Oregon House: Health Care is a Right
Yesterday the Oregon House voted in favor of a resolution that, if passed by the Senate and voters in November, will amend the Oregon Constitution to declare health care a fundamental right.
From the Oregonian:
Do Oregonians have a fundamental right to effective, affordable health care?That question threw the Oregon House into a lofty and philosophical debate for more than an hour Wednesday before it voted 31-29 along strict party lines in favor of referring it to the November ballot.
The vote marked a narrow victory for a legislator who has been fighting for three years to put the state on a course to provide health care to more than 600,000 residents without insurance.
"I'm absolutely delighted it passed," said Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, who carried the resolution as chairman of the House Health Care Committee. "I'm sorry it turned into a partisan issue."
House Joint Resolution 100 would amend the Oregon Constitution to make health care "a fundamental right" and order the Legislature to adopt a plan for giving every legal resident "access to effective and affordable health care on a regular basis."
It now goes to the Senate, where Greenlick expects it to pass. It does not require the governor's signature to reach the ballot.
The resolution ran into opposition from House Republicans:
Republican opponents said the resolution would expand government, socialize medicine and create another entitlement program.They argued that if the constitution declared health care a "fundamental right," the Legislature would be forced to give health care priority over other programs, such as education and public safety. They also said any plan to extend health care to all legal residents would cost billions of dollars.
But Greenlick said the resolution does not create socialized medicine, put health care above other constitutional rights or require government to spend money it doesn't have. The Oregon Constitution guarantees all children a public education, he said, but lets the Legislature work out how much it can spend on that endeavor. The same would be true if the constitution guaranteed health care, he said. "The most expensive thing we could do is keep the system we have now."
Greenlick introduced an earlier form of his resolution in the 2005 Legislature, where it died in committee. Another version passed in the House last year but died in a Senate committee.
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
Feb. 14, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 14, '08
Hopefully it is a fundamental right to not have to pay for health care also. Now that would be really sweet. Is it also possible to have three somes with Playboy bunnies declared a fundamental right? That is a position that I've been lobbying for since high school. Oh, and I'd like to have a free Ferrari for everyone. What is more fundamental than having a really nice car? Oh, and everyone should be rich, and good looking, and tall. And no more of those ucky sickness things. Lets pass a law to make life really, really wonderful. And can we just pass a law to make Pi 3.0 so I don't have to remember all of those stupid digits?
Feb 14, '08
Health care for all makes good economic and social sense. National health care plans were supported in Western Europe by conservatives because they recognized they needed healthy men for their military and healthy men and women to help build thriving economies. A push for national health care is a push for a healthy nation, and it should be linked to economic justice that demands a living wage for anyone who works. Poverty is a breeding ground for poor health and social disorder.
Feb 14, '08
Will I as a health care professional, be forced to work at my profession? Must I give this care at a government mandated wage rate? If yes and yes, then I must be a slave. Where are my rights?
9:50 a.m.
Feb 14, '08
HUH?!
Uh, "Kitty," are you sure this isn't Louise, or maybe Harry?
9:53 a.m.
Feb 14, '08
Getting this to the voters would be a tremendous thing. Anyone know why it died in the Senate last session?
The amendment itself, if passed, would create a requirement for the legislature to do something if whatever comes out of the SB 329 process doesn't work -- actually pressure to fully fund it, and if that proves too expensive due to subsidizing private insurance profits, then to look for alternatives without waiting another decade or more as with the gradual decline of the OHP.
I think the amendment would have good chance of passing in terms of general public opinion, though it would face opposition based on cost arguments that might be effective (not necessarily true, just effective).
Although this is not its intent, Mitch G. has been pursuing this year in and year out including an outside the legislature initiative effort, it would also work well the Democratic focus on the health care access and health insurance premium cost crisis. That crisis is denying regular access to 15% of the population and 20% of kids, and making many more people have to pay increasingly unaffordable costs for access to increasingly inferior "coverage" with large out of pocket costs and large exclusions.
Healthcare connects to the economic issues that are currently the main public concern in a number of ways. One key one is that if people become worried about losing jobs as the recession bites, loss of insurance is a key part of that fear. Second, the enormously rising costs to pay for less faced by middle class families who do have work-based insurance is a major way family budgets are getting economically squeezed.
Feb 14, '08
It's funny what kinda uproar (maybe not uproar but stir) a bill like this brings and it goes nowhere. One might say - but at least it is highlighting the conversation we need to be having. I agree, but last year when the legislature had the chance to push the envelope on the conversation they folded and passed SB329 while those on the inside gutted Kitzhaber (who is no genius but is in the right place when it comes to the blue print).
I like the quote in the article:
Republican opponents said the resolution would expand government, socialize medicine and create another entitlement program.
It's funny cause of course they're just saying the same thing as always but at the end of the day - Democrats have no spine to create a healthy system for us all. Hence SB329 - Website HERE and hence Hillary and what could be a "hence" Obama but I guess I'll wait and see.
10:08 a.m.
Feb 14, '08
No, Kitty, if you want not to work at your profession you'd be perfectly free not to.
But the legislature might be forced to find answers to the rural healthcare crisis to maintain rural people's right to health care.
Nothing here at all refers to employment or remuneration of healthcare providers. The closest thing going on now is national, not state, which is the inadequate compensation of physicians under Medicare, due to conservative stinginess and preference to incinerate money on stupid criminal wars and give tax breaks to rich people.
That conservative anti-health, anti-elderly policy is leading increasing numbers of doctors not to take Medicare patients. I.e. they are not forced to take the proferred remuneration. A slightly more interesting question would be whether such a state level right would require the state to make up the difference in inadequate federal funding in such cases in some way.
It could well be that one track to fulfilling such a mandate would be to change the basis of medical and nursing education to create a publicly subsidized free tuition track tied to a public service requirement for some period of years.
Feb 14, '08
Bill Boden writes: "A push for national health care is a push for a healthy nation, and it should be linked to economic justice that demands a living wage for anyone who works. Poverty is a breeding ground for poor health and social disorder."
<hr/>Yes, I agree.
The minimum wage is not a livable wage. I think that the Constitution should be amended to include:
-Health Care For All -Living Wage* For All Who Work -No Poverty For All Who Don't Work
These are all fundamental rights. Once put into the Oregon Constitution, then we can all be equal and each enjoy fundamental rights.
Feb 14, '08
I've never understood why everyone accepts that a public education is a fundemental right but not healthcare. Obviously an education is extremely important - but more important than health? Health seems pretty fundemental to me.
Feb 14, '08
Chris,
Good points about Medicare reform! Last session Oregon had a chance to tackle this issue with SB27 by the Archimedes Movement and they never let it get a fair shake. I like using this bill as an example cause regardless of what some folks here might say about it. The biggest enemies against true health reform last year in Oregon was the Democratic leadership in Salem and the folks at AARP (for which Medicare is their golden egg or at least it is until their other supplemental insurance programs can cover their bills).
As far as I can tell, Blue Oregon seems to have more of a public process for input on health reform than these hearings by the Oregon Health Reform Board. Maybe I can call in sick and attend the meeting below?
FYI
Oregon Health Fund Board Meeting: Tuesday, February 19 11:30 am to 4:00 pm Kaiser Permanente Town Hall, 3704 North Interstate Ave, Portland, OR
10:50 a.m.
Feb 14, '08
So Sally, if I force my wife to have 13 kids, I should be constitutionally guaranteed a salary of $160,000 dollars a year?
Ummmmm.... no thanks. This planet is over populated enough.
Feb 14, '08
Sally, you forgot housing as a fundamental right. People need to have a place to live before education or healthcare matter. So free housing for everyone should be a high priority. And free cars, people need to be able to transport themselves. And women with small breasts have a fundamental right to implants since personal esteem is a fundamental right. And fat people should have a right to free liposuction for the same reason. Hey, how about a law that says free lunch is a fundamental right? I could really get behind that one.
Feb 14, '08
andy writes: "Sally, you forgot housing as a fundamental right. People need to have a place to live before education or healthcare matter. So free housing for everyone should be a high priority."
<hr/>Can't argue with that. Can't find a place to live with an annual budget of $30K (gross, about low $20Ks aftertax)? Well, then you might need to move away from the UpperWestSide of Manhattan to a place less expensive.
<h2>"And free cars, people need to be able to transport themselves."</h2>Here in Portland, we like mass transit aka TriMet. Or feel free to use a bike, like our Congressman. Or commute with others. Or just buy a used car with that $30K salary.
<h2>"And women with small breasts have a fundamental right to implants since personal esteem is a fundamental right."</h2>Small breasts can also be a positive. Maybe you want to be a buff triathlete? But, if you really need to boost your bust, budget accordingly. Save for $1500 each of 3 years, and you are there!
<h2>"And fat people should have a right to free liposuction for the same reason."</h2>Free HealthCare would then educate these people who think liposuction is the answer to explore alternative ways to shed their fat.
<h2>"Hey, how about a law that says free lunch is a fundamental right? I could really get behind that one."</h2>As I am sure that you know, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has a cost. Somebody always ends up paying for everything and anything. In this case, all we have to do to implement my plan is to modernize the healthcare industry, and repeal the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich. Obama or Hillary will be in office in 11 months.
Feb 14, '08
Will I as a health care professional, be forced to work at my profession? Must I give this care at a government mandated wage rate? If yes and yes, then I must be a slave. Where are my rights?
Most people are "forced" to work in fields for which they are trained and at wage scales set by others. Does that also make them slaves?
I understand that medical professionals do very well in Western Europe where they serve in national health care systems.
Feb 14, '08
Steve M. says: "So Sally, if I force my wife to have 13 kids, I should be constitutionally guaranteed a salary of $160,000 dollars a year?
<h2>Ummmmm.... no thanks. This planet is over populated enough."</h2>No, Steve, you would not get $160,000 dollars a year. That would be your joint family income, if you actually stayed together as a family.
But if you really did 'force your wife to have 13 kids', you sound like a real loser to me, and therefore I doubt your wife would stay around very long with you. So therefore you would be out on the street as a single worker, getting $30K per year. You ex-wife and the kids would be getting the lion's share of the income, since she would get the kids (imo).
Feb 14, '08
Outside of the conversation that Sally has started here.
Does this bill stand a chance of getting through the Senate?
Probably not? From what I hear, the powers that be do not want to see another conversation about health reform taking place until the results from the SB329 process have been seen.
12:49 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
Kevin, You really can't generalize about European health care systems. British doctors mostly are employees of the government National Health Service, though private practices are allowed and exist. Facilities (hospitals, clinics, etc.) are owned by the national government.
In Germany doctors' organizations at the level of each federal state negotiate fee-for-service rates with non-profit "sickness funds" (funded by worker employer contributions similarly to Social Security, which was modeled on the Bismarckian German social insurance programs). Imagine OMA in complicated collective bargaining. The "fee for service" bit is part of why overall German costs are lower than the U.S. but higher than many other European countries.
Most Scandinavian systems are organized around hospitals & doctors are employed through them; I think most hospitals are public but controlled at a community level with national funding -- so, a system like Kaiser if Kaiser's facilities were publicly owned and controlled locally. The division of local control & state funding resembles Oregon's school funding arrangements.
Not sure about France; I know they have a system something like Canada's. Dutch used to be like Germany but recently reformed, not sure how. Don't know about Italy or Spain or Belgium or Switzerland or Austria -- just that there's a lot of variety in Europe. Not sure how things have or haven't changed in ex-Soviet Bloc countries.
1:14 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
Medicare Man, probably we agree less than you think. I don't like Dr. Kitzhaber's money-side approach as initially laid out, which was based on a premise of "no new public dollars" for political palatibility & proposed to combine funds from Medicaid (& SCHIP & related), Medicare, and some attempt to capture tax deductions that employers get if they offer insurance benefits, deductions that don't exist as actual public money in any concrete sense.
The Medicare piece of this is hugely problematic. It would require action from the Feds much more complicated than waiver of Medicaid rules, which are already organized on a state basis anyway. Dr. Kitzhaber knows that, and in fact the inclusion of Medicare at least initially was in part a tactic to force Oregon proposals into the national debate.
As time passed in my loose association with Archimedes/We Can Do Better, I came to think there are other justice problems about trying to fold Medicare into other public moneys.
Medicare is based on a highly regressive payroll tax that succeeds politically because it gives seniors a sense of ownership and of access precisely as a right. The Archimedes/WCDB proposals were in part based on a principle somewhat similar to the OHP -- the public monies can't pay for everything, so we should have a rational & democratic process of deciding what would be included in the "basic benefit" all would get. I agree with Dr. K. on the principles of effectiveness and efficiency.
But the problem is this: what happens if the "basic benefit" under the plan ends up supporting elders less than Medicare? This seems entirely likely, given the "no new public monies" restriction, and it would amount to taking an entitlement benefit from elders that they have been paying for on a highly regressive basis.
AARP has created some problems for its credibility by getting into the insurance business. But the idea that they are rapacious villains is ridiculous & scapegoating them for the real problems of Dr. K.'s proposals doesn't wash.
One bottom line problem is that any progress toward universality under his approach would depend entirely on waiting for the Feds to change Medicare rules, & that's going to be a long wait. I have a lot of skepticism about SB 329 and its risks of ending up with mandated lemon insurance for the currently uninsured & subsidizing insurance co.'s for offering such lemon insurance, but maybe it will come out with stronger floors and regulations than I fear.
Of course, what we really need is a single-payer system. And every one of us who thinks so should say so every time we write or speak of any other reform plan, because it is so censored out of debate on spurious grounds of unrealism. If we all speak out eventually it will at least get into the debate on more honest terms.
Feb 14, '08
Chris,
Good response.
I like seeing you type. You obviously have a lot to say on the point and a solid background. Might we see a post from you sometime on the subject?
MM
Feb 14, '08
Delayed PS -
AARP has created some problems for its credibility by getting into the insurance business.
They have lost nearly all credibility since MMA and their latest business ventures.
What was the last gimmick I saw outta them? Oh yeah, the next time you spend $20 or more dollars at Walgreens you get a free membership to AARP. I guess that's how they were able to get back all those members they lost 4 years ago.
Feb 14, '08
Yes I want the right to have healthcare, but I also want the the right to have my tax dollars pay for it vs the crazy war in Iraq. Express your unmoderated opinions on my blog, haveopinion.blogspot.com.
2:10 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
Thanks MM. Hope to do so one of these times.
One more & I'll shut up. Consider these pieces of the 1948 (!) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which show the real comparisons of healthcare as a right (rather than Ferraris etc. -- do they make Ferraris big enough for trolls?)
Which would seem to include access to the means of good health ...
And more explicitly:
Emphasis added. Sixty years on ...
2:19 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
Sally: But if you really did 'force your wife to have 13 kids', you sound like a real loser to me, and therefore I doubt your wife would stay around very long with you.
You would think. But this exact sort of problem already comes up in Utah with old-style polygamist Mormons at a much lower rate of compensation. Men have 5 wives of 5 kids each, and the State pays some token amount to each of the women to take care of the kids, and the man mooches off of that.
You know, because "God tells them to".
Feb 14, '08
Chris, you are right about Archimedes, but wrong about inadequate physician payments under Medicare.
Archimedes failed because of Kitzhaber's insistence on cutting Medicare benefits to seniors as part of the solution. His supporters bobbed and weaved on that issue, but when cornered even Kitz would admit that was the only way his plan worked, by taking from those who have insurance and redistributing to those who don't. Academically he may be right, but what I found frustrating is that Kitz managed to convince thousands of Oregonians that Medicare is a flawed system on the verge of bankruptcy. He argued that we must get our hands on Medicare money in order to "save" the seniors. In fact, Medicare is an incredibly successful, government-run single payer system that will have funding problems when the Baby Boomers retire -- along with every other public institution. We don't need to kill it in order to save it.
As for physician reimbursement under Medicare, the AMA argues that docs are undercompensated based on the idea that the fair price for physician services is one that covers their inflated costs and gives them a sizable salary. The government rightly argues back that they're going to place controls on physician fees as part of a multifaceted effort to prevent the program's costs from exploding. The Medicare physician fee schedule is complicated and admittedly flawed, but it's also the same type of government price control that Democrats are pushing for under the Medicare drug plan. If you believe we should set prices for Medicare drugs, you should agree that we should set prices for Medicare physician services.
Median physician salary varies, but the average for specialists is around $275,000 and for general practicioners around $175,000. Medians are just slightly lower (I think around $250k/$150k, but I can't find recent data). Doctors contribute to the health care financing crisis in America just like insurers and drug companies do. I have no problem with doctors being rich, but they are currently the highest paid profession by far. So I have no problem with Medicare limiting its payments, and would prefer to see private insurers do the same. Such action puts downward pressure on costs throughout the system, whereas paying them more would do the reverse.
Feb 14, '08
As for HJR 100, I'm not sure what practical impact it will have. Oregon has a constitutional requirement that the legislature fund education at Quality Education Model level, which is something like $1 billion above what's currently appropriated. Some parents sued, and they lost because the language also gives the legislature the ability to issue a report explaining why they can't do that.
The language of HJR 100 isn't as weak as the education provision, but it doesn't necessarily require that we universally insure/cover everyone. It has some wiggle room. I guess I see it as important as a values statement, but I'd prefer to push the SB. 329 process along, as I think it will be more concrete.
Feb 14, '08
To those who are vehemently opposed to universal or national health care system: When it's established, I'm sure you'll have the option to opt-out and use private practices, if you wish. I hope you'll exercise your right to do so.
But you would (and should) still have to pay your fair share of taxes into the system, just as I pay taxes to fund government projects and policies that I don't support or that I'm vehemently opposed to.
Feb 14, '08
Chris wrote
As far as I can tell, Blue Oregon seems to have more of a public process for input on health reform than these hearings by the Oregon Health Reform Board. Maybe I can call in sick and attend the meeting below?
FYI
Oregon Health Fund Board Meeting: Tuesday, February 19 11:30 am to 4:00 pm Kaiser Permanente Town Hall, 3704 North Interstate Ave, Portland, OR
I would not attened anything that Kaiser Permanente would sponsor due to the fact they were the ones who helped get us where we are now with health care for profit enterprises.
Please note; After 2 1/2 years of being on their Dental plan and being denied several times to get 2 teeth fixed, that led to an infection in my jaw which by the way the Dentist there asked me if "I played the lottery because I would need a small fortune to get dental work done for me and my family" which I replied I was already paying one for their "insurance coverage' to begin with.
It makes me sick that human beings think there should be a nice profit in the medical care of the ill and dying maybe thats why there is not so much healing. I read somewhere once that compassion is needed for healing to take place. I really wish the health care professionals would consider that as well. I really believe with HR676 we could change all of that. Go to Health care now and sign the petition!
Feb 14, '08
Ladybird...Amen I agree with you.
Feb 14, '08
Isn't this an unfunded mandate?
Did any legislator who supported also criticize Mannix's proposed crime measure for not having a revenue source?
Paying to ensure this "right" would dwarf the costs of the Mannix crime bill (like by a factor of 50).
Feb 14, '08
There is a fundamental reason why people in the United States do not have a health care system that takes care of all of its citizens. The majority have adequate health plans and don't give a @#$% about those that don't and are not about to chip in a few bucks to remedy that problem. To the contrary, their credo is exactly the opposite of John Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Or, to put it more succintely and pungently, "Up yours." There is also the fact that corporations in the medical and insurance businesses are making lots of money with the present system. It is these prevailing attitudes that make reciting the Pledge of Allegiance an act of national hypocrisy.
Feb 14, '08
Oooo socialized medicine, next thing you know they'll want to socialize our road system.
Feb 14, '08
Oooo socialized medicine, next thing you know they'll want to socialize our road system.
Our road system always has been "socialized" if by "socialized" you mean people pay taxes for construction and maintenance. The Panama Canal was one of the great engineering feats of the early 20th Century. David McCullogh, who wrote a history of the canal's construction in "The Path Between the Seas," said it was for all practical purposes a socialized effort. Putting a man on the moon was, in great part, a "socialized" venture.
In the World Health Organization's 2000 report on health care systems around the world, France's socialized system was rated No. 1. The non-socialized system in the United States was rated 37th, just ahead of Slovenia and embargoed Cuba.
The problem with many people in this country in the first decade of the 21st Century is that they have a mindless and Pavlovian response to the word "socialized" (and Islamofascist) just as others in the 1950s were scared witless by the word "communist."
6:54 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
Bill, I think that was Robert's point -- irony & all that. We have to get people to understand that Rs saying "socialized" is just a fancy way of saying "booga, booga, booga."
Terissa, Kaiser isn't sponsoring the meeting. It is an official board set up by the legislature last session under SB 329 to make proposals the legislature for the 2009 session. There are real questions about whether too many of the "seats at the table" have been given to vested medical and insurance interests that may be reflected in Kaiser offering its facilities for this meeting of a public entity.
Miles, I don't exactly disagree with you & think that physician compensation is a piece of the mix that has to go into the cost control elements of reform. Fee-for-service compensation which gives incentives for tests and procedures interacts with increasingly costly technologies. The main way the current system found to try to fight that, HMO plans in which financial side employees approved or disapproved tests, procedures, drugs & so on based on rigid actuarially based rule books isn't a good answer; nor is the approach taken by Bill Frist's families hospital system of rewarding doctors for limiting services. Doctors' high incomes also are partly justified by things that could be looked at like the enormous cost of medical education & perhaps insufficient numbers of doctors trained, and by matters like malpractice insurance.
The fact remains that under the current set-up there is a growing problem of generalist doctors refusing to be primary care providers for medicare patients. Among other things this accentuates access problems in areas where there aren't enough doctors anyway, like rural areas. A good deal of the argument about that has to do with overhead costs for practices, i.e. the facilities and salaries for other employees docs or groups of them have to pay. There may be a way in which Medicare is being asked to subsidize the bureaucratic inefficiencies of our crazy Rube Goldberg insurance system. But the bottom line is that there are elders who are having trouble getting doctors at current levels of remuneration.
And I do think this also relates to an issue about relatively overpaying and overemphasizing specialist medicine over primary care which is also the level at which preventive care, health promotion and efficient management of chronic conditions is going to occur. Failures to adequately support the primary care level (including at levels below doctors, such as community-based clinics staffed by nurse-practitioners and nurses & connected to doctors) are another aspect of the cost problem.
Feb 14, '08
To anticipate another criticism of European and Canadian health care, let's address the charge of delays in care delivery and other shortcomings. If these other nations spent about 75% per capita of what we spend on health care, they would probably eliminate all but few of their problems. That amount would be a heck of a lot more than they spend now.
7:51 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
Also Bill, a) a lot of Americans have to wait plenty even to see a doctor and b) a lot of Americans have to wait forever because they don't have insurance.
Feb 14, '08
I dont understand what the problem is. EVERYONE in oregon has the right to medical services. If you are sick, go see a doctor or visit an emergency room.
What we are really talking about is the "right" to have someone else pay for our health care. Imagine two people. Jeff and Scott. Jeff drops out of school, and uses drugs. He is not employable due to his drug habit. One day his liver shuts down and he needs medical help. Since he has no job, and no insurance, he gets medical help, but personally owes $20,000. Scott on the other hand worked hard in school. He got a good job, and worked hard, and eventually had a good salary and good benefits. Scott works out, and eats right and although he and the company he works for pay over $1000 per month for medical insurance, he seldom uses it.
Oregon legislators want Scott to pay for Jeff's health care. How does Jeff have a "right" to force Scott to pay for his failures?
Yes, as a community we have decided that we should pool our monies and pay for schools, roads, and police. That makes good sense. However, with people eating big macs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, I refuse to be forced to pay for your medical costs!!
Feb 14, '08
All I can say is when considering whether or not to endorse Obama, who stands for change, let's see if he can change his mind and go for not-for-profit universal health care.
That's a change for the good!
8:43 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
Fred:
That's right, people go to the ER because at the doctor's office you have to pay up front. Then they get a bill they never pay. And do you know who pays for that? We do in our insurance premiums and often times through our taxes.
There are plenty of people out there who work, take care of themselves, etc. who don't have access to health care. They get health care when they get so sick they have to go to the ER or they absolutely have to have a doctor's note for missing work or they're fired. Even with my insurance I'm unlikely to go to the doctor's until I absolutely have to because of the high cost on top of our premiums.
Howard Dean had a great plan for a nation health care plan. It used the funds companies and individuals are already paying for health care. And it opened up health insurance to small businesses who want to offer health care plans to their workers, but can't because of the cost.
Several studies have shown that we already spend a lot more than countries with national plans, and we get worse service. Doesn't it make sense to use those same funds to cover everyone? Get people into the doctor when their health issues are minor, rather than waiting for them to get so bad that there is an emergency, surgery needed, etc.?
And you know what? In your scenario, Scott is already paying for lots of people like Jeff - they're his co-workers who are on the same plan, neighbors who are on the same plan, etc. But there are also a lot of people out there like Scott who are working their asses off, but don't have health insurance through their work, or it's too expensive. We're almost to the point of having to drop our insurance plan because of its cost (nothing like having the receptionist at the doctor's office remark on how high your copay is... which happened once again today).
There are a lot of families out there who can't afford $5,000, plus $30 to go to the doctors, $45 for an ObGyn visit, plus the deductible, plus 20% of whatever the bill for tests, hospital, etc. is. I know we're just about in that boat. If they increase things any more, we'll be another family without insurance.
Feb 14, '08
But Jenni,
That is a persons choice!!!!!! If they work hard, but dont have health care, they have made a priority call. I have several friends that work at a lower paying position, but they keep the job because of the health care! I have a good friend that works very hard and makes 100K+ each year, but his wife works at Nordstrom for health coverage. If you make a choice to have a job with no benefits, that is OK, but dont ask me to pay for it. Getting the government involved in healthcare by making it a "right" is just a way to make people that dont want to spend their money on health care (read cars and big screen TVs) have their health care covered by others in the community! That is wrong.
As for using money already there, that is a false hood. If you add members to the coverage, the cost will go up.
Feb 14, '08
Fred: Your scenario is just a bowl of cherries you picked to make a point. I won't waste time picking other cherries to refute your point.
As for the health plans put forward by the various candidates, consider them just first drafts. If we ever get a national health care plan it will be decided by many others. Unfortunately, that will probably include the maximum-profit-oriented pharmaceutical, insurance and medical corporations and their hired agents in Congress.
9:19 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
Actually, the cost goes down for many reasons.
When you buy in bulk you save. When my husband's employer, a national chain, buys insurance they pay a lot less than a business with a few employees.
If you go with a non-profit or government run system, you do away with multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. You do away with huge profits. You do away with huge administrative costs - private health insurance companies spend several times more on admin costs than is spent on Medicare.
When people have the ability to go to the doctor's office without having to pay full price for the visit, they go there instead of the ER. That's a $60 visit instead of several hundred at the ER. People take care of medical issues when they're minor and cost less to treat. People get the preventative care they need to stop problems down the line. All of this saves money, as well as lives.
And there aren't enough jobs out there with good, affordable insurance for all of us. I wish there was, but there isn't. As such, you have to take what's available. For many people, that means retail, restaurant/fast food, working for a small business, etc.
And there are plenty of us out there who can't afford health care who don't buy extravagant things. I'm so tired of that being brought up - it's a cop out. I know a lot of people who work and don't have insurance. And do you know where their money goes? Groceries. Electricity. Rent.
Feb 14, '08
I really like the state-run health care idea, I mean they have done such a great jobs with schools, prisons and roads we shoudl give them even more responsibility.
With state-run healthcare we only have to wait 6 months for elective doctor visits like Canada (I forgot, they are suing to be able to have private health care like we have now.)
Feb 14, '08
With state-run healthcare we only have to wait 6 months for elective doctor visits like Canada (I forgot, they are suing to be able to have private health care like we have now.)
Well why not have both. We have private healthcare, lets add a basic coverage for all paid by the government and then give people a choice to suplement it with additional private healthcare.
I have an opinion
Feb 14, '08
I heard a comment today on [right wing] radio that the Canadian health care system goes broke nearly every year. They went onto to say that's 30 million people vs. 300 million here.
Seems allowing folks to pick and choose level of coverage vs. full mandates may to whole gig more affordable. Crap, I wish Comcast would let me do that...
Feb 15, '08
Health "care" a RIGHT!? Give me a break...! Every citizen of this country has a right to buy whatever health care they choose, or none at all, or move somewhere else to get it, ad nauseum.
One more scam by the uppity Dems to con people into another class warefare scheme. When will these people let loose of the plan to enslave the whole nation forever?
To all your forest fairies, especially Sally and her ludicrous income chart, just quit drinking that crap at Starbucks and get back in the real world.
There is NO WAY that you guys are going to bankrupt my retirement account to force me to pay for mandated insurance. You want insurance - go buy it yourself. PERIOD.
Feb 15, '08
There is NO WAY that you guys are going to bankrupt my retirement account to force me to pay for mandated insurance.
Serious illnesses in the United States that are not covered by insurance, including people that have insurance, are a major cause of bankruptcies. Chances, Jon, you are more at risk of going broke through ill-health than you are by some mandated insurance program.
Perhaps we should have a national health care system along the lines of other countries with better systems than we have here with the proviso that people can turn it down and go their own ways if they want to - with the proviso that if they turn down the national system they understand that they will be at the mercy of private insurance companies and for-profit hospitals. In that case, lotsaluck.
Feb 15, '08
That is a persons choice!!!!!! If they work hard, but dont have health care, they have made a priority call. . . .If you make a choice to have a job with no benefits, that is OK, but dont ask me to pay for it.
This comment ignores reality. Do you really think everyone has a choice between a job with health care benefits and one without? There are lots of skilled people, particularly blue collar workers, who can't find a job at all, much less one with benefits. It's absurd to suggest that they're making a choice to forego health insurance.
As for buying in the individual market, have you priced out private insurance lately? I just went to the Regence/BCBS website to find a plan for my family of four. Looking at the BCBS Basic option, with a $1,000 deductible, the cost is $4,900 per year. Keep in mind that the deductible is per person with a $3,000 family cap. So that's really more of a pseudo-catastrophic plan. And after you hit the deductible, the plan covers only 50% of costs. And that's one of BCBS's more affordable plans - the only ones cheaper have much higher deductibles.
Imagine a family of four making $50,000 -- right about median income. Between rent, food, clothes, and a car, where do you think that family is going to come up with the $7,000 - $10,000 a year to cover the insurance costs plus deductibles plus coinsurance? And given the 50% coninsurance they're not even insulated from much higher costs if someone gets really sick.
Feb 15, '08
EVERYONE in oregon has the right to medical services. If you are sick, go see a doctor or visit an emergency room. What we are really talking about is the "right" to have someone else pay for our health care.
The first part of your statement is correct, Fred. Under EMTALA, hospitals are required to stabilize and treat patients experiencing an emergency condition. That doesn't necessarily equate to non-emergency situations, say like chemo treatments for cancer. Most hospitals will treat you, but usually only when your cancer is so bad that it's untreatable. Or you can grovel and beg and sometimes they'll take pity on you.
But the second part of your statement is wrong, because we're already paying for their healthcare. Hospitals have huge uncompensated care expenses every year, and those expenses are paid by public health programs (Medicare/Medicaid) and private insurers (through higher premiums). All of which points right back to you.
What Greenlick's bill does is make the right that currently exists more explicit, which will result in better health outcomes and a more rational payment system. What you're arguing for is continued inefficiency and worse health outcomes -- which isn't very rational at all.
Feb 15, '08
The fact remains that under the current set-up there is a growing problem of generalist doctors refusing to be primary care providers for medicare patients. Among other things this accentuates access problems in areas where there aren't enough doctors anyway, like rural areas.
Chris, do you have recent citations for this problem? In the past, the physician "shortages" were always anecdotal, not systemic -- and usually pushed by the AMA as they lobbied for more money. In the late 90s people were making this argument, Congress was all hot and bothered about it, but surveys of Medicare recipients showed that they weren't experiencing access problems at all. Yes, there were a handful of places in the country where it was a problem, but that was due as much to regional issues as to federal reimbursement.
My suspicion is that any access problems are still limited and should be dealt with through a targeted approach, not through a payment boost to all doctors. But I'm open to persuasion.
Feb 15, '08
God help us. You check the tax rates of countries that have universal health? Like 70%?? Why dont all public companies offer OREGON PERS style benefits to employees? I mean, they are great medical and retirement benifits, right? Since you dems cant seem to get it, it's because YOU GO BROKE providing that level of compensation. But hey, you must figure since it is the gov't paying, they cant go broke!!! wooooweeeee! Good strategy there Jethro. If you want to have an affect on medical costs, pass a bill that requires all payments to patients that in turn will pay the docs and hospitals. Bargain shopping will bring down costs. With the great job Oregon has done with my property rights, I can't wait to see what they can do with my real right to health care.....
Feb 15, '08
The simple solution is to design a health care system that secures perfect health for everyone - perfect health being defined as not needing medical attention other than to occasionally verify having perfect health. Folks with perfect health cost less - therefore the cost of health care for everyone will be reduced.
That's the kind of health care system competent folks would design - what kind of folks are we?
Feb 15, '08
You check the tax rates of countries that have universal health? Like 70%??
70%? Not so. I had a figure a couple of years ago that was around 55% in Europe. It was part of a survey in which a majority didn't mind the high taxes because they believed what they received in return was worth it. It would be a good bet that if we added health insurance premiums to our taxes we would be closer to the Europeans' total taxes that include health care. At the same time our overall national system of health care comes up short when compared to the Europeans.
The Europeans are not only happy with their own national health care systems, but they are discussing expansion to make it possible for any European to go to another country within the union to be treated.
Feb 16, '08
dddave wrote;
Since you dems cant seem to get it, it's because YOU GO BROKE providing that level of compensation. But hey, you must figure since it is the gov't paying, they cant go broke!!! wooooweeeee! Good strategy there Jethro
Hey lets all be a bunch of HHHomers and just go broke in killing people and funding a war, and then when our economy is really in the poop tank we can find another country and do the same thing all over again!Dooh! God forbid that we would take our money ( oops the gov'ts money ) and spend it healing people. Who in their right mind would think that would ever work. I mean come on in other countries that have Uni-health care they are all sick, unhealthy, undemocratic and just begging for America to come and change their way of life in their countries that tax them sooo much that they would be better off like us. Think about how bad it has been for them, especially after WWII they had to totally rebuild some of their countries and way of life, have they done that yet? My Gosh do we ever really think for ourselfs? Or do we just love that spoon feeding?
<hr/>