THE health care question

The headline in Sunday's "Oregonian" says Guv’nor Kuongoski will “go to the mat on kids health.”

Once again the governor leads from behind. But at least, on this, he’s pointed in the right direction.

Before Kulongoski claims too much credit, though, please remember that Senator Ben Westlund of Central Oregon, former Governor John Kitzhaber, and the states of Massachusetts, California and others, are much farther ahead in formulating viable plans for the uninsured.

Rather than pretending to be a champion, we think Kulongoski would better serve the cause by putting his shoulder to someone else’s wheel.

But why do we care at all? Aside from our own personal needs, why do we care that others have access to health care? To health insurance?

This question is NOT about money. The money problem comes later in the debate. Money is a detail, a mechanism, a requirement, a means to the end.

We can, and we should, debate long and hard over the money.

But not yet.

First, as a community, can we agree about the need? Can we agree, as Oregonians, that we share an obligation to our neighbors?

I don’t want my neighbor to bear the constant, excruciating pain of a rotting tooth. I don’t want my neighbor to see fever in her child and fear she can’t get a doctor. I don’t want my neighbor to miss a car payment because he needs 12 stitches in his hand.

Can we agree on that?

If not, then we live in two different states of Oregon.

Yes, yes, we all know that health care for the uninsured via the emergency room is available. It is also horribly inefficient, like paying a carpenter to sharpen a pencil. But again, let’s not talk yet about the money.

Let’s look at some numbers, instead, thoughtfully provided by reporters Michelle Cole and Don Colburn of “The Oregonian.” (Hey you two, if you are going to say the tobacco industry gave $200,000 to lawmakers, primarily Republicans, in a story about taxing tobacco, let’s have some NAMES! Who got the money? And what is the position of those lawmakers on taxing cigarettes for children’s health care?)

“The number and percentage of uninsured children in Oregon are at their highest levels in a decade. Nearly 118,000 Oregonians younger than 19 -- one in eight -- lacked insurance in late 2004, the most recent figures. New state data from 2006 are due by the end of this month, and more recent federal census numbers suggest that the proportion of uninsured children has not changed much in the past two years...” Cole/Colburn wrote.

One in eight. To broad-brush some statistics, this means that in my daughter’s 7th grade social studies class of 32 or so, four kids do not have health insurance.

I am not prepared to say that one of those children, who I know and for whom I am a mediocre soccer coach, should be without healthcare.

For any reason. I will take it out of my own pocket if need be, to a point.

And that is what insurance is, when others benefit. I take something out of my pocket for them. When I benefit, it is my neighbors taking it out of their pocket for me. If you would turn your back on one of those children, we live in different states of Oregon.

We believe, along with Senator Ben Westlund, that “Access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right,” as he quoted from the platform of the Democratic party.

This is a divide that may separate Oregonians, but it is a legitimate divide. Unlike “Death with Dignity” or abortion or gay rights, this actually does affect everybody. We need to debate this, long and hard. Does every Oregonian have a right to affordable health care?

The question deserves a vote, of some sort, unobscured by debates over money, over who will pay and how. Westlund or someone else should introduce this simple bill, that "access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right," in Oregon.

This should not be trivialized. Our very nation was founded on a statement of rights. From this, politics and debate and policy can follow.

Because I believe, if we can agree on this, we can figure out the rest.