News, Oregon Could Be 1st State to Make Health Care a Human Right. (Salem: health insurance, to buy)

[JD59]

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon voters are being asked to decide whether the state should be the first in the nation to amend its constitution to explicitly declare that affordable health care is a fundamental human right.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-n...-a-human-right

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by JD59

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon voters are being asked to decide whether the state should be the first in the nation to amend its constitution to explicitly declare that affordable health care is a fundamental human right.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-n...-a-human-right

If this were to actually pass; it would just be another bullet point in the "Oregon is Cra Cra" checklist.

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

If this were to actually pass; it would just be another bullet point in the "Oregon is Cra Cra" checklist.

And it would mean nothing, as a mere statement. It would not provide medical care to anyone that doesn't have it now or make any other changes to the health care system there.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

And it would mean nothing, as a mere statement. It would not provide medical care to anyone that doesn't have it now or make any other changes to the health care system there.

Ohh it would mean something over the years. Leftists use crap like this to initiate bureaucracies, rules, laws etc. to enshrine the "right." Most bureaucracies, freedom limiting movements and overzealous regulations start this way.


The Left, like China, is in a 100 or even 1000 year war with the US.

[Luckystrike1]

What I definitely DON'T WANT is for this 'plan' to replace private insurance! I have great health insurance through mine, which is a retirement medical advantage, and I highly doubt that a state health alternative would be as good.

I also like the comment Hayward made about the insurance not guaranteeing access. I've found the healthcare system in general to be in p---poor shape anymore since the pandemic, with long waiting times and less staff. It all needs to be fixed before a government system could take over ~ or else we'd all be screwed!

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by Luckystrike1

What I definitely DON'T WANT is for this 'plan' to replace private insurance! I have great health insurance through mine, which is a retirement medical advantage, and I highly doubt that a state health alternative would be as good.

I also like the comment Hayward made about the insurance not guaranteeing access. I've found the healthcare system in general to be in p---poor shape anymore since the pandemic, with long waiting times and less staff. It all needs to be fixed before a government system could take over ~ or else we'd all be screwed!

It isn't a plan. It is just a "thought" that will cause a lawsuit at some point in the near future. I have to buy insurance on the ACA platform since I own a business and it is not what I would call affordable. I personally would love a different option, but I can't believe the bill passed. This is lawsuit territory for sure. Oregon will have to figure out how to expand the Oregon Health Plan for people to buy in, I guess.

There have not been enough nurses and primary care doctors for a while. It was a problem long before Covid. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[sam812]

LOL, making health care a human right boils down to one thing. Those that go to work and pay taxes get to pay for those that don't. YEA

[AnythingOutdoors]

Who defines "affordable?"

The issue with designating services, such as healthcare, a fundamental human right is that you can't force those providing the service to work without also violating their fundamental human rights. Therefore you can't make it affordable by mandating lower pay for healthcare workers and suppliers because they will just go elsewhere, resulting in healthcare shortages. The only way to make this "work" is for the state to fund it, which means much higher taxes. Will taxpayers stick around for this, especially high earning individuals who can easily relocate?

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Who defines "affordable?"

The issue with designating services, such as healthcare, a fundamental human right is that you can't force those providing the service to work without also violating their fundamental human rights. Therefore you can't make it affordable by mandating lower pay for healthcare workers and suppliers because they will just go elsewhere, resulting in healthcare shortages. The only way to make this "work" is for the state to fund it, which means much higher taxes. Will taxpayers stick around for this, especially high earning individuals who can easily relocate?

It depends on the quality of the healthcare. Scandinavian counties, Canada, etc pay in because they generally believe that the quality of service they get is good. People will pay for good service. If it is good, high earners will stay and pay in. If it isn't good, high earners will have the option to leave.

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

It depends on the quality of the healthcare. Scandinavian counties, Canada, etc pay in because they generally believe that the quality of service they get is good. People will pay for good service. If it is good, high earners will stay and pay in. If it isn't good, high earners will have the option to leave.

Sure. To be clear I'm not necessary against it. But success largely depends on voters being willing to pay for it, and assuming someone else (e.g. "rich people") will bear the burden doesn't really work. Which is why Scandinavian countries have much higher taxes, including for low/middle earners. Are Oregonian's actually prepared to pay for this, or is it just another feel-good initiative?