OK-SAFE, Inc. Blog

November 21, 2011

Stop Obama Care in Kansas Responds to OK-SAFE Comments on Health Care Reform Committee

The following letter of support from our friends in Kansas, who are also engaged in a fight against the implementation of PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka “Obama Care”).  Like Oklahoma, Kansas citizens applied political pressure to their legislators and governor and rejected the Obama Care enabler “Early Innovator” federal grant money.

OK-SAFE thanks them for their support and will continue to offer our support to their efforts against the liberty and privacy killing provisions of PPACA and the ARRA, (the stimulus bill was the real health care reform bill, providing the funding mechanism for electronic health records adoption, the backbone of the inhuman health IT monster called “reform”.)

(See earlier OK-SAFE post entitled OK-SAFE Response to Federal Health Care Reform Committee.)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sunday, November 20, 2011

RE: OK-SAFE comments on the recent Joint Legislative Committee on Health Care Reform Law in Oklahoma.

Dear Amanda,

On behalf of the Stop Obama Care in Kansas (the Republic) (SOCK) tour we are 100% in solidarity with you, OK-SAFE and the citizens of Oklahoma.

In addition I would note that under Article VI cl. 3, of the U.S. Constitution every state and federal legislative, judicial and executive officer must take an oath to “support” the Constitution.  Although the founders left the actual words of this oath of support to the individual states they did write the oath for the President of the United States.  No other officers can have any more or less responsibility that that of the President, although the means to carry one’s oath out will change based on the office held. That oath is as follows:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

-U.S. Constitution, Article II §1.

All of the descriptors of this duty to the U.S. Constitution are action words which clearly indicate that his duty is an active duty not a passive duty. One may not, consistent with their oath to the Constitution, sit quietly by as the Constitution is violated or otherwise attacked.

Also note this duty is by no means limited to military or other physical attacks but includes all attacks including philosophical attacks and legislative, judicial and executive usurpations.  Also those who are not fulfilling their duty in this regard are also failing to support the Constitution and are passively attacking the Constitution.

Under the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison espoused the principle that any time the central government  exceeded its authority under the Constitution then the central government’s actions in such regard was a nullity and of no force and effect upon the sovereign States. They also noted the only way for the states to preserve the Union was to protect the Constitution from such usurpations by the federal government and in fact the States not only had a right but indeed a duty (were required)  to intervene and “interpose” themselves between the central government and their citizens to stop an infringement of the rights of their citizens.

In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall, speaking on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court,   affirmed the principle espoused by Jefferson and Madison, holding that any federal law which was not “in pursuance” of the Constitution  was a total nullity upon its inception and never comes into force and effect. Murbarry v. Madison. (See U.S. Constitution Art. VI cl.2.) As such no one is required to enforce, obey or otherwise support such law. In fact to support such an unconstitutional law would be a breach of one’s duty to the Constitution.

Note the Court said the law was a nullity upon its very inception not from the time the Court declared it to be so.

What this means is that all those who are under an oath to the Constitution must in the first instance determine for themselves if a law or regulation is Constitutional.  Once they have made that determination their further conduct is sealed.

It is no excuse for those under oath to say they are “not an attorney” or are not a “Constitutional scholar”. Once they raise their hand and swear their oath to the Constitution they are required to have a working knowledge of the Constitution otherwise they are incompetent to hold office. In other words such oath established a substantive requirement for them to be qualified to hold office, the oath is not a mere formality as most public officials now treat it.

As Justice Scalia said in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, and was repeated in M c DONALD et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO:

“In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment ’s ratification would have understood that Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid.”

For those of us who know the law, our public servants have no excuse for their ignorance except for laziness and incompetence.

In Kansas the Governor has declared Obama Care to be “unconstitutional”. He has thereby limited the actions he may take as to Obama Care. Also Kansas has sued the federal government based on Obama Care being unconstitutional. Therefore, the official policy of Kansas is that Obama Care is unconstitutional. Further the Federal District Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals have found it to be unconstitutional at some level. Therefore, any official in Kansas that moves ahead with Obama Care is violating their oath to support the U.S. Constitution by supporting and or implementing an unconstitutional law.

I am sure you will find that Oklahoma politicians are in the same position.

Thank you for all your effort to return our Republic to Constitutional Governance.

For the sake of Liberty,

Richard D. Fry

Founder / Co-Coordinator

Stop Obama Care in Kansas

General Counsel

Patriot Coalition

816 853 8718

November 17, 2011

OK-SAFE Response to Federal Health Care Reform committee

OK-SAFE, Inc.

AP reporter Sean Murphy on Tuesday asked OK-SAFE Executive Director Amanda Teegarden for some comments about the 2011 Joint Legislative Committee and Health Care Reform Law. (Teegarden spoke to this committee on 11/3/11 in Tulsa.)

Formed at the conclusion of the last legislative session to examine the impact of the federal health care reform law on Oklahoma, this committee held its’ fifth (and final) meeting on Tuesday, 11/15/11 in the House chambers.

Video of the meetings is posted on the OK House website.

Below are the five questions asked and OK-SAFE’s responses.*

Q. 1 )   Do you think the Oklahoma Legislature should ignore the federal requirement that a health care exchange be established? If so, why?  

  • Yes, we think the Oklahoma Legislature should ignore the federal requirements for an exchange.
  •  While we can appreciate the complexity of the health care issue in general, we believe that the main problem with this committee’s efforts was the fact that health care reform was not defined to begin with.  Health care reform is actually about the development of the IT (information technology) framework that establishes a Nationwide Health Information Network, the creation of an electronic health record on everyone, the flow of highly personal information across jurisdictions, and government access to everyone’s health and medical records.
  • Several presenters actually spoke about this Nationwide Health Information Network as a “federal data hub” – one presenter referred to what the feds are doing as being like “something out of a TV show.”
  • What this “hub” does is allow the federal government access to any and all information a state may have on it’s citizens, including their health and medical records.
  • The state of Oklahoma is progressively developing the infrastructure necessary to help facilitate this federal data hub, sometimes referred to a “globally integrated and networked intelligence enterprise”.

Q. 2)   What about the provision that provides if a state doesn’t establish an exchange, the feds will do it for them?

  • The state of Oklahoma has been establishing “health care reform” for a while now, and in 2010 established a public-beneficiary public trust called the Oklahoma Health Information Exchange Trust (OHIET).  (SB 1373 in 2010).
  • This trust is establishing the ‘network of networks’ that allow for the seamless flow of electronic health records (including medical records) throughout the state, and elsewhere.
  • The OHIET’s purpose is to establish the framework for health information exchange , to establish a ‘network of networks’ and to link providers, payers and patients.
  • According the OHIET’s Cooperative Agreement with the Office of the National Coordinator (the feds), the OHIET plans to align the state’s health information exchange(s) with the federal requirements.
  • Because the OHIET trust has been actively implementing the technological infrastructure necessary for “ObamaCare” to function in this state, it doesn’t matter if the state establishes a state-based health insurance exchange or lets the federal government establish it for us.  The functionality of a state-based insurance exchange will be the same as the federal governments exchange and it will be linked to the health information exchanges.

The OHIET HIE logic model. Do we really want this system in Oklahoma? Do we want to make it easier for the feds to access our health records?

Q. 3)   Do you think the state should count on the health care law being overturned/dismantled by a the Supreme Court or a future administration?

  • Because of the OHIETs activities and other agencies’ activities, it won’t really matter if the Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional. The technological framework establishing the two exchanges – the health information and the health insurance exchange – and linking to the Nationwide Health Information Network, is moving forward.
  • The only differences allowed in a state-based insurance exchange would be those differences that don’t make a difference.  For instance, the state has some flexibility in defining who the Navigators will be and the role they’ll play, and whether the exchange website portal functions like Expedia or not.
  • All of the technological standards, interoperability and information sharing requirements, as well as government and third party access to records, will be aligned with the federal governments requirements.

Q. 4)   What are your thoughts about the ability of the tea party and other grassroots conservative groups like yours to successfully fight against the establishment of the exchanges and to resist the implementation of the federal health care law in Oklahoma?

  • While we’re not speaking for all the grassroots groups in Oklahoma, we think the state should not establish a health insurance exchange. It’s contrary to what the people of Oklahoma want, and we already voted against it  (at least, we thought we did).
  • Politically, it would be better to let the feds take all the blame for what is going to happen.  Any legislator who decides to move forward with an exchange – whether a state-based non-profit, a for-profit, or a hybrid – is going to be forever linked to it.
  • Next year is an election year – it is my understanding that the citizens of Oklahoma will be making an issue of the health insurance exchanges.

Q. 5)   What are your thoughts in general about this task force and the work they’ve conducted, recommendations they should make?

  • In general, the committee chairs leaned toward speakers that favored the establishment of a state-based insurance exchange and who advocated for following the requirements of ARRA and PPACA.  Other than two speakers from OCPA, OK-SAFE was about the only other “conservative” organization featured.
  • OK-SAFE Recommendations: Don’t build a state-based exchange in any format.  Allow providers, payers and patient an escape route – they should not have to play (or pay) into this “network of networks”; let them function outside any and all exchanges without penalty.
  • Further recommendation:  Terminate the OHIET trust and audit the OHCA.

*It is not known when, or if, these responses will used by the AP reporter, who sent his request on 11/15/11.

In the meantime, write your legislator and tell them we still mean NO to “Obamacare” – and this includes the exchanges.

[Go to http://www.oklegislature.gov, click on Legislators to see contact information.]

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: