Voters will decide next year whether to enshrine a right to health care in the Oregon Constitution.

But exactly what the impact of that vote will be is anybody’s guess.

Supporters say the ballot measure calls for an ideological change and wouldn’t alter any existing systems. But opponents say it could carry serious costs.

The state House of Representatives approved Senate Joint Resolution 12 in May, ensuring a ballot measure will be put before voters in the 2022 general election.

If voters say “yes,” they will have gained “access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right,” according to the text of the bill.

SJR 12 goes on to say that the state’s obligation must be “balanced against the public interest in funding public schools and other essential public services.”

Scott Perkins, of Glendale, is the Douglas County representative of Health Care for All Oregon, a group that has long fought for universal health care in the state.

He sees the ballot measure as an ideological move and doesn’t think approving it would necessarily do much more than change some language in the Constitution.

However, Perkins said he thinks existing health care systems need to change, and he’d like to see what he called an Oregon Health Plan for All system.

Under the current system, employers have to provide health insurance for their employees and it’s a massive cost, he said. Employers end up having to pay for expensive health care coverage for full-time employees or split the work up between part-time employees.

That can result in employees having to take on multiple jobs to make ends meet, he said.

Skyrocketing insurance costs can also force mass layoffs to mitigate the cost.

“I’ve seen it basically damage local economies and the availability of jobs for mostly rural residents,” he said.

If health care is really treated as a human right, it might be subsidized through taxes, he said.

That would shift the responsibility for paying health care costs from employers to taxpayers, with higher income earners shouldering more of the burden, he said.

He also disagrees with the practice of charging deductibles or co-pays on top of a monthly premium.

“Insurance companies still don’t pay the full price of potentially lifesaving medical costs, putting people in debt for the rest of their lives. It’s to me simply asinine and frankly evil,” he said.

Health care isn’t a product stocked on store shelves, he said.

“It’s the prevention of disability and it’s wrong to separate people by how much money they have as far as whether they’re going to become disabled or not and how long they’re going to live,” he said.

State Rep. Gary Leif, R-Roseburg, said he voted against SJR 12 because it could either put other state programs at risk or lead to a tax increase to fund health care programs.

He said the potential impact isn’t fully understood and it would be hard for the state to get out of it.

“SRJ 12 does not do a single thing to provide health care coverage to Oregonians, but would impose a risky obligation to the state,” he said.

Leif also pointed to a Legislative Counsel Opinion submitted into the record by state Rep. Cedric Hayden, R-Fall Creek.

That opinion said the measure could lead to lawsuits from individuals against the state if it fails to provide access to health care.

It also said the measure could potentially lead to the Legislature requiring county governments to establish and maintain health care delivery systems, from providing clinics to distributing free medications.

However, the state would probably need to provide funding to those counties for the new programs.

Douglas County Commissioner Tim Freeman said it’s not clear to him what it would mean to have a constitutional right to health care.

“Already nobody can be denied health care,” he said. “Every person that presents at the hospital regardless of their status — immigration status, financial status — anybody who shows up at the hospital receives health care,” he said.

He said that’s the most expensive and inefficient way to deliver health care though. Freeman said when he was a state legislator, he worked on health care issues because of that problem.

“You wait for people that have an ear infection to get so bad that they show up in the emergency room in the middle of the night, you’re spending a fortune providing a service. You could have given that same person antibiotics two weeks earlier for a fraction of the cost,” he said.

The Oregon Health Plan was designed to lower that cost, he said.

But if access means creating a health care system for everyone that’s run by the state, Freeman thinks that’s a bad idea.

“I do think access to health care is an important issue and that we all collectively should work on it, I just don’t know that we should hand everything over to the state,” he said.

Making a constitutional right to health care could be a slippery slope, Freeman said.

“What’s next, housing? And beyond that what’s the next thing? And all of a sudden the idea of individual freedom and individual decision-making and consequences sort of goes out the window,” he said.

Reporter Carisa Cegavske can be reached at ccegavske@nrtoday.com or 541-957-4213.

React to this story:

0
0
2
0
1

Senior Reporter

Carisa Cegavske is the senior reporter for The News-Review. She can be reached at ccegavske@nrtoday.com or 541-957-4213. Follow her on Twitter @carisa_cegavske

Recommended for you

(6) comments

S

Tim Freeman couldn't analyze his way out of a paper bag let alone understand or explore the complexity of health care and/or constitutional rights. Most of his info comes from his best buddy Mel Cheney who he hires to do his thinking for him especially when it comes to public health . .. that's why we have no public health department. Duh. . .

S

Health care is not a privilege, it is a right. . . we have public education and public safety . . . it makes sense to have public health care. Gary Leif isn't a representative of the people he's a Republican shill who only cares about what he can get out of the system. A picture taker who had no retirement . . .well he's got PERS now and has free health care. He's a taker . . . all he can get.

Umpquabob

Socialism at it's finest, and the sheep follow along.

Wretched722

Healthcare is a responsibility - just like any other insurance. It is not up to everyone else to subsidize people who do not want to be responsible for their own coverage.

CitizenJoe

Good. Assuring health care is one mark of a civilized society.

"The health of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend."

----- Benjamin Disraeli

When our nation was founded, and even when Disraeli was born, the average patient with the average disease, encountering the average doctor, was unlikely to benefit from that encounter; by the time Disraeli died in 1881, medicine had advanced hugely (think, antisepsis, anesthesia, Louis Pasteur, John Snow, etc, etc.), but even so, medicine was badly practiced; President James Garfield died the same year as did Disraeli (1881)--largely because his physicians simply did not practice any of the principles that had already been learned (once again: antisepsis, anesthesia, Louis Pasteur, John Snow, etc, etc.); Garfield's doctors killed him.

Maybe Washington's, too.

When our nation was founded, it would not have been reasonable to specifically include health care as a human right, under the rubrics of "general welfare" and "common defense"--but it is reasonable now.

Health care is a human right. Let's recognize it as such.

garyd

[thumbup]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.