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

rightsidenews.com ^ | 12/22/09 | Mike Ritze

[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."

[DennisR]

Okay, let’s keep the pressure on - especially Nelson. The governor and people of Nebraska are really giving it to him. Let’s add fuel to the fire! Let him know we are not only sick of the corruption of which he is chief benefactor, but we will also be cheering for the Cornhuskers to lose big to the Arizona Wildcats in their upcoming bowl game!

Nelson
bennelson.senate.gov
Phone: (402) 441-4600
Fax: (202) 228-0012

Webb
http://webb.senate.gov
Phone: 202-224-4024
Fax: 202-228-6363

Landrieu
http://landrieu.senate.gov
Phone: (202)224-5824
Fax:(202) 224-9735

Lincoln
http://lincoln.senate.gov
(202) 224-4843
Fax (202) 228-1371

Bayh
http://bayh.senate.gov
Phone: (202) 224-5623
Fax: (202) 228-1377

Lieberman
http://lieberman.senate.gov
Phone: 202.224.4041
Fax: 202.224.9750

[kamikaze2000]

Oklahoma, you are awesome...

[corvus]

Bravo OK.

[Huck]

The 2nd amendment guarantees the citizens the right to overcome any unconstitutional laws. We will enforce the Constitution if need be.

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.

[OKC Patriot]

SOONER BUMP

[lonevoice]

We should send this to Ms Mcmorris-Rodgers and ask that she do the same.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks again AAC!

Our neighbor to the north is walking the walk! God luv 'em!

Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.

I've stopped monitoring threads and unilaterally adding names to the ping list, so if you want on or off the list just say so.

Additional Resources:

Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
The Right Side of Life/State Initiatives
Sovereign States
Firearms Freedom Act

CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES

[VOA]

Tornado Alley Bump!!!

(and I never saw a tornado in person during my time in Okalhoma...
age 6 months to about 30 years of age...But many passed by me
but it was after dark!!!)

[Pining_4_TX]

Now if they would just remove the mandates that have been put on insurance companies requiring them to cover all sorts of stuff that many people don’t want or need, then we would see some real progress in improving health care and making insurance more affordable.

[Still Thinking]

So your last hope will be the SCOTUS, from which there is no appeal.

If you're prepared to accept the decision of a branch of the feral government that the actions of...the feral government, are Constitutional. I'll bet a lot of people, and states, are not so prepared.

[Still Thinking]

Federalism ping, y’all.

[Huck]

Prepared or not, short of a constitutional recourse, they have no LEGAL recourse. They can rebel. Or they can call a convention. Actually, they ought to call a convention. That would be the “proper” thing to do. Rebellion, technically, should be a last resort, and unless you’ve called a Constitutional Convention, you have not exhausted your legal options.

[Huck]

It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; .... Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made [the Bill of Rights].Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.”

Elbridge Gerry

[Still Thinking]

Has SS and Medicare been deemed Constitutional on challenge?

Not sure about SS specifically, but when several consecutive decisions seemed to indicate that several justices could at least spell "Constitution", FDR, being the Democrat, communist spawn of Satan who would likely have molested little boys if he hadn't had polio, became alarmed. He then started making noises about expanding SCOTUS to 12 justices ("packing"), and the nine suddenly discovered the constitutionality of the New Deal (spit).

Now, believing in stare decisis every bit as much as your typical liberal, I'm all in favor of fixing those decisions at the earliest opportunity.

[UnwashedPeasant]

"They’ll still pay the federal taxes . . . "

If the voters of Oklahoma have to "still pay the federal taxes" despite the will of the people, then that is taxation without representation.

The states can demand that the U.S. government abide by the constitution--as it was written and intended. If the feds refuse, the states can and should secede.

[Huck]

FDR, being the Democrat, communist spawn of Satan who would likely have molested little boys if he hadn't had polio, became alarmed.

That's hilarious. Re: stare decisis, considering Scalia wrote a majority opinion not so long ago affirming Wickard v Fillburn (new deal era commerce clause), I seriously doubt we will see the new deal overturned.

[ForGod'sSake]

Huck, you seem pretty comfortable in your role as a wet blanket. I would submit it’s more of a cop out taking the low road than it is to actually offer some solutions of your own. What would you like to see happen?

[Still Thinking]

Prepared or not, short of a constitutional recourse, they have no LEGAL recourse. They can rebel. Or they can call a convention.

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.

[Still Thinking]

Scalia wrote a majority opinion not so long ago affirming Wickard v Fillburn

Yeah, Scalia shows some disturbing statist and nationalist tendencies. If he's an "originalist", he's certainly one who sees through a conservative/authoritarian lens. Not sure why he's the darling of the right to the extent that he is. I'd take two more Thomases over eight more Scalias.

[I_be_tc]

later