Tides weren’t all that extreme at the coast. But before the sun broke over a sparsely wooded ridge to the east, long flats of sand spread in dull gray glimmer toward the lip of small lapping waves too lazy to make a run up the beach.
The sun slept in, as did teens in the trailer. Dogs were with me, exploring smells left by an ocean that gives up dead things to the sand. The water now could reach no closer than a few hundred yards from where it had touched our driftwood fire of the night before, hot dogs and smores.
In the mornings with dogs and waves, the beach offers noisy solitude.
Later we ran into a pair of locals clamming along the beach, they were nice enough about the bounding pack, the happy husky/shepherd siblings Halo and Eclipse, the long-legged mutt Molly, the pedigreed and ancient bird dog Elfie who somehow lives up to her name. I can only imagine that pads pounding the sand leaving prints everywhere must have sent the clams into hiding, if clams can hide.
The dogs defined this trip to the beach. At home the Huskies would run, make their escape and not be seen for hours. Here, with so much new and so much room, they wanted to know where we were and came obediently when called.
The clamming couple wasn’t having much luck right then but had picked up seven Razors the day before. They had a recipe I will try, two different layers of breading. I was glad Razors could be found on this sandy beach miles from any town, miles from bays where industry and houses might have filled mollusk meat with stuff I don’t want to eat.
I have always identified myself as an Oregon boy, and being at the coast reminds me again of who and what and why. Growing up in a suburb of Portland, playing in old mine shafts on Iron Mountain, making forts of wet boughs of Doug Fir, waiting tables at the Ringside and Jake's after years of college and wandering the world, a home now among the juniper and pine of the high desert.
Oregon nurtured me, Oregon sustains me.
Somehow in this Spring of the year and Fall of my life this all comes back to me as waves push feathers of foam timelessly up the beach in a broken rhythm that is just beyond my ability to understand, that demands only to be accepted.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The win/lose game of politics
In The Oregonian this morning (read it here) there is a story by Harry Esteve on how labor unions are winning big now that the Democrats are in control of government.
That’s the problem with adversarial politics. The system is one of winners and losers, by definition a zero sum game: If you win, I lose, if I win, you lose.
But the two bills that Esteve first mentions as being pro-labor are not, really. They are not antibusiness, either. The bills to suspend the corporate kicker (to build a rainy day fund) and to limit interest on payday loans are just measures that protect services for all, protect people, easily supported by business. They are no more pro-labor than laws against fraud or theft.
But the adversarial politics of winners and losers has it dangers, if the winners get to raid the till. The PERS fiasco is owned by unions, by Democrats, the result of putting union members in charge of the retirement fund.
Yes, there are many government employees who do a sterling job, who work longer hours than expected, who face animosity from a public that does not understand their work. They are dedicated, hard working, honorable people.
Which is what Governor Kulongoski believes, we hope, when he is quoted: “I believe in the principles of organized labor, and I always have."
But the system also protects the worst. Individual accountability is not part of the union equation. There often is an entitlement mentality backed by political muscle that causes a deep rift between Oregonians. Which is why unions, and Democrats, face such a backlash when the Democrats are not in power.
The “conservative revolution” is probably over. Good riddance to those who want to tell others how to die, how to love, how many children to have.
But that is not to welcome a socialist system where there is no incentive to excel, no fear of failure, few risks and fewer rewards.
That’s the problem with adversarial politics. The system is one of winners and losers, by definition a zero sum game: If you win, I lose, if I win, you lose.
But the two bills that Esteve first mentions as being pro-labor are not, really. They are not antibusiness, either. The bills to suspend the corporate kicker (to build a rainy day fund) and to limit interest on payday loans are just measures that protect services for all, protect people, easily supported by business. They are no more pro-labor than laws against fraud or theft.
But the adversarial politics of winners and losers has it dangers, if the winners get to raid the till. The PERS fiasco is owned by unions, by Democrats, the result of putting union members in charge of the retirement fund.
Yes, there are many government employees who do a sterling job, who work longer hours than expected, who face animosity from a public that does not understand their work. They are dedicated, hard working, honorable people.
Which is what Governor Kulongoski believes, we hope, when he is quoted: “I believe in the principles of organized labor, and I always have."
But the system also protects the worst. Individual accountability is not part of the union equation. There often is an entitlement mentality backed by political muscle that causes a deep rift between Oregonians. Which is why unions, and Democrats, face such a backlash when the Democrats are not in power.
The “conservative revolution” is probably over. Good riddance to those who want to tell others how to die, how to love, how many children to have.
But that is not to welcome a socialist system where there is no incentive to excel, no fear of failure, few risks and fewer rewards.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
A self indulgent waste
In an article in The Oregonian on March 21 (Read it here), reporter Dave Hogan tells us the Oregon House of Representatives passed a resolution to “urge Congress and President Bush to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.” The vote was symbolic, Hogan informs us, and passed mostly along party lines. It took two emotional hours.
This act by Democrats in the Oregon House may have been symbolic, but it was also destructive and demonstrated a profound lack of judgment.
Does anyone believe that by forcing a vote on this issue, Democrats did anything to heal partisan backbiting that has hamstrung the Oregon Legislature over the last ten years? Did the debate and vote do anything to improve the image of government in Oregon?
The concept and fragility of “political capital,” was beautifully illustrated by George Bush after his last election victory. Political capital is a valuable asset. It is necessary pass critical legislation, like the rainy day fund that Oregon government finally approved, or health care legislation yet to come. It has its origin in the spirit of commonality, in shared goals, shared concerns, of knowing what can be done with bipartisan cooperation.
But political capital is an account easily depleted. It is wasted on frivolous expenditures, it is thrown away, as Bush learned, by acts of arrogance.
Was Oregon helped by an antiwar resolution that passed primarily along party lines? By a resolution that picks at the still-unhealed scab of Viet Nam? By a resolution that basically pokes a finger in the eye of the right wing because (for now) they don’t have the numbers?
Democrats need to avoid this kind of pandering. It has no real effect, and simply gives rocks for throwing to babbling right wing talk show hosts. Democrats will burn through good will needed to pass critical laws that will benefit Oregonians.
We are no apologist for the Bush administration. The Iraq war is a folly created by neoconservatives led by Dick Cheney who has been running the somewhat simple-minded George W. Bush like a sock puppet for six years. Their almost laudatory hope was to eliminate a threat to Israel, oil supplies and terror by creating a democracy in Iraq. The execution was criminally incompetent.
And there isn’t a single thing that the Oregon Legislature can do about that. The group in Salem needs to tend to business. There is plenty to do. They need to quit grandstanding, quit wasting their time and our money.
This act by Democrats in the Oregon House may have been symbolic, but it was also destructive and demonstrated a profound lack of judgment.
Does anyone believe that by forcing a vote on this issue, Democrats did anything to heal partisan backbiting that has hamstrung the Oregon Legislature over the last ten years? Did the debate and vote do anything to improve the image of government in Oregon?
The concept and fragility of “political capital,” was beautifully illustrated by George Bush after his last election victory. Political capital is a valuable asset. It is necessary pass critical legislation, like the rainy day fund that Oregon government finally approved, or health care legislation yet to come. It has its origin in the spirit of commonality, in shared goals, shared concerns, of knowing what can be done with bipartisan cooperation.
But political capital is an account easily depleted. It is wasted on frivolous expenditures, it is thrown away, as Bush learned, by acts of arrogance.
Was Oregon helped by an antiwar resolution that passed primarily along party lines? By a resolution that picks at the still-unhealed scab of Viet Nam? By a resolution that basically pokes a finger in the eye of the right wing because (for now) they don’t have the numbers?
Democrats need to avoid this kind of pandering. It has no real effect, and simply gives rocks for throwing to babbling right wing talk show hosts. Democrats will burn through good will needed to pass critical laws that will benefit Oregonians.
We are no apologist for the Bush administration. The Iraq war is a folly created by neoconservatives led by Dick Cheney who has been running the somewhat simple-minded George W. Bush like a sock puppet for six years. Their almost laudatory hope was to eliminate a threat to Israel, oil supplies and terror by creating a democracy in Iraq. The execution was criminally incompetent.
And there isn’t a single thing that the Oregon Legislature can do about that. The group in Salem needs to tend to business. There is plenty to do. They need to quit grandstanding, quit wasting their time and our money.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Making bread, breaking bread
Today was one of those sumptuous Spring days in Central Oregon, warm and smooth, yellow and rich, a day like softened butter.
After 18 hours of sitting and rising, the sloppy wet dough was ready to pop into the Dutch oven, the recipe clipped from the Oregonian while I was in Salem last week trying to figure out the fluid dynamics and surface tension of Oregon lawmaking.
I didn't learn what I wanted about governance, but the YMCA just down Court street from the Capitol has a nice weight room and will let me lift for $12 per day.
The rule-of-the-today was that everybody had to be outside. Except the 17 year-old, who fell asleep at noon, recovering from his all-night birthday party in the garage, where he hosted six friends, the goobs played X-box all night long. My job was to take them to the movie and back, buy pizzas and be a presence. Good boys, every one. No worries.
The bread came out better than I'd hoped, I was beginning to worry I'd lost my palate, even boutique store-bought loaves had lost their flavor, and all went stale in hours, it seemed. The recipe made a great round loaf of country bread, my twin daughters love it with a thick spread of butter, I dip it in olive oil with a splash of dark wine vinegar. Lauren won't wait for the new loaf to cool and warns that this is one of her few addictions, that I may not start baking fresh bread regularly.
Sitting in a deck chair with my feet on the railing, I grew drowsy over a book listening to the rhythm of Lauren typing, kids laughing, Molly my dog chasing a butterfly, her teeth made a popping sound when she snapped and missed, I remembered the commotion when my first dog decades ago played the same game and caught a yellow jacket.
Aunt Ruth called to remember my Mothers Birthday, St. Patricks' Day, my mother a woman who died too young 33 years ago, while I was in India, she'd seen too much, drank too much. Every year Aunt Ruth calls on this day, to reconnect, to remember.
Today was a day to be open, to read a book outdoors, drink fresh cups of coffee all day, hug the girls and the boys and be glad of Spring, plan and provision a short vacation trip for four kids and four pretty good size dogs in a 38 foot RV. A day to nap in the sun.
After 18 hours of sitting and rising, the sloppy wet dough was ready to pop into the Dutch oven, the recipe clipped from the Oregonian while I was in Salem last week trying to figure out the fluid dynamics and surface tension of Oregon lawmaking.
I didn't learn what I wanted about governance, but the YMCA just down Court street from the Capitol has a nice weight room and will let me lift for $12 per day.
The rule-of-the-today was that everybody had to be outside. Except the 17 year-old, who fell asleep at noon, recovering from his all-night birthday party in the garage, where he hosted six friends, the goobs played X-box all night long. My job was to take them to the movie and back, buy pizzas and be a presence. Good boys, every one. No worries.
The bread came out better than I'd hoped, I was beginning to worry I'd lost my palate, even boutique store-bought loaves had lost their flavor, and all went stale in hours, it seemed. The recipe made a great round loaf of country bread, my twin daughters love it with a thick spread of butter, I dip it in olive oil with a splash of dark wine vinegar. Lauren won't wait for the new loaf to cool and warns that this is one of her few addictions, that I may not start baking fresh bread regularly.
Sitting in a deck chair with my feet on the railing, I grew drowsy over a book listening to the rhythm of Lauren typing, kids laughing, Molly my dog chasing a butterfly, her teeth made a popping sound when she snapped and missed, I remembered the commotion when my first dog decades ago played the same game and caught a yellow jacket.
Aunt Ruth called to remember my Mothers Birthday, St. Patricks' Day, my mother a woman who died too young 33 years ago, while I was in India, she'd seen too much, drank too much. Every year Aunt Ruth calls on this day, to reconnect, to remember.
Today was a day to be open, to read a book outdoors, drink fresh cups of coffee all day, hug the girls and the boys and be glad of Spring, plan and provision a short vacation trip for four kids and four pretty good size dogs in a 38 foot RV. A day to nap in the sun.
The Rainy Day fund
My God, they did it.
Despite continued prevarication by the right wing, the Oregon Legislature passed the Rainy Day fund.
No more firing teachers when the economy goes in the tank (that's when we NEED more educational opportunity), or cutting back on health and welfare services (that's when we most NEED these services, when there are no jobs).
A special thanks to those Republicans, in both the House and the Senate, who crossed party lines to do the right thing. That was tough, that was courage.
To Republicans who still say that capturing some of the $275 million of taxes owed and paid by mainly out-of-state corporations that would have been sent to California or Texas or Minnesota, we say you put ideology over the wellfare of Oregon and should be replaced.
Despite continued prevarication by the right wing, the Oregon Legislature passed the Rainy Day fund.
No more firing teachers when the economy goes in the tank (that's when we NEED more educational opportunity), or cutting back on health and welfare services (that's when we most NEED these services, when there are no jobs).
A special thanks to those Republicans, in both the House and the Senate, who crossed party lines to do the right thing. That was tough, that was courage.
To Republicans who still say that capturing some of the $275 million of taxes owed and paid by mainly out-of-state corporations that would have been sent to California or Texas or Minnesota, we say you put ideology over the wellfare of Oregon and should be replaced.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
A breath of fresh air
Rep. Dave Hunt, Oregon House Majority Leader, tonight had an interesting observation after the unanimous passage of the fire-safe cigarette legislation by the Oregon House.
Again, it passed unanimously in the 60 member chamber, where Democrats hold only a 31 to 29 majority over Republicans. Everybody, it seems, was for this law that requires tobacco companies to stop putting additives in cigarettes that keep them burning ... burning in couches, burning in beds, burning in bar stools ... where they smolder until the fabric catches fire and kills people.
The interesting observation by Rep. Hunt was that this legislation, that apparently everybody favors, has been out there for about 10 years. But if everybody was in favor of it, why did it take 10 years to vote on it?
Because the Republicans, when they were both in the majority and had their hands in the pocket of big tobacco, kept it from coming up for a vote. It was killed by then-Speaker of the House Karen Minnis, or then-Majority Leader Wayne Scott, or then- committee Chairman Alan Brown.
Note: Those were only the last of the usual suspects. Ten years. Five sessions of Oregon’s biennial legislature. There were others who stuffed this important legislation. Those were only the last.
It would be interesting to know how many people died in that 10 years, how many might have lived if those politicians responsible had not kept such an obviously good idea from coming to a vote.
Again, it passed unanimously in the 60 member chamber, where Democrats hold only a 31 to 29 majority over Republicans. Everybody, it seems, was for this law that requires tobacco companies to stop putting additives in cigarettes that keep them burning ... burning in couches, burning in beds, burning in bar stools ... where they smolder until the fabric catches fire and kills people.
The interesting observation by Rep. Hunt was that this legislation, that apparently everybody favors, has been out there for about 10 years. But if everybody was in favor of it, why did it take 10 years to vote on it?
Because the Republicans, when they were both in the majority and had their hands in the pocket of big tobacco, kept it from coming up for a vote. It was killed by then-Speaker of the House Karen Minnis, or then-Majority Leader Wayne Scott, or then- committee Chairman Alan Brown.
Note: Those were only the last of the usual suspects. Ten years. Five sessions of Oregon’s biennial legislature. There were others who stuffed this important legislation. Those were only the last.
It would be interesting to know how many people died in that 10 years, how many might have lived if those politicians responsible had not kept such an obviously good idea from coming to a vote.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Accretion of laws
Legislators legislate. Of course. And the body of law grows ever more complex, as they create laws to modify laws that were written for situations outlived, outdated, outmoded, or simply outgrown.
It would take a revolutionary, or truly an outlaw, to say, “Instead of adding to, let’s pare away. Let’s reexamine what we are doing, and see if we can do more with less.”
Marriage laws, for example. Let’s get government out of the “marriage” business. Where’s the gain, there, anyway? Drug laws. Wage laws. Entitlement laws. Morality laws.
The right to face consequences is a golden thing. We’d truly like to see the “Outlaw committee to reduce the complexity of laws in Oregon.”
But then, all the outlaws are busy fly fishing the Deschutes or car racing at PIR or writing poetry on 23 Avenue or shooting birds in Hepner.
It would take a revolutionary, or truly an outlaw, to say, “Instead of adding to, let’s pare away. Let’s reexamine what we are doing, and see if we can do more with less.”
Marriage laws, for example. Let’s get government out of the “marriage” business. Where’s the gain, there, anyway? Drug laws. Wage laws. Entitlement laws. Morality laws.
The right to face consequences is a golden thing. We’d truly like to see the “Outlaw committee to reduce the complexity of laws in Oregon.”
But then, all the outlaws are busy fly fishing the Deschutes or car racing at PIR or writing poetry on 23 Avenue or shooting birds in Hepner.
Gay marriage, gay rights
The Senate Judiciary Committee has passed a bill that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to Julia Silverman of the Associated Press in today’s Oregonian. Okay.
The story goes on to talk about gay unions (marriage). Of course, this is opposed by the religious right, which is reduced to whining that churches that refuse to perform the ceremony might get sued.
As soon as I see the words “churches” and “laws” and “beliefs” and “unconstitutional” in the same sentence, I get vertigo. The whole argument is based on a crock of goulash.
Government has no valid role in the religious beliefs or ceremonies surrounding marriage, period, gay or straight or celestial. The problems we face on this issue are not because of too little involvement by government but too much.
If the government wants to allow partners to make decisions about the rights, desires, insurance and deathbed wishes of each other, so be it. Let them sign a contract with each other that is recognized by the State.
Instead of creating another from of “marriage” in the model of “Vermont-style civil unions,” Oregon needs to abolish its marriage statutes altogether and replace them with a new contract under the law, a registration, if you will, that applies to everyone who wants to be part of a couple.
The “Coupled Contract,” if the term doesn’t have too much preloaded visualization.
If someone also wants to get “married” and regards that as a spiritual or religious right of passage, great. Find a church that agrees with your beliefs and go for it. You can marry your car, for all I’m concerned.
The story goes on to talk about gay unions (marriage). Of course, this is opposed by the religious right, which is reduced to whining that churches that refuse to perform the ceremony might get sued.
As soon as I see the words “churches” and “laws” and “beliefs” and “unconstitutional” in the same sentence, I get vertigo. The whole argument is based on a crock of goulash.
Government has no valid role in the religious beliefs or ceremonies surrounding marriage, period, gay or straight or celestial. The problems we face on this issue are not because of too little involvement by government but too much.
If the government wants to allow partners to make decisions about the rights, desires, insurance and deathbed wishes of each other, so be it. Let them sign a contract with each other that is recognized by the State.
Instead of creating another from of “marriage” in the model of “Vermont-style civil unions,” Oregon needs to abolish its marriage statutes altogether and replace them with a new contract under the law, a registration, if you will, that applies to everyone who wants to be part of a couple.
The “Coupled Contract,” if the term doesn’t have too much preloaded visualization.
If someone also wants to get “married” and regards that as a spiritual or religious right of passage, great. Find a church that agrees with your beliefs and go for it. You can marry your car, for all I’m concerned.
Friday, March 9, 2007
A bit of sun in Salem
One would think that building a rainy day fund for the State of Oregon – Oregon, of all places, where the rain famously falls and state budgets fall when the economy darkens like our skies in late November – one would think that conservatives would demand that something be put away for the inevitable storm.
But the weather in Salem last week wasn’t that bad. Outside the capitol building, Rhododendrons were in bloom, buds like turgid minarets exploding into variegated blossoms of pink and purple.
Inside the marbled walls, it was not so floral.
The proposal to take the corporate kicker and start a rainy day fund was defeated early. It was a simple vote along party lines. There are 31 Democrats, 29 Republicans. The vote needed to pass by a two-thirds margin in the house, 40 to 20.
So Senate President Peter Courtney came down, and with his “experience and wisdom,” put a deal together. Double the estate tax exemption to $2 million. Raise the corporate minimum tax. Let the Legislature budget in a one percent contribution each year.
Except, the impact of the corporate minimum tax increase, proposed by Republicans, had not been properly thought out. Some small businesses or developers with multiple LLCs would get hammered. Phones began to ring, e-mails flooded in.
The deal fell apart.
Then something strange happened. Wayne Scott, House Minority Leader (watch out, we are going to say something nice about him after we blamed him for much of the mess earlier) worked with Jeff Merkley, Speaker of the House, and Dave Hunt, leader of the House Democrats, and they said... “Hey... we have to do something about this huge corporate kicker (85 percent of the kicker, about $275 million) going out of state...”
The House voted on a simple plan. Let small Oregon businesses keep the kicker. Put the rest in the rainy day fund. And it passed with all 31 Democrats and 17 Republicans voting in favor. After years of partisan paralysis, it looked like government was going to creak into motion and do the right thing.
Not quite.
There’s a deadline out there. If the legislature did not act, the Democrats intended to refer the issue to voters. But the deadline for filing is next Thursday, March 15. And the Senate needed to “read” the bill three times, with a session day in between each reading. While most of the Senators were waiting for the bill to come out of the House on Thursday, when it did....
... Senate Republicans were missing.
There were 18 Democrats and one independent. They needed 20 out of the 30 Senators for a quorum. Without a vote, the bill would not be read in time for to make the deadline.
The governor has a little known power. During a session, he can authorize the Oregon State Police to go get legislators who are “missing.” And it so happened that two Republican Senators were in Corvallis, at an Oregon State Beaver baseball game.
A phone call went out to Senator Ted Ferrioli, leader of the Senate Republicans. Reportedly, the conversation went something like this: “You will show up on the floor of the Senate so we have a quorum, or we will be bringing your guys back here in a police car.”
Ferrioli must have decided it would not be a good thing for Republican Senators to be hauled into the chamber by the Oregon State Police so they could vote on whether Oregon could build a rainy day fund with $275 million that would otherwise have gone to corporations out of state.
Ferrioli showed up. They had the first reading of the bill. They will have another on Monday, unless more games are played.
And with any luck at all, Oregon will begin to build a rainy day fund of about 10 percent of the state budget. They will eventually need $1.4 billion for a biennium (Oregon budgets for two years at a time, the legislature meets every two years), about $700 million per year.
It is not as good a deal as the one put together by Senator Courtney, which loosened the estate tax and fixed a seriously outdated corporate minimum tax, and would have had the Legislature put in about $140 million for each two-year budget.
But it’s a start.
But the weather in Salem last week wasn’t that bad. Outside the capitol building, Rhododendrons were in bloom, buds like turgid minarets exploding into variegated blossoms of pink and purple.
Inside the marbled walls, it was not so floral.
The proposal to take the corporate kicker and start a rainy day fund was defeated early. It was a simple vote along party lines. There are 31 Democrats, 29 Republicans. The vote needed to pass by a two-thirds margin in the house, 40 to 20.
So Senate President Peter Courtney came down, and with his “experience and wisdom,” put a deal together. Double the estate tax exemption to $2 million. Raise the corporate minimum tax. Let the Legislature budget in a one percent contribution each year.
Except, the impact of the corporate minimum tax increase, proposed by Republicans, had not been properly thought out. Some small businesses or developers with multiple LLCs would get hammered. Phones began to ring, e-mails flooded in.
The deal fell apart.
Then something strange happened. Wayne Scott, House Minority Leader (watch out, we are going to say something nice about him after we blamed him for much of the mess earlier) worked with Jeff Merkley, Speaker of the House, and Dave Hunt, leader of the House Democrats, and they said... “Hey... we have to do something about this huge corporate kicker (85 percent of the kicker, about $275 million) going out of state...”
The House voted on a simple plan. Let small Oregon businesses keep the kicker. Put the rest in the rainy day fund. And it passed with all 31 Democrats and 17 Republicans voting in favor. After years of partisan paralysis, it looked like government was going to creak into motion and do the right thing.
Not quite.
There’s a deadline out there. If the legislature did not act, the Democrats intended to refer the issue to voters. But the deadline for filing is next Thursday, March 15. And the Senate needed to “read” the bill three times, with a session day in between each reading. While most of the Senators were waiting for the bill to come out of the House on Thursday, when it did....
... Senate Republicans were missing.
There were 18 Democrats and one independent. They needed 20 out of the 30 Senators for a quorum. Without a vote, the bill would not be read in time for to make the deadline.
The governor has a little known power. During a session, he can authorize the Oregon State Police to go get legislators who are “missing.” And it so happened that two Republican Senators were in Corvallis, at an Oregon State Beaver baseball game.
A phone call went out to Senator Ted Ferrioli, leader of the Senate Republicans. Reportedly, the conversation went something like this: “You will show up on the floor of the Senate so we have a quorum, or we will be bringing your guys back here in a police car.”
Ferrioli must have decided it would not be a good thing for Republican Senators to be hauled into the chamber by the Oregon State Police so they could vote on whether Oregon could build a rainy day fund with $275 million that would otherwise have gone to corporations out of state.
Ferrioli showed up. They had the first reading of the bill. They will have another on Monday, unless more games are played.
And with any luck at all, Oregon will begin to build a rainy day fund of about 10 percent of the state budget. They will eventually need $1.4 billion for a biennium (Oregon budgets for two years at a time, the legislature meets every two years), about $700 million per year.
It is not as good a deal as the one put together by Senator Courtney, which loosened the estate tax and fixed a seriously outdated corporate minimum tax, and would have had the Legislature put in about $140 million for each two-year budget.
But it’s a start.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Does “the market” work in health care?
There are a number of reasons the “free market” doesn’t work in health care.
The first and most obvious is that we don’t really “shop” for health care services in the same way we shop for a car, for dish soap.
Secondly, there is often a ‘disconnect” between the payer for the service, an insurance company, and the receiver of the service, the patient.
In a true market, you buy what you receive. You make a decision between quality and cost, you try to maximize the one, and minimize the other.
An insurance company does not have that same dynamic when buying health care. They want to minimize what they pay, and are only concerned with quality when it increases what they have to pay; i.e., when it impacts profits. They spend more to protect profits (fighting doctors with paperwork) than would a patient who is more concerned with quality. Disconnect.
As a consumer who does not pay the doctor, you don’t care what the insurance company has to pay, you simply want the best possible care available. Disconnect.
Senator Ben Westlund says the consumer has even less information when buying health care than they do when buying a car, because “of the complexity of the issues, the complexity in everybody’s life.” Disconnect.
Westlund is comfortable with a system that dictates what services are available, and how much they cost. He says that there are areas of Oregon, notably the Medford and Bend areas, where back surgery is prescribed up to 10 times as often as in other areas.
Even though there is evidence that noninvasive (nonsurgical) treatment is more effective, and costs less.
“Isn’t that a more effective use of the health care dollar?” he asks.
Westlund says that doctors will prescribe unnecessary MRIs to pay for MRI machines or to turn a profit. He would like to intervene here in the market as well.
John Kitzhaber has said we need to “realign financial incentives to ensure the transition to a more efficient delivery system.” (Read it here).
We don’t know if they are right, and we like market-based solutions that encourage efficiency and choice. At the same time, if the market can’t work in health care, we need a solution that minimizes the cost, financial and social, to the Oregon community.
The first and most obvious is that we don’t really “shop” for health care services in the same way we shop for a car, for dish soap.
Secondly, there is often a ‘disconnect” between the payer for the service, an insurance company, and the receiver of the service, the patient.
In a true market, you buy what you receive. You make a decision between quality and cost, you try to maximize the one, and minimize the other.
An insurance company does not have that same dynamic when buying health care. They want to minimize what they pay, and are only concerned with quality when it increases what they have to pay; i.e., when it impacts profits. They spend more to protect profits (fighting doctors with paperwork) than would a patient who is more concerned with quality. Disconnect.
As a consumer who does not pay the doctor, you don’t care what the insurance company has to pay, you simply want the best possible care available. Disconnect.
Senator Ben Westlund says the consumer has even less information when buying health care than they do when buying a car, because “of the complexity of the issues, the complexity in everybody’s life.” Disconnect.
Westlund is comfortable with a system that dictates what services are available, and how much they cost. He says that there are areas of Oregon, notably the Medford and Bend areas, where back surgery is prescribed up to 10 times as often as in other areas.
Even though there is evidence that noninvasive (nonsurgical) treatment is more effective, and costs less.
“Isn’t that a more effective use of the health care dollar?” he asks.
Westlund says that doctors will prescribe unnecessary MRIs to pay for MRI machines or to turn a profit. He would like to intervene here in the market as well.
John Kitzhaber has said we need to “realign financial incentives to ensure the transition to a more efficient delivery system.” (Read it here).
We don’t know if they are right, and we like market-based solutions that encourage efficiency and choice. At the same time, if the market can’t work in health care, we need a solution that minimizes the cost, financial and social, to the Oregon community.
"Total reform of health care"
Senator Westlund says I have it wrong about health care reform in Oregon. Just giving insurance cards to the uninsured would actually be more expensive.
He says we have to do more to pay less.
“We need fundamental, systemic, health care reform,” says Westlund without apology, without hesitation. “This is huge.”
What this writer advocated yesterday, and what some others are suggesting, of just insuring those without insurance, would simply be a case of throwing more money into an already dysfunctional system.
“Where does that money come from?” he asks. He says the state would have to take a greater role in funding, tobacco taxes would not be enough, and sacrifices would have to come from somewhere, such as K-12 education.
Westlund claims we need to start over, and that there is enough money already in the system to pay for necessary changes.
“The discussion (about the health care delivery system) needs to be as comprehensive as possible. We need to ask ourselves this question: If we had a blank canvas, how would we paint a health care delivery system in this state? Once you have that defined, and it is defined well in both Senate Bill 27 and Senate Bill 329, then you let the committee process work, you take the best out of both, and you take the result as far as you can.”
Senate Bill 27 is the bill promoted by former Governor John Kitzhaber. He wrote a good opinion piece in Wednesday's Oregonian about why his plan includes Medicare dollars. (Read it here). We tried to reach Kitzhaber today but he has a packed schedule.
There are many strong similarities between the two bills, and Westlund noted that it is a sign that two processes operating independently of each other came fundamentally to the same conclusion.”
“In 2004 Oregonians spent $10.6 billion on health care, twice the amount of the biennial state budget. There are hundreds of millions (that could be saved with a revamped system)” in such areas as administration, which eats up 30 percent of each health care dollar. Doing away with enrollment eligibility would help, as would introducing standardized forms for both billing and insurance.
Westlund was blunt about doctors prescribing unnecessary procedures for profit. Bend, Westlund’s home town, has nine MRI machines, he says. He doesn’t think Bend needs that many, that some MRIs are prescribed so that those machines can turn a profit for doctors who own them.
He advocates a program of “certificate of need,” where the need for such a machine would be proven before a community is saddled with the cost.
Unless we embark on reform now, Westlund says, “we will have the same conversation in five years ...”
But in five years, everyone acknowledges the system will either be bankrupt, or it will bankrupt us.
He says we have to do more to pay less.
“We need fundamental, systemic, health care reform,” says Westlund without apology, without hesitation. “This is huge.”
What this writer advocated yesterday, and what some others are suggesting, of just insuring those without insurance, would simply be a case of throwing more money into an already dysfunctional system.
“Where does that money come from?” he asks. He says the state would have to take a greater role in funding, tobacco taxes would not be enough, and sacrifices would have to come from somewhere, such as K-12 education.
Westlund claims we need to start over, and that there is enough money already in the system to pay for necessary changes.
“The discussion (about the health care delivery system) needs to be as comprehensive as possible. We need to ask ourselves this question: If we had a blank canvas, how would we paint a health care delivery system in this state? Once you have that defined, and it is defined well in both Senate Bill 27 and Senate Bill 329, then you let the committee process work, you take the best out of both, and you take the result as far as you can.”
Senate Bill 27 is the bill promoted by former Governor John Kitzhaber. He wrote a good opinion piece in Wednesday's Oregonian about why his plan includes Medicare dollars. (Read it here). We tried to reach Kitzhaber today but he has a packed schedule.
There are many strong similarities between the two bills, and Westlund noted that it is a sign that two processes operating independently of each other came fundamentally to the same conclusion.”
“In 2004 Oregonians spent $10.6 billion on health care, twice the amount of the biennial state budget. There are hundreds of millions (that could be saved with a revamped system)” in such areas as administration, which eats up 30 percent of each health care dollar. Doing away with enrollment eligibility would help, as would introducing standardized forms for both billing and insurance.
Westlund was blunt about doctors prescribing unnecessary procedures for profit. Bend, Westlund’s home town, has nine MRI machines, he says. He doesn’t think Bend needs that many, that some MRIs are prescribed so that those machines can turn a profit for doctors who own them.
He advocates a program of “certificate of need,” where the need for such a machine would be proven before a community is saddled with the cost.
Unless we embark on reform now, Westlund says, “we will have the same conversation in five years ...”
But in five years, everyone acknowledges the system will either be bankrupt, or it will bankrupt us.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Health care reform: Too much, too soon
Last evening this writer attended a meeting in the capitol on Senate Bill 329. This is the bill championed by Ben Westlund to provide health care for all Oregonians. We have lauded this in the past.
We worry now that it is too much, too soon.
We referred previously to the plan, and others like it, as “just insurance,” and favored it because we all pay the bill for the uninsured anyway. But we were depending on the word of others, and had not read the entire bill at that time. Sloppy. Mea Culpa.
We have, now. And it appears that SB 329, along with amendments offered last night, goes far beyond the already ambitious goal of insurance for everyone.
Senators discussed issues of whether the public should know how many perforated bowels a doctor offering a colonoscopy had to his credit, how much each procedure should cost, whether those in rural areas should have clinics and hospitals.
All of these may be wonderful goals. But they are too much, too soon.
Look: We have tens of thousands of uninsured in this state. An excellent editorial in this morning’s Oregonian points out that Washington is far ahead of us in caring for children (read it here). A piece in the March 5 New York Times by Robert Pear states that 17 million of the nearly 47 million without insurance in the U.S. have family incomes of $40,000 or more (read it here).
Health insurance costs are increasing out of the reach of the middle class.
So the senators and representatives in Hearing Room 50 last night need to focus more tightly on the problem at hand -- lack of health insurance -- rather than a full revamping of the health care delivery system in Oregon.
If they go after peer review and transparency of care, transparency of cost, delivery of health care in Hermiston, etc., etc., then they will have outlined a task too great that will take too long to accomplish. That will leave thousands without health care needed today.
Our suggestion? Any insurer who provides health insurance in the state of Oregon to anyone must offer it to everyone, at a basic level that includes the “list” of basics outlined by Kitzhaber and the Oregon Health Plan. Any insurer offering insurance in Oregon must include everyone in Oregon in the actuarial “pool” i.e., there shall be no cherry picking of the healthy, no penalty for the sick when getting this insurance.
Everyone shall pay something for their insurance and their doctor's visit on a sliding scale, with the poorest paying little, the wealthy paying more, and any insurer can offer expanded plans to anyone at any price they can charge.
Stick to the basics, for now. See what happens in Lakeview and Halfway, Northeast Portland and Coos Bay, when everyone qualifies for insurance, see if clinics spring up, if care follows the money.
Yes, we all want to know what our care will cost, we all want to know if our doctors are drunks or incompetent, we all would like a hospital within waking distance of our children.
But right now, our needs are more basic. Our goals need to be more modest.
We worry now that it is too much, too soon.
We referred previously to the plan, and others like it, as “just insurance,” and favored it because we all pay the bill for the uninsured anyway. But we were depending on the word of others, and had not read the entire bill at that time. Sloppy. Mea Culpa.
We have, now. And it appears that SB 329, along with amendments offered last night, goes far beyond the already ambitious goal of insurance for everyone.
Senators discussed issues of whether the public should know how many perforated bowels a doctor offering a colonoscopy had to his credit, how much each procedure should cost, whether those in rural areas should have clinics and hospitals.
All of these may be wonderful goals. But they are too much, too soon.
Look: We have tens of thousands of uninsured in this state. An excellent editorial in this morning’s Oregonian points out that Washington is far ahead of us in caring for children (read it here). A piece in the March 5 New York Times by Robert Pear states that 17 million of the nearly 47 million without insurance in the U.S. have family incomes of $40,000 or more (read it here).
Health insurance costs are increasing out of the reach of the middle class.
So the senators and representatives in Hearing Room 50 last night need to focus more tightly on the problem at hand -- lack of health insurance -- rather than a full revamping of the health care delivery system in Oregon.
If they go after peer review and transparency of care, transparency of cost, delivery of health care in Hermiston, etc., etc., then they will have outlined a task too great that will take too long to accomplish. That will leave thousands without health care needed today.
Our suggestion? Any insurer who provides health insurance in the state of Oregon to anyone must offer it to everyone, at a basic level that includes the “list” of basics outlined by Kitzhaber and the Oregon Health Plan. Any insurer offering insurance in Oregon must include everyone in Oregon in the actuarial “pool” i.e., there shall be no cherry picking of the healthy, no penalty for the sick when getting this insurance.
Everyone shall pay something for their insurance and their doctor's visit on a sliding scale, with the poorest paying little, the wealthy paying more, and any insurer can offer expanded plans to anyone at any price they can charge.
Stick to the basics, for now. See what happens in Lakeview and Halfway, Northeast Portland and Coos Bay, when everyone qualifies for insurance, see if clinics spring up, if care follows the money.
Yes, we all want to know what our care will cost, we all want to know if our doctors are drunks or incompetent, we all would like a hospital within waking distance of our children.
But right now, our needs are more basic. Our goals need to be more modest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)