I didn't get the Rep's name but, she is on the floor claiming that secondhand smoke does not cause health problesm.

Wow.

Matt - It was Rep. Kim Thatcher (R)-Keizer.

As long as we keep Rick Metsger from announcing a new state symbol (state pencil, state asphalt, state whatever, ect) We are doing extremely well :)

This is why we do what we do? I'm sorry but I am just bitter this session as we have had great opportunities to take big steps for Oregon and we're still holding back cause the leadership is worried about the next election. Yeah, we did good things this session but we have missed the boat on being great. Some of you will say I'm wrong or say the whole glass being half full vs. half empty but c'mon.

The one thing I am most happy about this session are the 5 under 35. Maybe next election we can have some more of that. Or maybe we'll keep electing people like Vicki Walker time and time again and call ourselves progressive.

...regarding my last post.

Keep in mind this is not a slam against Blue O or the folks here just my viewpoint. If you have some other view on this session then please cheer me up.

If Karen Minnis was in power right now, in this session should would have passed legislation making it illegal for gays to adopt or be foster parents. That's where the right-wing braiwashed zealots will go if given half a chance.

that should be "she would"

I tend to agree with bitter_dem, though am happy with some of the gains. I'd like to see some focus on a statewide population policy, more work to protect the Tillamook, and some new members of the state forestry board. I hope we keep both houses, and then move forward even more in the next session.

HB 2891 - Majority sign up..."free from "intimidation and harassment". Let's make sure we get our facts straight. This bill would force people to sign cards in front of individuals who could "harass" them into saying they want union representation.

I think intimidation can happen from both sides - management and labor - this just codifies one side over the other.

I have not been able to confirm this, but I was told very late today by a friend who said that the word was that the House passed HJR 18:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/hjr1.dir/hjr0018.b.html

This refers to the people a constitutional amendment that finds access to effective and affordable health care a fundamental right and directs the legislature to make it so. I haven't yet digested the nuances of the final version to understand how much force it has (e.g. what is the difference in effect between "declares" in the first version and "finds" in the adopted version?)

An important point is that Democrats need to be careful to not turn this into a squabble over SB329 and SB27, or besmirch the intent by making this a boondoggle for private insurance companies. That means working to provide a single-payer plan, or making it possible for people to buy insurance directly from a state plan rather than a private plan if they so choose --- like John Edwards' plan for health care.

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care/ http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

• Choice between Public and Private Insurers: Health Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it. Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.

Now this is something to be happy about if it is true. The Senate needs to pass this forthwith (Republican Senator Morse is a sponsor, so please be careful about painting Republicans with a broad brush here.). And then we all need to get active in the coming months building broad support for this.

They're getting the job done

Whether moonbats or wingnuts have the reins of leadership -- well, they tend to get the job done according to their agenda. I think what I find most distressing about partisan politics is the common refusal to accept that an opponent might be right. That's a shame.

Cheers

HB2891 is not about being free from intimidation. I've seen labor organizers lie, cheat and coerce employees into signing "The Card". It only means you want to talk, it only means you want a voice. WRONG! The card was designed as a means to silently and anonomously let your thoughts known.

In the private sector, union organizers rarely take a group forward in petitioning the NLRB for representation without at least an 85 per cent card count. They know that is how wishy-washy the support is. It also shows how easy it is to coerce card signings in group situations.

When cards are being passed out, the employer is SPECIFICALLY PRECLUDED from any campaigning at all. How would an automatic check off be even handed? Answer folks - It wouldn't. Plus, why not just let Governor K sell out to the unions again and 'voluntarily' recognize union representation for the purpose of collective bargaining with only 60 per cent cards signed like he just did with adult foster homes?

This bill is nothing more than the embodiment of the sell out state dems have given to the unions.

Jenni Simonis, you said:

I'm quite happy about what they've been able to accomplish thus far.

After reading what lestadelc wrote (which I vociferously agree with):

the legislative process should not be a singular bold leap forward. It is, by design, a deliberative incremental process. Which is as it should be.

Are you actually happy the Democrats in the Senate have taken the irresponsible, wreckless approach of trashing our State Constitution by asking the voters to soil it with poorly designed statutory matter --- an irresponsible tobacco tax based funding plan for health care for children --- that should be worked out responsibly in the deliberative process lestadelc correctly gives due respect?

Our legislature has done a couple of good things this year, that's for sure: Some steps toward equal rights (I fully support gender-blind marriage laws because civil marriage is just contract law), HB2891, the HOPE intiative asking voters to make health care a constitutional right in our state (that is the kind of thing that is properly the subject of constitutional amendment), as good examples.

But let's not go overboard here: A lot of the folks on our side accomplish these good things as much out of self-interest, political and personal, as principled leadership. The decision by Senate Democrats Friday to use their majority to take the irresponsible, lazy way out and ask voters to trash our constitution with statutory matter, rather than doing the responsible deliberative work of legislating proper funding, is a prime example of how many of our side operate out of political expediency, rather than principled leadership. With this one action they managed to cast a shadow on everything else they've done.

Kari, you continue to perpetuate a lie by SB329 supporters. Do you do it intentionally?

At the same time, in a conference room, the Ways & Means Commitee is discussing SB 329 - the Healthy Oregon plan - which would create a framework for universal health care in Oregon.

SB329 is not a framework for universal health care because it has nothing to do with providing health care. It is a framework for compulsory private health insurance purchasing by the public that makes the misleading claim everyone will get health care if they are forced to by insurance from private insurance companies. It is a least fair to point out that this plan's sponsors are a traditional pro-business lapsed-Republican and a well-connected, successful doctor.

The one thing that has been missing in the SB329 debate is any answer from the two sponsors to informed critics, including doctors, small business owners, industry followers that SB329 could be very counterproductive to providing universal health care in this state.

The supposed cost control measures which would keep mandatory private insurance available at affordable costs are illusory and unquantified. There is a great danger under SB329 that carriers will refuse to write insurance unless economically induced, and because SB329 contains no feasible cost control mechanisms, the costs of insurance people would be required by law to pay to pay for all but the most basic health care services could become prohibitively high.

The probable alternative is that the basic health plan could be so poor that the costs for health care services most people with the basic plan actually require would get passed on to people with better insurance in the form of much higher costs.

Why do you continually misrepresent and support SB329, and refuse to criticize it, even though the guy you claim to support for President, John Edwards, has criticized plans exactly like this that don't include a component where we could buy insurance directly from a state-sponsored plan? At least SB27, which is not a specific plan, but actually just sets up process to enlist popular support to construct a plan, could result in plan which would be like Edwards' plan and you never say anything supportive of that.

Curious:

You didn't mention that the "well connected doctor" practices in a small town. As someone distantly related to one of his patients, I suggest you hurt your cause if you imply his patients are also rich and well-connected.

If you were faced with cancer surgery and then possibly chemo and radiation, do you currently have health insurance which would pay for all that? The "lapsed Republican" faced that situation and realizes many people don't have that sort of insurance.

Is there one set price for medical procedures? I heard one advocate of the bill on the radio talking about someone who didn't have health insurance needed a medical procedure and no one could give a straight answer on what it would cost. Mostly the responses were "which insurance do you have?".

I am curious about what specific proposal comes from those described here:

The one thing that has been missing in the SB329 debate is any answer from the two sponsors to informed critics, including doctors, small business owners, industry followers that SB329 could be very counterproductive to providing universal health care in this state.<<

Or is this about a political battle, and not about detailed proposals where the actual proposed details can be debated openly by those who are neither doctors, small business owners, or "industry followers", just ordinary folks who may or may not currently be insured and might change jobs to get better benefits?

To curious, LT and for that matter all the legislators in Salem who are confused on this.

We need to pass both SB329 and SB27 and stop all the bickering! This isn't about ego. This is about a failed system that needs to be righted for all of us and a plan to put into place now for the 600,000 Oregonians without health care.

From John Kitzhaber's Blog:

Click Here To Read & Take Action

It is also important for the legislature to continue to hear from you about the critical importance of passing a comprehensive package of legislation that can address both the immediate crisis and the long-term systemic challenges facing the healthcare system here in Oregon and in the United States, and that SB 27 is a key element of that package.

The Historic Opportunity

It might help to illustrate the historic opportunity before us with an analogy. Think of the crisis in our healthcare system as a ship at sea. The ship is sinking and there are a lot of people in the water. Many of these people are children who can’t swim. Many others are adults, who can swim -- but not forever. We need to get lifeboats out -- particularly to the children -- and we need to keep any more people from falling into the water. But if we don’t keep the ship itself from sinking, those in the water and those who are still on the ship will all be lost at sea.

To save the people in the water we need to pass the Healthy Kids Plan and reopen new enrollment for Oregon Health Plan Standard. Healthy Kids extends coverage to many children in Oregon while reopening OHP Standard will expand coverage to some of the 80,000 eligible Oregonians who have been unable to apply since the program stopped taking applications in 2004.

These two steps will address the immediate crisis, but that is not enough. We also need to keep more people from falling into the water while we are repairing the ship. To do that we need to pass SB 329, the Healthy Oregon Act – an innovative approach to create a pool through which those without health insurance coverage would have the opportunity to purchase coverage for a defined set of essential health services. SB 329 also begins a process for providing state-based incentives to reform the way that health services are delivered. Slated to go into effect in January 2010, SB 329 fulfills our obligation to the other Oregonians who are currently denied access to the healthcare system because of their inability to pay.

Finally, we need to repair the ship itself by passing SB 27, the Oregon Better Health Act. Many of the underlying causes of medical inflation and the structural weaknesses in the current U.S. health care system itself are reflected in federal policy, so we must look beyond Oregon for this long-term solution. Righting our ship for the long haul requires that we look comprehensively at its structure and all of its parts. Otherwise the promise we make to those on the Oregon Health Plan, to children, and to working families will be a hollow one. The state will be forced to drop these people from coverage again in the future. We can do better.

SB 27 is a self-contained benefit and system design process that develops a blueprint for national healthcare reform, which is the only solution to the nation’s growing health care crisis. SB 27 offers a framework for long-term change otherwise expanding coverage and access for Oregonians will not be sustainable.

Contact your legislators today and send a copy to legislative leadership. Urge them to schedule a hearing and work session on SB 27 as soon as possible.

Click Here to Take Action

Curious:

You didn't mention that the "well connected doctor" practices in a small town. As someone distantly related to one of his patients, I suggest you hurt your cause if you imply his patients are also rich and well-connected.

LT - You didn't mention that that small-town is Ashland, far from a typical Oregon small town socioeconomically. Bates' practice is not a typical small-town practice by a long shot, and he said that in his road show (Before you blow a gasket LT, be clear that this is not even close to implying that he doesn't do an admirable job for patients of all socioeconomic levels in his practice.) I have no problem saying that Kitzhaber, an emergency room physician you'll recall, is putting patients in rural areas ahead of insurance companies in SB27 far more than Bates and Westlund with SB329.

We need to pass both SB329 and SB27 and stop all the bickering!

Precisely. But let's be fair to the facts and quit playing games: Bates and Westlund have done what they can to block SB27 because they favor forcing people to buy private insurance. Bates has said flat out he was opposed to any plan that didn't leave health care insurance in the hands of private insurers, and he has been rudely dismissive of people who've challenged him on that in public.

Bates and Westlund also have flat out refused to mandate seats on the Oregon Health Fund Board for patient and health care provider advocates. Instead, after a long struggle, they "agreed" to the meaningless conditions:

A majority of the board members must consist of individuals who do not receive or have not received withing the past two years more than 50 percent of the individual's family form the health care industry or the health insurance industry.

You'll note this means doctors who would be stronger in their advocacy for patients would be lumped together with doctors who would be stronger in their advocacy for the health care and insurance industries under this provision. These guys need chiropractors after the contortions they have performed to protect the insurance industry rather than put in the simple language in Edwards' national plan creating a public alternative.

(Read the latest amendements and the bill at: http://www.hopeforahealthyoregon.com/documents/SB329-A.pdf http://www.hopeforahealthyoregon.com/documents/SB329A-22.pdf)

Bates and Westlund have also worked with AARP and done nothing to publicly repudiate the AARP's attempts to undermine SB27. Furthermore, The AARP has recently started spreading clear mistruths about SB27 and Bates and Westlund have not spoke up disapprovingly of that. (And I note Bates and Westlund supporters like LT have not come for SB27 either.)

I'm all for passing both SB329 and SB27 and advocate so here. But I'm flat out opposed to passing SB329 alone as it looks right now. SB329 passed out of Ways and Means, but SB27 is still stuck there last I heard. Bates and Westlund could lead the effort to pull it out of Ways and Means like other legislators did with Read ID a couple of weeks ago. That would all but insure both bills are passed and sent to the governor. Of course, if we get to that point, we'll need to keep the pressure on Kulongoski to do the right thing and sign both bills.

This is all to say that before we Democrats break an arm patting ourselves on the back, we still have some hard work to do to deliver genuinely progressive results for all Oregonians.

From SB329 "Hope for a Healthy Oregon" newsletter:

<<Does SB329 Have National Impact? YES!

During the committee process and during the Hope for a Healthy Oregon tour, many people expressed hope that health care reform in Oregon could impact national level policies.

With the passage of Senate Bill 329, Oregon will once again be on the leading edge of national forces to reform our broken system. A Federal Laws & Policies sub-committee will be established to gather public input and report to our Federal delegation by July 31, 2008 in the areas of Medicaid, Medicare, tax code and insurance code. The bill also requests our delegation hold hearings in D.C. and in each congressional district around Oregon.

<h2>This will be a great opportunity to continue the conversation around how federal policies impact our nation's ability to provide affordable health care for everyone.>></h2>

I want to make clear: Senators Bates & Westlund are very smart, dedicated public servants with a passion and for health care and I respect them immensely. It’s the utterly transparent statements put out of their offices via their electronic newsletter “Hope for a Healthy Oregon” that makes me embarrassed for them.

What is even more laughable is the assertion that SB329 supporters were the ones “expressing hope that health care reform in Oregon could impact national level policies.” It was the supporters of SB27 that showed up at those Healthy Oregon tours and expressed their concern that the original SB329 didn’t address the Medicare (federal) issue, which moved Bates & Westlund to try and merge the bills. That merger, however didn’t happen. Why? AARP.

I find this so unbelievably incredulous that Westlund & Bates' offices would now be touting that SB329 serves as a model for discussion on a federal level. Although SB329 “takes a stab” at a few peripheral federal health care issues, (i.e. Medicare reimbursement rates being brought up to at least the national average) at no point does it go to the heart of the health care debate with respect to overhauling a broken down & antiquated health system.

Time and again, supporters and detractors of SB27 have been clear that the major difference between the two bills is that SB27 addresses the federal Medicare issue, and SB329 does not.

In Senator Bates' own words: "The Medicare issue is the Bridge Too Far" to be included in SB329. Although he supports SB27, the bottom line is vested interests, primarily the for-profit arm of AARP via their health insurance underwriters, are very much against SB27 as it would cut into their supplemental insurance market. The crafter of SB27, John Kitzhaber and the authors of SB329, Senators Bates & Westlund, very wisely and pragmatically separated the bills as two pieces instead of one merged bills.

AARP's threat to legislators who supported the Medicare wavier would be punished with their legislative scorecard as having taken a "bad vote on a senior issue: Medicare." The irony is that it has been the senior citizen contingent that has been very vocal in support of SB27 as it addresses the Medicare issue. AARP is NOT the only voice for seniors in Oregon.

The duplicity of Hope for a Healthy Oregon's above statement proves, yet again, that the staff who writes this kind of dribble have no idea how idiotic they sound. Just a month ago, their messages were inside the capitol: "SB27 is symbolic and does nothing" and that “SB27 is killing SB329.”

Why not just type up talking points on AARP letterhead for the staffers at the PR office of Hope for a Healthy Oregon?

For the last few weeks, it's all about how SB 329 and SB27 are so similar that we really don't need two bills, (never mind that that the two bills do very different things) and that the points SB27 makes as legislation have been co-opted by the amateur spin idiots of SB329.

Now, fast forward to today: SB329 message via Hope for a Healthy Oregon, is all about impacting health care at a federal level. If that was the case, AARP would be working behind the scenes to kill that too if SB329 federal criteria was anything of substance. AARP's message is that states have no business trying to fix a federal matter. HA! Look at what happened with Medicare Part D. Started and finished at a federal level. Let's talk about what a success THAT debacle has been. Every successful initiative and/or revamp of public policy, health care, education, transportation, etc. has always taken place at the state level first with the federal government using those state frameworks for more permanent federal legislation.

These two bills, SB 329 & SB27 are complimentary and compatible. But again, do very different things.

My questions and ponderings are this: If SB329 and SB27 are so similar, why has AARP been so vocal in it support of SB329 and so vocal against SB27? Gee. Could it possibly be because SB329 settles into a status quo (and therefore protects their supplemental insurance market) and SB27 actually does something more far reaching?

I think SB329 does do some good things, but the way their offices try and spin this, it doesn’t look like it does.

This kind of pathetic co-opting, not even of messages, but stretching of reality of what these two bills do, to try and make SB329 look as much like SB27 is laughable. SB329 making a “national impact.” What a joke. SB329 is a re-cycling of the same state monies to try and pick up where the Oregon Health Plan failed.

SB27 is a holistic approach and the sooner the writers of Hope for a Healthy Oregon’s PR people figure out that nobody is duped by such rank amateur, transparent attempts of trying to muddy the water, the better off we’ll be.

Well, maybe not. Those in the know got a very good laugh when it landed in our mailbox. I’m all for a good laugh.

<hr/>