He finally (sort of) did it. Hasso Hering wrote something I don't entirely disagree with. I'm in a little bit of shock. So congrats, Hasso, for making an attempt to support kids, even if you did cloak it in some strange attacks on the state government.
Also, that doesn't mean I'm not going to pick it apart, because it's still got problems.
This particular editorial is on the topic of expanding health care, particularly for children. Hering is critical of a bill recently passed by the State Legislature:
The governor has signed Senate Bill 3, which he says “creates the Healthy Kids Plan.” It doesn’t yet, because it depends on voters this fall increasing a cigarette tax to pay for it. But even if the plan eventually is put into effect, it does nothing to cut the cost of medical care and falls far short of the kind of medical legislation that one wishes Oregon would someday adopt.
...
In short, the program is a bundle of red tape, though families would be shielded from complications by being able to submit a simple application. But while it throws more money into the pot, it does nothing to solve the issues facing medical care in Oregon.
Well, I thought Hering had a populist streak. If the Leg had directed this bill become law without voter approval, I could easily see him arguing that it should have been referred to voters, so I'm not sure what that's about. That and there's no reason for him to say "one wishes" when it's clearly Hering that wishes it. I know it's probably some sort of editorial etiquette, and I know he signs his name (unlike many editors), but still. That sort of posturing is best reserved for bad philosophers.
I'm also confused about how this bill "is a bundle of red tape" if families just have to "submit a simple application." Normally, the phrase red tape indicates a frustrating bureaucracy that the end user or consumer has to deal with, but Hering suggests otherwise in the same sentence.
He's really good at sticking to his guns.
Must...insult...bureaucracy...at...all...costs.
So, on to the more important - and interesting - part of this editorial. Hering claims that the bill does not "cut the cost of medical care" and "falls short" of the legislation needed in this area because "it does nothing to solve the issues facing medical care in Oregon."
Those are pretty sketchy claims, since this bill was not designed to do solve any of the problems you just listed, but to insure more children. How f****** hard would it have been to be honest just this once, Hasso? Would it have killed you to be a straight shooter on this one?
Maybe, because Hering spends the rest of the editorial talking about something else entirely - Oregon's forthcoming doctor shortage. I give him major credit for this one; as a true libertarian, I would expect him not to care. Instead, he is actually calling for more government intervention in the form of incentives:
They might, for instance, propose and budget money to pay off the student loans of any newly licensed doctor who agrees to practice in Oregon for, say, 10 years. They would provide tax exemptions or other incentives for health-care providers who see a certain number of children without charging them or their parents.
They might also relax the licensing requirements for paramedical professionals, increasing their number so that more poor people, especially children, could get medical attention for all the common ailments that kids get.
The state might go so far as to provide immunity from malpractice suits to doctors who administer a certain percentage of care to the indigent, especially children. Or the state might offer to pay the malpractice premiums of those doctors who provide that service.
Sigh. I knew I wasn't getting out of it this that easy. The first suggestion - paying off the loans of medical students who practice in Oregon for 10 years - is a pretty good one as far as I can tell. There's not really a downside, though I think it should be paired with finding a way to provide more slots in M.D. programs now, since the shortage is partially due to too-small classes in med schools around the state.
The second and third suggestion, however, are not so good. I don't really think relaxing the licensing requirements of paramedical professionals is a good idea. Personally, I'd want - if I actually had access to health care - the medical professionals taking care of me to have more training, not less. This suggestion just makes no sense on its face, not even by Hering's normal standards, unless he actually believes they are overqualified, which is just silly. Why not create incentive programs for paramedicals like he's suggesting for doctors?
The last one - giving doctors immunity from malpractice and/or paying their malpractice premiums - is pure ideology. Two things have caused a measurable increase in malpractice suits and premiums: An increase in mistakes by doctors and hospitals, and the insurance industry. Personally, I'd go after #2 if I was the Leg, but Hering would rather exacerbate #1 by cutting licensing requirements for paramedical professionals. Doesn't seem smart to me. The whole "we're a nation that sues at the drop of a hat" is mostly a giant myth concocted by conservatives and their hatred of accountability. Well, that and their hatred of trial lawyers, since trial lawyers give their donations overwhelmingly to Democrats. Are the number of lawsuits up? Sure - but the cause is complex, and shielding doctors from malpractice is a stupid conservative trick to avoid taking responsibility for the possibility that doctors make mistakes.
So, Hering manages to make fun of an otherwise solid program - expanding insurance coverage to children - and suggest a few ideologically sound but otherwise crappy "fixes' to another problem entirely. A pretty mediocre editorial, if you ask, but that makes it better than most.
