Right to Healthcare

 

In the last election, a majority of voters in Oregon chose to add a right to affordable healthcare to the state constitution, the first state in the nation to do so. It is short and simple:

SECTION 47. (1) It is the obligation of the state to ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right.

(2) The obligation of the state described in subsection (1) of this section must be balanced against the public interest in funding public schools and other essential public services, and any remedy arising from an action brought against the state to enforce the provisions of this section may not interfere with the balance described in this subsection.

It must have been written by trial lawyers. There will be endless litigation. There was already a movement in the state for statewide single-payer health care. This will inevitably lead to it. I predict it will cost the state untold billions of dollars. California can afford expensive, crazy stuff because they get so much money from Silicon Valley billionaires and millionaires. Oregon can’t. The tax burden will fall on the middle class.

I am a fifth-generation Oregonian and I love my state, but I can’t abide the direction it has taken. I stay only to be close to my family (generations six and seven). I can only hope that I die before healthcare goes totally in the toilet.

Published in Healthcare
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 83 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    On top of that, with the SuperPac situation such that a vast majority of donated monies now comes to the candidates from non-identifiable entities, unless we somehow figure our way out of the SCOTUS Citizens United decision, the citizenry now has only the smallest of voices reaching those we elect.

    Citizens United is what gives the citizenry a voice.  

    • #61
  2. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

     

     

     

     

     

    • #62
  3. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Bypassing any quibbles about the detailed wording, two major problems with stating that a person has a fundamental right to receive something (such as healthcare or education or food or housing or clean water or whatever):

    One is the moral problem RushBabe pointed out in comment #3, that empowers the person with the right to enslave someone to provide it (either the provider directly, or other people to pay the provider).

    The other is the practical problem that either the person with the “fundamental right” has the right to unlimited amounts of the thing and at whatever level of quality the person chooses, or there has to be a mechanism to determine what the appropriate amount and quality of the “fundamental right” the person can claim. Which means someone has to decide. Who? On what criteria? In the case of medical care, this is where “death panels” and rationing and long wait times for diagnosis and/or treatment come in.

     

    Excellent points. A pox on this proliferation of “rights”, which demonstrate a misunderstanding of what a “right” is. 

    • #63
  4. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Just out of curiosity, what’s the difference between healthcare and medical care?

    And what’s the difference between health insurance and medical insurance.

    And if healthcare is a right, does that mean that someone can compel another to provide it?

    And can someone be compelled to receive “health care”?

    Apparently so, whether it’s the covid inoculation or abortion or euthanasia.

    • #64
  5. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Bypassing any quibbles about the detailed wording, two major problems with stating that a person has a fundamental right to receive something (such as healthcare or education or food or housing or clean water or whatever):

    One is the moral problem RushBabe pointed out in comment #3, that empowers the person with the right to enslave someone to provide it (either the provider directly, or other people to pay the provider).

    The other is the practical problem that either the person with the “fundamental right” has the right to unlimited amounts of the thing and at whatever level of quality the person chooses, or there has to be a mechanism to determine what the appropriate amount and quality of the “fundamental right” the person can claim. Which means someone has to decide. Who? On what criteria? In the case of medical care, this is where “death panels” and rationing and long wait times for diagnosis and/or treatment come in.

     

    Excellent points. A pox on this proliferation of “rights”, which demonstrate a misunderstanding of what a “right” is.

    Seems like this got moving at high speed when Obama started babbling about “positive rights”. 

    • #65
  6. db25db Inactive
    db25db
    @db25db

    Even California can’t afford universal health care.  All efforts there have failed due to the enormous price tag

    • #66
  7. db25db Inactive
    db25db
    @db25db

    I’ve lived in the NW my whole life (30 yrs in OR, 13 in WA).  The one thing that is 100% predictable is that a majority of voters will vote for anything done in the name of healthcare and education.  They will also pass any gun restriction on the ballot.  100% of the time.  everytime.  There is a critical mass of voters in the state that vote via feelings (read: D and D leaning independants).

    Most Democrats I know believe strongly in the concept of HIPPA rights.  However, a few years ago here in WA state voters happily forced gun owners to waive their HIPPA rights for life if they purchase a gun.  At any point now until I am dead the dept of health and human services can check my mental health records without my consent anytime they want.  These are feelings voters.  Even though these initiatives have not reduced violent crime in WA state (quite the opposite), don’t be shocked when the next gun restriction passes to prevent the thing the last 10 restrictions haven’t.  You can’t reason these people out of their feelings.  As someone once said you can’t reason one out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

    Same thing with healthcare in Oregon.  It feels good to vote for universal access to HC into the constitution, even though it will not lead to positive HC outcomes in Oregon.

    • #67
  8. Al French Moderator
    Al French
    @AlFrench

    Gazpacho Grande' (View Comment):

    SECTION 47. (1) It is the obligation of the state to ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right.

    (2) The obligation of the state described in subsection (1) of this section must be balanced against the public interest in funding public schools and other essential public services, and any remedy arising from an action brought against the state to enforce the provisions of this section may not interfere with the balance described in this subsection.

     

    This reads more like giving the state unlimited control of access to healthcare, not ensuring it’s available.

    I’d ask this: What current resident of Oregon is prevented from accessing healthcare? Any remedy should only apply to a situation where access has been removed.

    Which doesn’t exist. Because anyone can see a doctor, in some way, shape, or form.

    The only people who don’t have access to healthcare in Oregon are those without the necessary money.

    • #68
  9. Al French Moderator
    Al French
    @AlFrench

    Gazpacho Grande' (View Comment):
    When complaints about hospital overheads arise, think about how much financial and regulatory work is involved simply in the filing of a CON.  Which gets reviewed by “experts” at the state level, then voted on/approved (I’m assuming via different apparatus by state).

     You left out the crucial part: The competitors of the hospital seeking a certificate of need get to weigh in against it. The same competitors who are making big contributions to the politicians making the decisions.

    • #69
  10. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Government Is How We Steal From Each Other™

    • #70
  11. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Gazpacho Grande' (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    This should lead to health care providers exiting the state. I suppose we’ll see.

    I’m not a lawyer so I may have this wrong, but I thought that there were supposed to be legal remedies when fundamental rights are violated or abridged. What will the remedy be? Suppose doctors simply move to other states and health care is no longer available in Oregon. Can the doctors or health care providers be sued for violating the right of Oregon’s citizens to health care?

    On a broader note, what gives anyone the right to the time and labor of another human being?

    Ask the IRS.

    The IRS would probably point to the 16th Amendment, but I don’t think that forces one to work as it just gives congress the right to steal the fruits of your labor. 

    • #71
  12. Al French Moderator
    Al French
    @AlFrench

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Just out of curiosity, what’s the difference between healthcare and medical care?

    And what’s the difference between health insurance and medical insurance.

    And if healthcare is a right, does that mean that someone can compel another to provide it?

    And can someone be compelled to receive “health care”?

    I hope not. There are some who would like to compel “dignity in dying”, which is sold as healthcare.

    • #72
  13. Al French Moderator
    Al French
    @AlFrench

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    It surprised me how many states have these. I can’t immediately see a consistent correlation between these and the ER wait times?

    Certificate of Need laws give the State the power to approve any and all health-care facilities, especially hospitals. Those laws serve mostly to reduce competition among hospitals, and preserve the fiefs of existing large hospital systems. The State determines the “need” or not, for new facilities, ensuring that no additional ER beds are made available for epidemics or natural disasters.

    Is the objective to discourage over-servicing by hospitals, to ensure that all beds turn a profit, even when they aren’t necessary to patient recovery?

    Certificates of need came in to being after the advent of Medicare. The reason was that Medicare had no financial controls: Any bill that was submitted was paid, no questions asked. Medical cost inflation tripled and there was a massive expansion in the number of hospitals, clinics, imaging centers, medical schools. It was the golden financial age of Medicine. Because everyone and their brother wanted to build a hospital and get in on the action, which was like having direct access to an ATM with unlimited funds. So ironically the State interest in providing medical care led to limitation of a success. But the advent of Medicare was due to the prior existence of employer provided health insurance that been driving up medical costs for 37 years and had priced the elderly, disabled, retired, eg those that did not have employer provided insurance, out of the market.

    I would that Oregon would require all doctors to accept Medicaid under the threat of loss of licensure if the State has not already done so, then expand Medicaid and mandate Medicaid rates for all. Or something of the sort. Then of course single payer only.

    This.

    (I’m pretty sure that Oregon hasn’t required doctors to accept medicaid.)

    • #73
  14. Al French Moderator
    Al French
    @AlFrench

    db25db (View Comment):

    Even California can’t afford universal health care. All efforts there have failed due to the enormous price tag

    Oregon: “Hold my beer.”

    • #74
  15. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Al French (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Just out of curiosity, what’s the difference between healthcare and medical care?

    And what’s the difference between health insurance and medical insurance.

    And if healthcare is a right, does that mean that someone can compel another to provide it?

    And can someone be compelled to receive “health care”?

    I hope not. There are some who would like to compel “dignity in dying”, which is sold as healthcare.

    Aborted infants are subjected to mandatory reproductive health procedures.  And the covid inoculations were mandatory (or technically, coerced) as well.

    • #75
  16. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    db25db (View Comment):
    However, a few years ago here in WA state voters happily forced gun owners to waive their HIPPA rights for life if they purchase a gun.  At any point now until I am dead the dept of health and human services can check my mental health records without my consent anytime they want. 

    How is that legal?  HIPPA’s a Federal law – State law can’t overrule the Federal law.

     

    • #76
  17. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Al French (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Just out of curiosity, what’s the difference between healthcare and medical care?

    And what’s the difference between health insurance and medical insurance.

    And if healthcare is a right, does that mean that someone can compel another to provide it?

    And can someone be compelled to receive “health care”?

    I hope not. There are some who would like to compel “dignity in dying”, which is sold as healthcare.

    Exactly.  

    • #77
  18. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Just out of curiosity, what’s the difference between healthcare and medical care?

    And what’s the difference between health insurance and medical insurance.

    And if healthcare is a right, does that mean that someone can compel another to provide it?

    And can someone be compelled to receive “health care”?

    Apparently so, whether it’s the covid inoculation or abortion or euthanasia.

    Exactly.  

    • #78
  19. db25db Inactive
    db25db
    @db25db

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    db25db (View Comment):
    However, a few years ago here in WA state voters happily forced gun owners to waive their HIPPA rights for life if they purchase a gun. At any point now until I am dead the dept of health and human services can check my mental health records without my consent anytime they want.

    How is that legal? HIPPA’s a Federal law – State law can’t overrule the Federal law.

    I1639 requires a waiver of HIPPA rights to purchase a handgun or gun classified as an assault weapon.  When I bought my last handgun I had to sign one to complete the purchase and the ‘expanded’ background check.  There are better sources than wikipedia obviously, but heres enough to get you started if your curious.  passed 60%/40% btw.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_1639

    It shouldn’t be legal, and it may someday get struck down by the Supreme Court.  But then maybe not, they only pick up a few cases a year.  This happens all the time in America.  There are many unconstitutional laws passed that stand until a court takes up a challenge, and many of them are never taken up.  WA state constitution has a strong guns rights ammendment as well.  it doesn’t matter if no one respects it.  Which is what happens today.  Democrats in WA state care about rights that don’t actually exist, like abortion, Healthcare, food, etc.  Actual enshrined rights they attack.  But hey democra y; majority rules

    • #79
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    db25db (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    db25db (View Comment):
    However, a few years ago here in WA state voters happily forced gun owners to waive their HIPPA rights for life if they purchase a gun. At any point now until I am dead the dept of health and human services can check my mental health records without my consent anytime they want.

    How is that legal? HIPPA’s a Federal law – State law can’t overrule the Federal law.

    I1639 requires a waiver of HIPPA rights to purchase a handgun or gun classified as an assault weapon. When I bought my last handgun I had to sign one to complete the purchase and the ‘expanded’ background check. There are better sources than wikipedia obviously, but heres enough to get you started if your curious. passed 60%/40% btw.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_1639

    It shouldn’t be legal, and it may someday get struck down by the Supreme Court. But then maybe not, they only pick up a few cases a year. This happens all the time in America. There are many unconstitutional laws passed that stand until a court takes up a challenge, and many of them are never taken up. WA state constitution has a strong guns rights ammendment as well. it doesn’t matter if no one respects it. Which is what happens today. Democrats in WA state care about rights that don’t actually exist, like abortion, Healthcare, food, etc. Actual enshrined rights they attack. But hey democra y; majority rules

    Except of course the majority isn’t supposed to be unconstitutional.  That’s one reason why it’s supposed to be a Republic.  “If we can keep it.”

    • #80
  21. db25db Inactive
    db25db
    @db25db

    kedavis (View Comment):

    db25db (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    db25db (View Comment):
    However, a few years ago here in WA state voters happily forced gun owners to waive their HIPPA rights for life if they purchase a gun. At any point now until I am dead the dept of health and human services can check my mental health records without my consent anytime they want.

    How is that legal? HIPPA’s a Federal law – State law can’t overrule the Federal law.

    I1639 requires a waiver of HIPPA rights to purchase a handgun or gun classified as an assault weapon. When I bought my last handgun I had to sign one to complete the purchase and the ‘expanded’ background check. There are better sources than wikipedia obviously, but heres enough to get you started if your curious. passed 60%/40% btw.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_1639

    It shouldn’t be legal, and it may someday get struck down by the Supreme Court. But then maybe not, they only pick up a few cases a year. This happens all the time in America. There are many unconstitutional laws passed that stand until a court takes up a challenge, and many of them are never taken up. WA state constitution has a strong guns rights ammendment as well. it doesn’t matter if no one respects it. Which is what happens today. Democrats in WA state care about rights that don’t actually exist, like abortion, Healthcare, food, etc. Actual enshrined rights they attack. But hey democra y; majority rules

    Except of course the majority isn’t supposed to be unconstitutional. That’s one reason why it’s supposed to be a Republic. “If we can keep it.”

    I of course agree.  In reality though the US is quite majoritarian, especially in areas that skew heavily in one direction (states, college campuses, etc).  the Constitution or any law for that matter only holds so long as anyone actually respects it.  I’d wager most Americans know nothing about their charter documents.

    • #81
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    db25db (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    db25db (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    db25db (View Comment):
    However, a few years ago here in WA state voters happily forced gun owners to waive their HIPPA rights for life if they purchase a gun. At any point now until I am dead the dept of health and human services can check my mental health records without my consent anytime they want.

    How is that legal? HIPPA’s a Federal law – State law can’t overrule the Federal law.

    I1639 requires a waiver of HIPPA rights to purchase a handgun or gun classified as an assault weapon. When I bought my last handgun I had to sign one to complete the purchase and the ‘expanded’ background check. There are better sources than wikipedia obviously, but heres enough to get you started if your curious. passed 60%/40% btw.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_1639

    It shouldn’t be legal, and it may someday get struck down by the Supreme Court. But then maybe not, they only pick up a few cases a year. This happens all the time in America. There are many unconstitutional laws passed that stand until a court takes up a challenge, and many of them are never taken up. WA state constitution has a strong guns rights ammendment as well. it doesn’t matter if no one respects it. Which is what happens today. Democrats in WA state care about rights that don’t actually exist, like abortion, Healthcare, food, etc. Actual enshrined rights they attack. But hey democra y; majority rules

    Except of course the majority isn’t supposed to be unconstitutional. That’s one reason why it’s supposed to be a Republic. “If we can keep it.”

    I of course agree. In reality though the US is quite majoritarian, especially in areas that skew heavily in one direction (states, college campuses, etc). the Constitution or any law for that matter only holds so long as anyone actually respects it. I’d wager most Americans know nothing about their charter documents.

    But they “discover” them real fast if anything they don’t like is done.

    • #82
  23. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    db25db (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    db25db (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    db25db (View Comment):
    However, a few years ago here in WA state voters happily forced gun owners to waive their HIPPA rights for life if they purchase a gun. At any point now until I am dead the dept of health and human services can check my mental health records without my consent anytime they want.

    How is that legal? HIPPA’s a Federal law – State law can’t overrule the Federal law.

    I1639 requires a waiver of HIPPA rights to purchase a handgun or gun classified as an assault weapon. When I bought my last handgun I had to sign one to complete the purchase and the ‘expanded’ background check. There are better sources than wikipedia obviously, but heres enough to get you started if your curious. passed 60%/40% btw.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_1639

    It shouldn’t be legal, and it may someday get struck down by the Supreme Court. But then maybe not, they only pick up a few cases a year. This happens all the time in America. There are many unconstitutional laws passed that stand until a court takes up a challenge, and many of them are never taken up. WA state constitution has a strong guns rights ammendment as well. it doesn’t matter if no one respects it. Which is what happens today. Democrats in WA state care about rights that don’t actually exist, like abortion, Healthcare, food, etc. Actual enshrined rights they attack. But hey democra y; majority rules

    Except of course the majority isn’t supposed to be unconstitutional. That’s one reason why it’s supposed to be a Republic. “If we can keep it.”

    I of course agree. In reality though the US is quite majoritarian, especially in areas that skew heavily in one direction (states, college campuses, etc). the Constitution or any law for that matter only holds so long as anyone actually respects it. I’d wager most Americans know nothing about their charter documents.

    https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1199

    • #83
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.