Month: February 2018

If Health Care Becomes a “Fundamental Right,” Who Pays for It?

By Steve Buckstein

The Oregon House of Representatives has voted for HJR 203, which would add a section to the Oregon Constitution making health care a “fundamental right.” If passed by the Senate, voters will be asked in November to put this language in our Constitution:

“It is the obligation of the state to ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right.” 

I object to defining health care as a right on a philosophical level, because in America rights don’t come from government; government protects our natural or God-given rights. But on a political level, I understand that government tries to grant such rights all the time.

A key argument against this proposal is the recognition that a “fundamental right” to health care would seem to trump everything else, since the Oregon Constitution doesn’t currently recognize any other “fundamental rights.” If the legislature tries to make good on this “fundamental right,” what happens when voters reject the new taxes needed to pay for it?

The unintended consequences of codifying health care as a “fundamental right” are almost endless. But that’s the way the game is played for now, and the next inning will play out in the Oregon Senate before the end of this short legislative session.

Steve Buckstein is Senior Policy Analyst and Founder of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for the PDF version:

2-14-18-Health_Care_Fundamental_Right

Read Blog Detail

Why Health Care Should Not Be Defined as a “Fundamental Right”

By Steve Buckstein

The Oregon House of Representatives has voted for HJR 203, which would add a section to the Oregon Constitution making health care a “fundamental right” of every Oregonian. If passed by the Senate, Oregon voters will be asked in November to put this language in our Constitution:

“It is the obligation of the state to ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right.”

Cascade Policy Institute board member Michael Barton, Ph.D. and I testified in opposition to earlier versions of this legislation. Dr. Barton gave us a history and philosophy lesson, explaining how the American government was founded on the principle that government does not grant rights, it simply protects our inalienable rights such as those to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He explained that our rights define what we are free to do without interference; they are not goods or services that others must provide for us. He expounded on these concepts in his 2006 Cascade Commentary, “Right to Health Care Violates Individual Rights.”

While I object to defining health care as a right on a philosophical level, on a political level I understand that government tries to grant such positive rights all the time. In this case, passing this constitutional amendment will make some people feel good. It may say that we care deeply about the uninsured; but it only gives intellectual lip service, if that, to the matter of future costs.

More and more people will say, “I have a right to not care about the costs, because I have an unqualified right to health care.”

Define health care as a fundamental right, and cost control will go out the window. Witness Oregon’s public school system, where education is supposedly “free” and yet taxpayers are asked to pay more and more for little (if any) improvement in real quality. As in education, health care innovation will become mired in bureaucratic process.

And who will have the task of controlling the economics? Is the Oregon legislature going to assume responsibility for that? An elegantly composed commission? A superhuman future governor? Or do we assume private insurance companies will simply figure it out?

A key argument against this proposal is the recognition that a “fundamental right” to health care would seem to trump everything else in the Oregon Constitution. If the legislature comes up with a plan to make good on this “fundamental right,” what happens when voters reject the new taxes needed to pay for it?

Since neither education, transportation, criminal justice, nor any other state government service is defined as a “fundamental right” in our Constitution, then funding for these services might be cannibalized to fund the one “fundamental right” in that document, health care. But voters won’t be presented with this reality when marking their ballots in November. This potential clash of essential services may make for strange bedfellows in future election battles. Will the teachers union, for example, want to lose funding to the health care providers?

The unintended consequences of this proposal are almost endless. But that’s the way the game is played for now, and the next inning will play out in the Oregon Senate before the end of this short legislative session. Stay tuned….

(This article is an update on a legislative post, published here, regarding an earlier version of this legislation which was considered in 2008.)

Steve Buckstein is Senior Policy Analyst and Founder at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for the PDF version:

18-04-Why_Health_Care_Should_Not_Be_Fundamental_Right

Read Blog Detail

Testimony on HB 4001/SB 1507 Regarding Energy Rationing for Environmental Quality

Testimony of John A. Charles, Jr.

President & CEO, Cascade Policy Institute

 Regarding HB 4001/SB 1507

February 7, 2018

Members of the Committee: I have spent the last 45 years of my life promoting environmental quality. I began my career working for the Environmental Defense Fund, a group that was an early innovator in market-based mechanisms. From 1980 through 1996 I was CEO of Oregon Environmental Council, where I helped pass dozens of environmental laws. Since 1997 I have worked for Cascade Policy Institute, promoting concepts such as congestion pricing of roads.

If I thought that HB 4001 and SB 1507 could deliver significant pollution reductions at reasonable cost I would support them, but they will not. To summarize the problem in one sentence, the bills require Oregonians to pay a significant tax that will be certain, immediate, and local; for benefits that are speculative, long-term, and global.

This stands in sharp contrast to environmental policies such as drinking water regulations. Provision of safe drinking water does have a major cost, but the benefits are substantial and they accrue 100% to those who pay. Oregonians are quite willing to bear the expense of such programs because they demonstrably make us all better off. This will never be the case with carbon dioxide regulation.

Moreover, even assuming that reducing CO2 has some local benefit, the relevant trends are already moving in the right direction. According to the most recent legislative report from the Oregon Global Warming Commission, the “carbon intensity” of Oregon’s economy – that is, greenhouse gas emissions/unit of state GDP – dropped 64% from 1990 through 2015. This is a spectacular achievement, and it is driven almost entirely by market forces.

Last week the Environmental Protection Agency released its latest update of automobile emissions trends for carbon dioxide. The report shows that CO2 emissions per mile for all motor vehicles sold in 2017 were the lowest since the agency began collecting data in 1975.

For truck SUVs, the reduction since 1975 was 50%. For minivans it was 51%. For standard passenger cars it was 55%. Almost miraculously, automakers have produced the cleanest cars in history while also making them safer and more pleasant to drive than the 1975 models.

There is no crisis in Oregon regarding CO2 emissions. The trends are positive and long-term. This is a case where you should simply “do no harm” by staying out of the way.

John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for the PDF version:

John Charles Carbon Rationing Testmony HB 4001 2-7-18

Read Blog Detail

For Green Activists, the Cleanest Cars in History Are Bad News

By John A. Charles, Jr.

The Oregon Legislature convened again this week. A top priority for some officials is SB 1507,

which would create an energy rationing program that likely would increase the cost of gasoline to more than $7 dollars per gallon by 2035. This is being promoted as a means of reducing carbon dioxide, which some people think is a pollutant.

Coincidentally, the Environmental Protection Agency just released its latest update of automobile emissions trends for carbon dioxide. The report shows that CO2 emissions per mile for all motor vehicles sold in 2017 were the lowest since the agency began collecting data in 1975.

For truck SUVs, the reduction since 1975 was 50%. For minivans it was 51%. For standard passenger cars it was 55%. Almost miraculously, automakers have produced the cleanest cars in history while also making them much safer and more pleasant to drive than the 1975 models.

One would think that environmental advocates would be pleased with this success story, but good news is actually bad news for activists. They can only pass onerous legislation when everyone thinks we have a crisis.

We don’t have a crisis, and we don’t need this bill.

John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for the PDF version:

2-6-18-Cleanest_Cars_in_History

Read Blog Detail