[lbo-talk] Oregon's health care proposal

[Gar Lipow]

On 8/6/05, Alex <zap_path at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Pugliese wrote:
> 
> So how come single payer initiative got slaughtered in
> Oregon, 80-20% a few yrs. ago?
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> I can't say why other voters made that choice, but I
> can comment on why I voted against the proposal.
> 
> First, shortly before the election the measure was
> polling to be a fairly tight contest, so it didn't
> seem like a good idea to make a symbolic statement of
> support if I didn't want the proposal to actually
> pass.  If I had known it would go down to such a
> spectacular defeat, I would certainly have voted yes.
> 
> Second, having a state health care system rather than
> a national one is problematic.  For example, will
> patients needing very expensive care move to Oregon?
> 
> Lastly, the proposal was very ill-defined and left
> most of the decisions about how the program would
> actually be run to a committee to be formed after
> passage.  If Oregon implemented a single payer system
> that was a prominent disaster, it would be harmful to
> efforts to establish a national program.
> 
> Unfortunately, the huge margin of defeat is now
> regularly cited as evidence that voters don't want
> national health care.  It's not clear to me that the
> vote should be interpreted this way.
> 
> -Alex
> 

Alex  you were wrong in thinking it would have been a disaster if
implemented. First Canadian single payer was implemented one state at
time  - so it is not automatically a disaster.Given the huge savings
in administrative costs and prescription costs the small number of
additional people it would have attracted would have been a net
savings in health care costs. Rememver this would have been replacing
money currently spent on private insurance.

As to lack of specifics - there is a limit  to  how specific you can
be - too rigid a specification and you just tie hands of
administrators. It put a ceiling on costs, a floor on benefits, and
required global budgeting. Much more specific than that and you are
micro-managing in the legislation.