Congressman Greg Walden: On Health Care Vote

Congressman Greg Walden,

Walden supports reform that lowers cost of premiums, cuts deficit, protects seniors, expands coverage, and ensures that those with pre-existing conditions can find coverage

WASHINGTON, D.C. “” Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) released the following statement following the passage of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-San Francisco) $1.3 trillion government takeover of healthcare. Rep. Walden voted for the Republican healthcare reform plan.”Tonight, the U.S. House of Representatives had a choice of two healthcare reform plans. I voted for healthcare reform that would reduce the cost of health insurance premiums by 10 percent, cut the federal deficit by $68 billion, and make insurance more accessible to millions of Americans. Unfortunately, that’s not the plan that passed. As a small business owner for more than 21 years, I know what it’s like to pay the bills and sign the front side of a paycheck. Independent analysts estimate that the $730 billion in new taxes on Americans families and small businesses in the bill that passed today will result in the loss of 5.5 million American jobs. There’s even an unthinkable new tax on items like pacemakers, artificial hips, and stints.

“The country cannot afford a new $1.3 trillion government program that creates 111 new bureaucracies, especially when nationwide unemployment is at its highest level in 26 years. Just this year, Washington, D.C. has launched unprecedented national takeovers of the auto industry, the energy industry, and now the healthcare of every American.

“The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of a family premium under the government takeover that passed today will be $15,000 in 2016. The Republican alternative that I voted for tonight would reduce that cost to $10,000 in 2016.

“I served on a hospital board for many years and strongly believe that this country is in need of healthcare reform. But that reform should not be borne on the backs of seniors in the form of over $500 million in cuts to Medicare Advantage in Oregon’s Second District, which would impact the healthcare of 38,000 seniors in central, southern, and eastern Oregon. Americans deserve a patient-centered approach to healthcare, not a government plan that threatens to force you off the care you enjoy right now with a more expensive plan.

“We can do better with a targeted approach that tackles the biggest problems, and that’s what I voted for. We can lower the cost of premiums and expand access by giving employers the ability to group together for stronger bargaining with health insurance companies, just like corporations and unions do right now. We can allow insurance to be purchased across state lines, giving families and businesses much more choice and competition to bring down the cost of health insurance. And we can protect Medicare and the seniors who rely on it and ensure that no one is denied access to healthcare because pre-existing conditions. The Republican plan I voted for would have done all of that.

“Finally, I am strongly disappointed that rural America was left behind in this bill. Two amendments I proposed in the Energy and Commerce Committee to ensure a voice for rural America on government healthcare committees were stripped behind closed doors, with no explanation. That’s just plain wrong, and it speaks to why the American people are so frustrated with the broken system of government in Washington, D.C.”

Representative Greg Walden represents Oregon’s Second Congressional District, which is comprised of 20 counties in eastern, southern, and central Oregon. He is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

###

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

Posted by at 10:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 54 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • cssgamer

    Побольше б таких штук

  • OSBC

    In this post, Rep. Walden ignores the 2nd congressional district small business owners that flew to Washington, D.C., this past week to plead with him to vote for this bill. They can’t afford to offer insurance to employees and are barely able to insure their own families. As often, Rep. Walden turns a blind eye to his constituents to focus on his party leadership.

    • Steve Plunk

      This small business owner is very pleased with the congressman’s vote.

      Any business owner who understands this issue knows the present bill and indeed the current direction of debate is bad for us. No attempts to control costs, expensive mandates, untold costs passed on to our children. Getting the government into health care is a sure path to ruin.

      The Republican plan addresses costs through tort reform, interstate purchasing, and other methods. It costs the taxpayers nothing and will provide a chance to measure success before scraping the current system. The Democrats plan is a gamble and the stakes are fully one sixth of our economy.

      Too many want the public sector type gold plated health insurance plan. The problem is we can’t afford such nonsense. We have to raise deductibles, co-pays, and get the consumer back into the equation of choosing what works best. Paying for every sniffle visit to the doctor shoudl be a thing of the past.

      Oregon’s real small business knows what works and the House plan is not it. The OSBC does not represent Oregon business and should be ashamed to act as though it does.

      • v person

        “Getting the government into health care is a sure path to ruin.”

        Come on now Steve. The government already provides health insurance or direct care to about 50% of Americans, including everyone over 65, millions of poor people, kids, veterans, the military and government employees. Path to ruin? More like path to a healthy citizenry.

        The “Republican plan” is a joke. After 10 years fewer people would have insurance than today according to the CBO. Its not a serious proposal, but rather a fig leaf so they can say they are for something.

        There are lots of different types of small businesses in Oregon. Don’t slam those who disagree with you.

        • Steve Plunk

          Medicare is on an unsustainable path without tax increases or more debt. That not being run very well and certainly doesn’t support the idea of handing more control over to the government.

          Dismissing the Republican plan as a joke rather than offer real criticism makes me think you have no criticism that makes sense. Come on, back up that statement with facts, logic, something more than disparaging remarks.

          The OSBC is made up of liberal business owners seeking to advance their own agendas. I have no problem with that except they spoke as if they were the only group out there and represented most of Oregon small business owners. Art galleries and candle shops may technically be small businesses but they are not representative of most. They offered no real critique but instead played your game of dismissing the Congressman’s vote without offering any logic or facts to support their position. I slammed them because they are wrong.

          Like I said, trolls offering little but misdirection.

          • v person

            I back it up with the CBO analysis of the Republican proposal. Fewer people insured at greater cost 10 years out. What would the point be?

            Beyond that, it is far too little and too late to be at all constructive. Republicans were given every opportunity to sit down and put their issues on the table and negotiate. They decided to demagogue instead and work to kill any bill. This is no great secret.

            Sure, Medicare is unsustainable IF costs keep increasing at their current rate. This is also true for every private health insurance plan out there. It is true for our entire medical system. It all argues in favor of a single payer system, which is the only reform that really makes economic sense. But we can’t go there for reason you well know.

          • Voter

            Troll

      • Majorie

        Sure you are pleased. You don’t have to pay for anyone’s health care now…just dump them over to the gov.

  • dartagnan

    “The Republican plan addresses costs through tort reform”

    “Tort reform” is just a giveaway to insurance companies that Republicans have been pushing for decades. The reduction in medical costs that it would achieve would be negligible … unless you’re naive enough to believe that doctors would pass on their savings on insurance premiums to patients.

    Interstate purchasing is a good idea, but in itself it won’t get the job done. Meaningful competition in the form of a public insurance option would.

    “We have to raise deductibles, co-pays, and get the consumer back into the equation of choosing what works best. Paying for every sniffle visit to the doctor shoudl be a thing of the past.”

    Leave it to a Republican to claim that the problem with health care in America is that Americans have too much health care.

    • Steve Plunk

      Tort reform is part of what I call the 100 one percent solutions. Unlike one sweeping bill that will not cure but more likely cause harm, the idea of small changes that cumulatively add up to big savings makes sense. Tort reform has never been considered a silver bullet but rather a small piece of the puzzle. A piece that everyone but trial lawyers (and some Democrats) like.

      Tort reform is more than just insurance savings. The costs associated with practicing medicine in a way to avoid lawsuits is another one percent solution.

      The same can be said for interstate purchasing. It is but a piece of reform that is necessary.

      The idea we can have it all, have it for less, and have better health care is an impossible dream. Pragmatic Republicans realize in some cases do have too much care and certainly expect too much. Sorry for the dose of reality but it’s time for someone to step up and act like an adult. The childish dream of perfect health care for everyone is derailing real discussion.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Interstate purchasing is a good idea, but in itself it won’t get the job done.

      Get what job done? What is the job anyway? Insuring young people who have chosen not to buy insurance? Insuring illegal’s? What the hell is the job anyway?

      Would the job be creating magic, such as the folly of not allowing insurance companies to refuse to insure for pre existing conditions?

      Anyone who maintains that as a goal is someone who has just admitted they want a complete government take over of the health care system.

      >Meaningful competition in the form of a public insurance option would.

      Says who? For what job? Containing costs? Current entitlements are bankrupting us, so fiscal responsibility can’t be the job you are talking about.

      Look,, if you are for public option it means you are for eventual government control of every aspect of the health care system.

      Public option is the surest way to do it. Set up a government insurance plan that can both run at a huge deficit, get its funding by putting a gun to peoples head, and refuse to pay doctors a market rate thus forcing everyone else to subsidize them in addition to the tax burden. Government keeps its rates low through these means, drives private insurance out of business then you have either rising rates or lower service. Its the classic bait and switch and clearly most people seem to see this.

      As far as I am concerned once you have said public option you have removed yourself from serious debate. If anyone sees the federal government running existing entitlements on a financially sound not ruinous basis, call me. Until then, if cost containment is at all part of the equation, public option just is not a serious proposal .

      • Anonymous

        Rupert, when are you announcing your campaign for DeFazio’s seat?

  • Diana Moos

    Our Central Oregonian Representative sold us down the river to vote his party line

    • Steve Plunk

      Unless you are in favor of leaving a trillion dollars worth of debt to our children I can’t see this vote as anything but the right vote. There are many more reasons this Pelosi/Reid/Obama bill is atrocious if people were to take the time to understand it. It fixes nothing, costs nearly everything, and is nothing less than an attempt to socialize a good part of the economy.

      I think the trolls have decided to invade the catalyst with some misdirection.

      • Anonymous

        LMAO

      • I beg to differ

        “Unless you are in favor of leaving a trillion dollars worth of debt to our children ”

        There is no debt in this legislation. None. Zip. Nada. It runs a surplus after 10 years and more down the road according to the CBO estimate, which is the only trustworthy one available.

        “It fixes nothing…”
        Nothing that is except:
        It prevents insurance companies from denying coverage or rescinding coverage after the fact.
        It extends insurance availability to over 35 million Americans who lack it.
        It has cost and quality control measures.
        It stops an eggregious waste of taxpayer money in Medicare set up by Republicans.
        It plugs the “donut hole” in Medicare drug covereage (also set up by Republicans).
        It increases insurance options and affordability for individuals and small businesses.
        It establishes a public insurance option for those who want it.
        It stops the practice of emergency rooms as primary care centers, which costs all of us.

        It fixes a lot that is currently wrong. Yes it costs money. Yes it increases government involvement in health insurance. Yes it is far from perfect.

        And Waldon’s vote was nothing more than a party line back of the hand that ignored the people who lack medical coverage in his own district. Shame on him.

        • Steve Plunk

          The CBO’s cost estimate is one trillion dollars over ten years. Costs nothing? Serious comments only please.

          • i beg to differ

            I did not say it wouldn’t cost anything. I said there is no projected debt. The bill does not add to the deficit, which is what you claimed.

  • Home Lighting

    I am in favour of your article.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >that ignored the people who lack medical coverage in his own district. Shame on him.

    Oh good lord, stop the indignation. Failing to steal money from one group to hand it to another is hardly a moral outrage.

    Walden paid attention to the people who actually are going to wind up paying for this takeover. One should feel nothing but pride in voting against throwing yet more free stuff at a bunch of boo hoo’ers who probably have ridden in the boat all their lives and never got out to help the rest of us row.

    If you don’t have medical insurance, grow up and go buy some. If you have some condition from birth, I can have some sympathy. However if you were stupid and didn’t buy medical insurance and now have a condition that you want everyone else to pay for, sorry, I have no sympathy for you. You probably figured out with your first car in high school that you cant wait until after the accident to buy collision insurance. If you didn’t learn that then, well, your problem constitutes more a case of Darwin at work rather than responsibility on my part.

    • v person

      “Need on the part of another establishes responsibility to pay for it on my part? ”

      Yes. In our society, those with more have a responsibility to help out those with less. You may think this is unfair, but it has been public policy for many years.

      But in this case you are lucky. Unless you make more than I think 1 million a year you don’t have to chip into the pot to help others buy overpriced private health insurance. So don’t whine about what you are not paying for.

      I-phones are not a necessity. Food, shelter, and health care are.

      “Your desire to subsidize them does not constitute a moral premise to force those who do not have such desire.”

      Yes, actually it does. We have a “promoting the general welfare” clause in the constitution, and over time this has allowed majorities to compel themselves and others like yourself to chip into the pot even against your will based on a moral premise that the rich have a responsibility for the poor. Get over it or live your life as a bitter person counting your sheckels and raging at the loss of work farms, debtors prisons, and poor houses.

      “let’s be honest about this, you are stealing from one group to give to another ”

      OK. Lets actually be honest then, starting with yourself. It isn’t “stealing” if it is legal. If the law says you have to pay taxes to help support others then you pay or suffer the consequences. Just like if the law says I have to pay to support a foolish war I did not support, then I had better pay up or be prepared to suffer the consequences. Grow up Rupert. You are not the only one paying for things you don’t support or make use of. Or go find an uninhabited island somewhere you can occupy.

      Once again….the House bill is costing you nothing unless you make a million or more. So you have zero argument here in any case.

      • Anonymous

        Amen.

  • dartagnan

    “If you have some condition from birth, I can have some sympathy.”

    Gosh, that’s big of you, Rupe.

    You exhibit the classic right-wing blame-the-victim mentality. Have you looked at the cost of privately purchased health insurance lately? Has it occurred to you that many people whose employers do not provide health insurance (and an increasing number don’t) simply can’t afford to buy health insurance on their own? It’s not that they’re too stupid to buy it — they can’t afford it.

    I know, I know — it’s their fault for not being rich.

    • Steve Plunk

      Stating the reality of how insurance works is not “right-wing blame-the-victim mentality”. That high priced privately purchased health insurance you speak of will cost even more under the House plan. Of course private insurers will only be around a short while so soon enough it will all come from the government and cost even more. Those who get subsidized won’t see the cost but overall the country will be paying it.

      As much as liberals want to make life fair for everyone conservatives want people to understand it’s an impossible dream. Why should I subsidize some guys health care who abuses his body or goes to the doctor too much? Health care should remain a personal responsibility not a government one.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >You exhibit the classic right-wing blame-the-victim mentality.

      Actually no, I am exhibiting classic protect the victim mentality.

      Person A buys health insurance.

      Person B does not.

      Person B gets sick.

      Once Sick, person B demands to buy health insurance at the same rate as person A, thus demanding person A subsidize person B’s folly.

      It’s a straight up rip off, Person B is trying to steal from A by demanding the same rates as A.

      You are the one trying to blame the victim here, I am simply defending them. Please, don’t try everyone’s patience with trying to make out those who would steal from others as altruistic, it’s a little much.

      >Have you looked at the cost of privately purchased health insurance lately?

      I do so every month. I buy my own insurance. It’s actually not that expensive. It would be even cheaper if I were to buy across state lines so as to avoid nonsense State mandates. Of course that would empower me rather than empower those who seek to take over the health care system so those options are never discussed.

      > Has it occurred to you that many people whose employers do not provide health insurance (and an increasing number don’t) simply can’t afford to buy health insurance on their own?

      Need on the part of another establishes responsibility to pay for it on my part? That doesn’t make a lot of sense, but id like you to buy me an iPhone. Younger people tend to use those and being 48 I feel Id be more youthfull with iphone in hand. I need one, buy it for me.

      Oh, and speaking of the younger set, they constitute a rather signifigant proportion of the uninsured pool, around 20% as I recall. Sorry, any young whippersnapper that can afford a $60 month phone bill ( thats about what an iPhone costs on service ) has no sympathy for me when they whine about not being able to pay for insurance.

      >It’s not that they’re too stupid to buy it — they can’t afford it.

      Their need does not constitute responsibility on my part. Sorry.

      Your desire to subsidize them does not constitute a moral premise to force those who do not have such desire.

      I think its great you care about people who don’t have insurance. Where you are going wrong is in thinking your concern about other peoples health insurance needs constitutes a right to steal from other people to pay for it.

      I’m not denying people of your mindset do not have the political power to do so, you do. However let’s be honest about this, you are stealing from one group to give to another to assuage your concerns about their situation. It is hardly a moral endeavor, in fact it is one of the more base forms of human nature. You can dress it up all you want, but that’s all you are really doing here, stealing and trying to make yourself believe their is a moral authority for it.

      • dartagnan

        “id like you to buy me an iPhone. Younger people tend to use those and being 48 I feel Id be more youthfull with iphone in hand. I need one, buy it for me.”

        Ah, the old reductio ad absurdum tactic.

        Whether or not you have an iPhone is hardly a matter of life or death, Rupe. Like everything else you say, this comparison bespeaks your utter selfishness and complete lack of empathy or compassion for your fellow human beings.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Awww, the old I care more about people than you do argument. How sweet. Kind of makes me feel all misty.

          Well, I notice you didn’t really address any of my responses, especially when you got caught with your pants down on the fact that I pay for my own insurance so I practice what I preach. Seems to me you like to hurl a lot of “classic blame the victim” and I’m more empathetic than you stuff around but not a lot more than that.

          Bottom line, taking money from one group to give to another to assuage an empathy deficit is hardly compassion. Trying to force people into a health care system you want when 80% of the people are satisfied with what they have is simply love of coercion, not empathy.

  • rural resident

    If Republicans believe so much in tort reform, selling insurance across state lines, and other parts of their (cough) “plan,” as the solution to out-of-control private health insurance premiums, why didn’t they do something about it during the six years they had virtually complete control of the federal government earlier in this decade? Kind of makes me think they aren’t really that committed to it.

    • Steve Plunk

      Having the presidency and congress doesn’t mean you can pass anything you want. Tort reform has always been declared DOA by Dems. Now that the Dems are demanding reform the Republicans have offered up a plan only to be told too late? That’s poor logic. Compare the plans and see which is a common sense, measured plan and which is a huge gamble wrapped in 2000 pages of legalese.

      Health care is a personal responsibility, not a government mandate. Socializing health care to the degree proposed is a serious mistake.

      • v person

        Tort reform is resisted by Democrats, and health reform that extends insurance more widely is resisted by Republicans. But when Republicans ruled the roost they failed to bring forward any legislation to advance their particular version of health reform. Doing so now is phony. Its not meant to be a serious alternative. its meant to make them sound reasonable.

        Your bottom line represents the Republican philosophy well. The problem is it leaves a lot of Americans without proper health care, and thousands die early as a consequence. Whatever happened to being “pro-life”?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >But when Republicans ruled the roost they failed to bring forward any legislation to advance their particular version of health reform.

          Yet another thing you just made up.

          Bush did more on medical issues than any president has since the great society.

          Expansion of MSA’s, the prescription drug plan and increasing the deductibility of insurance for individuals. You might not like all those things, I might not either, they might not be effective or they might be, but to say Republicans did nothing is simply not true.

          • v person

            Ok Rupert, I grant you that Republicans passeda few bills. I’ll even grant that one of those bills was rather expensive (unecesarily so). But the subject ehre is about Greg Walden bragging about this new Republican reform plan? I mean if they fixed everything already, there should be no need right? Why aren’t they just saying there is no problem. We fixed it already?

      • rural resident

        In the case of the Republicans from 2003-2007, having the Presidency and the Congress DID mean passing anything they REALLY cared about. Having 60 senators on your side is important only when there is a strong opposition party. The Dems of this period were dispirited, disorganized, generally leaderless and, most important, so timid that they were afraid of their own shadows. (Unfortunately, they’re still acting this way.)

        The Rs were able to push through tax cuts and other key legislation through the use of reconciliation because they just didn’t give a rip about the “sanctity” of “60 votes.” They knew that the Dems weren’t able to generate enough grass roots (or fake grass roots) opposition to anything the Rs did.

        Given that political environment, had the Rs been committed to these ideas–and to the concept that something actually needed to be done about our health care and health care payment systems–there was no effective force present to stop them. The reason they did nothing to enact such legislation is that, once they did, its ineffectiveness would become obvious. Tort reform, health savings accounts (I wonder how long it would take a low- or middle-income wage earner to save enough money to pay for heart surgery or lengthy cancer treatments?), and insurance sales across state lines are the kinds of fake solutions Republicans use to distract voters from solutions that will help improve health care access in this country.

  • Dan

    It’s a useless debate. Obviously we, as a culture, are not made of the same stuff as those who risked life and fortune with no guarantee of success when they rebelled against the tyranny of George III, or packed up belongings for a treacherous journey to the unsettled West in search of opportunities -not necessarily for themselves but for their progeny, or journeyed over the ocean in the first place to settle a land with unknown dangers in an attempt to find new freedom. Today we want everything . . . now . . . and have no moral compunction about having generations yet unborn pay for it. We deserve whatever we get.

  • Jerry

    This whole thing is stupid. There is not a single reason for anyone from government to be involved in health care at all.

    • Anonymous

      I agree. Do away with medicare, the VA, and government employee health plans, limit emergency room liabilities (i.e. if you go to the ER you’re taking your chances), put a cap on malpractice awards, and shorten pharmaceutical patent life spans..

      • rural resident

        If we’re going to get government out of health care entirely, there shouldn’t be any limits on tort awards. They’re just the free market at work. Those suing get awards based on their ability to make a case and convince a judge/jury. (Unless you believe that we shold go all the way and eliminate all courts period, since they’re “government”.)

        And as for those patents–why would we have patents at all? They’re a government device to protect intellectual property. There would be no patents at all in a “no government in health care” world.

  • Dan

    We really aren’t talking about health CARE anyway. We’re talking about health REPAIR. Health CARE is the part we should be individually doing (eating right, exercising, minimizing risky behaviors and unhealthy substances, and regular checkups) in order to better avoid the heath REPAIR industry which sometimes can restore health, sometimes cannot and, on rare occasions, can make things worse. In reality providing free health REPAIR will not effect the overall health of the public because the health CARE being the responsibility of the individual is not being encouraged to change.

    • rural resident

      This IS about health CARE, using your definition. People with meaningful health insurance coverage are more likely to get regular checkups and prevent small problems from becoming larger ones that cost everyone much more money in the long run. Knowing that they won’t have huge bills from health evaluations and minor procedures encourages people to get the counseling they need to adopt wellness strategies that do exactly what you seem to hope everyone will do.

  • Daniel Schmieding

    If that’s all there is to it (just getting the 30 or 40 million uninsured in to see the doctor once in a while it shouldn’t take 1900 pages of legislation and a wholesale takeover of the whole industry. I think there’s a bit more to it than that . . . Like power and control.

    • anonymous

      Its also about preventing insurance companies from excluding people out or kicking them off. Its about offering some security that if you lose your job you don’t go without health care. Its about patching a lot of holes in the current system.

  • Dan

    Ok so if I were to paraphrase: “Please almighty government, come and help us live happy and fulfilling lives. We can no longer manage our own affairs and must have more of your mandates to guide us. Please patch all the holes in the system and take all risk, sadness and disease from our lives. We will pay any price that we not be abandoned in our time of need. We beseech thee oh government to relieve all our afflictions and drive out those companies that seek only our destruction so our days will be long on the earth. Please government do not forsake us to our own devices and innovations for that would surely be our doom. And while you’re at it oh government, keep afloat those companies that are too big to fail that would leave us adrift in a sea of calamity. Amen” Am I getting close to the goal? Geeze, it’s a miracle our country survived the the first 100 or so years with such a limited government.

    • Anonymous

      We had slaves to get us through the tough times, genius.

    • Anonymous

      At least until those pesky abolitionists started making all that noise… civil war… et cetera.

    • anonymous 2

      “”Please almighty government, come and help us live happy and fulfilling lives. We can no longer manage our own affairs and must have more of your mandates to guide us.”

      Somewhere between we are utterly helpless and we want the government to do everything and we are all rugged John Waynes who need nothing as long as we have our horse and 6-gun is a good place to shoot for. The legislation on the table is somewhere in between. It won’t do everything for us, and it does not leave us at the tender mercies of private insurance companies any longer.

  • Dan

    That’s probably the biggest non sequitur I’ve read in a while. That’s the best you can do?

  • dan

    And, since you didn’t actually refute my little attempt at paraphrasing, shall I assume that I have nailed the real mindset and motivation of the government-provided healthcare advocate?

    • anonymous 2

      One can’t refute an opinion, paraphrased or otherwise. One can refute facts or evidence with counter facts or counter evidence. You offered opinion, not any facts or evidence as a basis for it, so why would you expect to be refuted?

  • Dan

    You got me on that one. However even facts, like statistics, must be interpreted and are not always as black and white as they are presented when filtered though our frame of reference. The emotion of fear is not subject to refutation either but is probably (opinion here) the basis for most of the arguments in favor of government sponsored health care. The demonizing of certain institutions as a way of validating the fear -and creating victim status- is a subjective interpretation . . . especially in light of polls that show the majority of consumers are at least OK with the quality of their private health insurance.

  • Dan

    Opps, to be complete I’d better site my poll sources: Gallup Jan. 2009; Joint USA Today, ABC, Kaiser Family Fund Oct. 2006; Harris Jan. 2002

    • anonymous 2

      Sure, facts alone are seldom enough. Support for major health care reform, along the lines of what is in Congress, is based on both fact and values. The fact part is our high cost, low coverage system. Given how much we pay, why are there so many cracks for people to fall through? The values part is the desire to have a social safety net more like that of other advanced nations. I subscribe to both facts and values. I have not heard any convincing arguments for why we should not pass reform. And the least convincing argument is the one you seem to be advancing, which is that we are in some sort of danger of losing our core freedoms by asking too much of our government. I agree that is theoretically possible. I just don’t agree we are anywhere near that point. People in Denmark are quite free.

  • peter

    Oregon unemployment is improving, but conditions vary throughout the state according to this heat map:
    https://www.localetrends.com/st/or_oregon_unemployment.php?MAP_TYPE=curr_ue

  • Voice? First let the voices speak-but; that would be very frightening due to counter opinions, that differ from those who lobby to you. Many Company’s have Lobbied so well, that with no threat of Tort-due to your smoothing their agenda through-that they don’t even have to call 911-such as Conagra in Boardman. The Boardman Company has directed all Shift Manager’s not to call 911 during an Emergency! Tort no more! Health Care you purpose is another means for Larger Industry who have knocked on your door, and you have sided with-to get what they want; because financially they matter/back/support!

  • Your Office told me, (Disabled after an Major Life alerting Assault) that not one Governing Office would help me get Justice, not Restitution!
    OWCP, a Federal Insurer that the Government pay’s for told me that they absolutely do not care that what happened to me was due to Negligence by many of my Supervisors-that this Assailant had been Terminated, and wasn’t even on the Security Roster when he Bashed in my Head/Face, and moved my Body, placed me behind the Rear Passenger Tire-backed on top of me, went back off, (after a full minute) and then delayed Aide by 45 minutes at least, even sent them to the opposite end of the Umatilla Army Depot!
    One of the Supervising Staff that placed my Assailant with me, (in order for me to get “fed up-and quit my Job” moved the Four Door Dodge Ram off scene, and then placed it back in the wrong direction-warning the other SGT, to keep his mouth shut!
    OWCP told me that I could drop off of their Roster-and apply for a Job at 7 Eleven-they do not have to remedy my 14 years of Military time lost, or Retrain me-NO AIDE from them, Attempt of Murder or not!
    There’s a Voice!

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)