, I think the subject has run its course. I thought I might encounter some good arguments along the way. I thought maybe someone would bring something up I hadn't thought of. Didn't happen. The process of debate is a good one. Helps me learn. Thanks for engaging in the discussion with me. I appreciate it. I'm pretty sure I'm going to move on to another subject.
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.