Representative Mitch Greenlick to pass Health Care as right bill

By Taxpayer Association of Oregon,

State Representative Mitch Greenlick is expected to introduce during the February Special Session a Joint Resolution bill that deals with health care as a constitutional right. Taxpayers thought the Legislature’s new $433 million health care tax on health insurance premiums would help improve Oregon’s health care system. Why stop at a half billion tax when you can make even a greater government power grab?

Apparently Representative Mitch Greenlick has not seen the latest Gallup numbers on health care reform which show need lows for support of the Democrat’s national health plan. 58% disapprove and 37% approval. The public sees through the failed big government health care vision of politicians, Oregon lawmakers should as well.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 07:16 | Posted in Measure 37 | 18 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • rural resident

    Actually, many of the people who are dissatisfied with Obama’s performance on health care legislation believe that he needs to be more assertive and push harder for an expanded government role in paying for health care. Single payer should have been on the table from the beginning. Or, at the very least, he should have used his political capital to create a strong, substantial competitor for private insurance firms.

    Don’t always assume that everyone on the left is thrilled with his performance, or that everyone on the right is unhappy (though the latter is more likely to be true owing to the nature of the opposition). The “disapproves” on the above chart starting trending up as it became apparent that the President wasn’t keeping his promises about the public option and other features of the bill that are important to progressives.

  • bill

    sure. Why not simply declare communism as our new state imposed religion while we’re at it? Let’s get it over with. Let’s quit all this flailing about and come out and turn all of our personal property and means of livelihood over to the government. Government has an unblemished record for on time, under budget, innovative solutions to .. well, everything! Besides, owning your own property and having to compete for jobs or customers is just too, welll.. free. And freedom is WAY over stated, you know.

    Yeah- what we need is a class of people who decide for us what it is that is good for us- where we live, what we eat, how we get from one place to another, how we can communicate with one another, what we are allowed to learn and/or discover. Oh, and don’t forget, we must turn our bothersome children over to the state, too. They will do a much better job instilling values, postivie attitudes and spiritual truth /. oops, I take that one back…forgot, can’t mix faith with communism.

    Naturally, their may be a struggle for power- after all, the small group of people at the helm will control vast sums of money, influence, and power. for some, that allure is simply overpowering- justifying any means for the end.

    America’s founding fathers must have been fools to think future generations might continue to value freedom and liberty above power, and influence. Today, we have a generation of citizens who refuse to accept the responsibility and personal initiative that inspired our ancestors to build the greatest country in the world. We have become intoxicated and delusional in this idea that Big Government is somehow preferential to freedom.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *rural resident:*

    Actually, many of the people who are dissatisfied with Obama’s performance on health care legislation believe that he needs to be more assertive and push harder for an expanded government role in paying for health care.

    *Bob T:*

    Sure, but the more he pushes in that direction the more he’ll pick up additional negative numbers — perhaps more than what he pulls back into the approval column.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • rural resident

      How could his numbers get much worse by moving to the left? 100% of those on the right are reflexively against anything he proposes, unless it involves more military spending. He’s not going to lose any support from conservatives because he never had–and never will have–any.

      There’s a definite correlation between the decline in support for the way he’s handled this and the continuous movement on his part to the right. He needs to pay more attention to his base. If Obama would stop backpedaling and fight for something worth having, those numbers would trend upward.

      Incidentally, I would think the anti-government spending types would see a big silver lining in a single-payer system accompanied by a, say, 4% increase in Medicare tax rates. Even with paid supplemental insurance covering such things as dental and vision, the cost for health insurance for public employees would certainly be much less than it is now (often more than 20% of base compensation).

  • Hawk

    Could Greenlick be a bigger idiot? How could healthcare possibly be a right? Rights don’t come from the government. Only expensive inefficient bureaucracies come from government. Greenlick needs to read the Constitution. Rights come from a higher power. If the citizens of this country start believing their rights are bestowed by government we are in real trouble. Any government that can grant rights can also take rights away.

    • Anonymous

      Special sessions are supposed to be held for emergencies. When you speak of the Oregon Constitution start with the fact that a special session next month IS UN-CONSTITUIONAL!

      Any Republican who shows up is violating the Constitution and should not be re-elected.

      And obtw, Greenlick is an old fool, an old socialist fool.

  • Ron Glynn

    Why stop there. People should have the right to have a job and the government should supply one. People should have the right to housing and the government should supply it. Food is already covered. Right to bear arms-The government should provide firearms for every person who needs one. Right to Free Speech-The government should provide Radio, TV, and Newspaper space for all of us to broadcast our different views. A car would be nice to have. People should not have any struggles in life and it is up to the government to make sure we don’t. Also, someone else should pay for it.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    It’s an interesting concept, the idea first of all that one can pass a law to create a right, and second of all that a right can involve compulsion on someone else’s part to pay for it.

    Lets say we accept that a right can be created by government. With health care if that right is created for A then it will involve compulsion on the part of B. If A decides not to work, he immediately has claim on B to pay for health care A refuses to pay for. Through this new right A will explicitly be considered to have greater claim on the fruits of B’s labor than B does. Sounds pretty much like something we used to call slavery. What if pay for doctors drops because enough people decide not to work? Will those doctors be forced at gunpoint to provide for this right?

    I suppose we could have a creation of another right. The right to the fruits of ones own labor.

    Of course the proposition that wealth is the possession of the one who creates it would be something that would strike the health care as right people as an incredibly alien concept.

    That should tell you a little bit about who these people are.

    • v person

      “Lets say we accept that a right can be created by government. ”

      By all means. Start with the Bill of Rights, add in a few amendments like women’s right to vote, right to not be someone elses slave, right to an attorney, right to medicare once one is 65, right to an abortion with certain limits, and coming soon to a government near you….the right of 2 adults of the same sex to marry and thus access rights enjoyed by others….

      Hey…whaddaya know? Government can and does create rights Rupert! It can also take rights away, but that is another topic. l

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >By all means. Start with the Bill of Rights,

        I’m not quite sure there is anyway someone could have expressed their utter lack of knowledge of either the history of our government or the reasoning behind our constitution than with this idiocy.

        I thought your position a few months ago that illegal aliens had no standing in front of the Supreme Court was the most absolutely idiotic statement anyone could make about the nature of our legal system.

        However with this astonishingly uneducated statement you have surpassed yourself.

        This is definitely, and without a doubt, your greatest expression of your utter lack of knowledge in the area. Given the patent idiocy of it, and your other colossal mistakes in this same arena, I would advise you to stick to discussions of windmills and trees. You have some basic knowledge there.

        As regards even a rudimentary understanding of the constitution or the judicial system you have not even a small child’s understanding. No one past the sixth grade would make the fundamental error you make here.

      • Steve Plunk

        The Bill of Rights codified what was recognized as natural rights. It did not so much establish rights as seek to ensure government didn’t infringe upon what we already had. Notice the language is mostly prohibitive, it prohibits government from doing certain things.

        If we do eventually (and unwisely) establish such a right to health care should we not also establish a right to not be a part of a government health care system? Presently the proposed bill in congress forces us to take part. It flies in the face of individual liberty.

        Rights are less about what is given while more about what impediments are placed on the individuals. Greenlick is simply seeking a socialist program in a stealthy manner.

        • v person

          The Bill of Rights was put in the constitution. The constitution is the foundation for our government. Ergo, the rights enumerated were established by the government.

          “should we not also establish a right to not be a part of a government health care system?”

          Its actually in the federal bill. They have opt out provisions. Amish can opt out on religious grounds. Individuals can opt out on financial hardship grounds.

          “Rights are less about what is given while more about what impediments are placed on the individuals.”

          So by that logic, you would say that women actually had the right to vote prior to the 19th amendment? And that black people could legally walk away from their masters prior to the 13th amendment? After all…weren’t these “natural rights?” If they were natural they must have already existed no?

          By law and tradition, rights can be affirmative. They can entitle an individual to something from government, or they can prevent government from some action against the individual. And rights can be established legislatively or constitutionally. Whether granting a particular right is a good idea or not, the fact that new rights can be granted by government should not be a point of argument.

          • Steve Plunk

            v person,

            You’re learning. Women did have a natural right to vote and slaves had a natural right to freedom. It was the government that impeded those rights. They existed but were not yet codified. Understanding natural rights is one of the basic parts of understanding liberty. By retaining the idea of natural rights or natural law we can control the power of an often oppressive government. The constitution recognized those rights by explicitly forbidding certain government behavior and reserving other rights for the states and individuals.

            I wonder if I can opt out because of my religious beliefs? No, I can’t. Only government approved groups can. Once again we find the government impeding some while granting favors to others.

          • v person

            “It was the government that impeded those rights. They existed but were not yet codified.”

            Maybe then it is government that is impeding the right to decent health care, and they just need to codify that right.

          • Hawk

            “…it is government that is impeding the right to decent health care”

            Heath care is not a right. Your tortured logic gets old real fast.

          • v person

            As we debate this in the comfort of our homes or offices, thousands of people are being pulled from the ruble of an earthquake in Haiti. Do they have a “right” to be pulled from that rubble? And once out, if they are bleeding or have broken bones, do they have any right to expect medical care? Food? Water?

            To me, they have a “right” to this. The right stems from being part of a shared humanity. Thus it is as much of a “natural right” as any other natural right. Humans are social animals and we have found it advantageous to take care of each other, in part because it may be our turn next.

            Here in the US we have made it illegal for hospitals to turn away patients from emergency rooms. In other words, we already have made health care a “right,” at least during emergencies.

            For practical reasons, rights to services like medical care have to be limited. Or “rationed” if you prefer. Where we draw that line is why we have politics. But there shouldn’t be much question that nationally and internationally we the people have already determined that everyone has a right to medical care.

  • Dr_Erickson

    Health care is a civil right and is treated so in all developed countries except for the United States. There is a difference between the current federal plan with mandates, a windfall to the insurance companies and a single payer improved Medicare for All which forms a single risk pool which pays for everybody for less cost than we currently expend. A new poll is needed asking whether the public would like to have affordability and universality through an
    improved Medicare that covers everyone.
    PNHP.org

    • Col_Haughnaughty

      Healthcare is not a civil right, you socialist pig!

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)