Massive Health Care Bill Discussed In Salem

Oregon lawmakers are beginning what’s expected to be a long and tedious debate over health care.

The centerpiece is a 256-page bill that would raise taxes and create a new government agency.  It got its first public hearing Monday.  Salem correspondent Chris Lehman reports.


Advocates say this bill would pave the way for universal health care in Oregon as soon as four years from now.

To get there, lawmakers are considering a plan that would create an entity called the Oregon Health Authority.  

The idea is to streamline all health care functions of state government under one organizational umbrella.  Even lawmakers who support the idea concede it might be a tough sell.  

Tina Kotek is a Democratic Representative from Portland.

Rep. Tina Kotek:  “Unfortunately I think what we’re seeing in the bill is very much like, we’re gonna create a new agency.  I don’t think that’s the goal, but that’s the way it looks right now.”

The bill also includes tax hikes on hospitals and cigarettes.  The money would go towards covering more people under the Oregon Health Plan.  

Democrats failed in their last attempt to raise cigarette taxes but they have a Republican-proof majority this time around.


Online:

Oregon House Bill 2009

Comments

January 27, 2009
1 p.m.
After hearing this news story, I had to comment about the statement at the end, regarding the failure of the cigarette tax and my contribution to that failure. This was a tough decision to make when the ballots came around, because I support universal healthcare and I think a cigarette tax is a fair way to fund it, but in the end, my conscience demanded a no vote. This was because the popular American sentiment has been such that if children have health coverage, there is no need to extend state coverage to all. The last bill would have paid only for children's health coverage, making me fearful that any future attempts to give healthcare to all Oregonians would be shot down under the logic that if the employed adults have coverage, and all children have coverage, then why must we cover those adults who "choose" to not be employed? Being sick of this line of reasoning that treats unemployment as a choice - it isn't for the vast majority of unemployed persons - and that treats children as being more important than the rest of us, I had to vote no in the hopes that a better bill would come up. Children are valued members of our community, with all the promise that youth holds, and they deserve health coverage, but no more so than a homeless person down on his luck, or a single mother who can just barely make ends meet but can't afford to pay for her own healthcare. Let's make a better bill that covers all Oregonians. Such a bill might pass the popular vote. At least, it would get my vote.

— Posted by CKHersey


Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post.

Login or register to set up an account.

© 2009, Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Search · Inside OPB · Report Reception Problems · Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Contact Us · Pressroom · Employment · Community · Audio Streams · RSS Feeds


PBSNPRPRIBBC