I asked each candidate for State Senator a question currently before the Oregon Senate:
"Do you support the proposed amendment to the Oregon Constitution to declare affordable health care to be a constitutional right?" Yes or No?
This blog piece quotes Jeff Golden at length. I was confused by his first response. He responded with two more amplifications over two days.
A reader will see his entire response below. He wrote on condition that his responses be quoted verbatim and in full. I complied with that request.
Readers get an unfiltered insight into Jeff Golden's approach to decision-making on a controversial issue, his consideration of pros and cons, caveats, and conditions--and then his final response.
Jeff Golden, condition for participation:
"Peter, I’ve drafted an answer to your healthcare question. It’s not the orthodox D response, so it’s vulnerable to having excerpts used out of context. For that reason I’d want it run in its entirety (300 words). You good with running our answers unedited? Thanks, Jeff"
Jeff Golden
Jeff Golden, statement:
"Peter, it would be easy (and in this contested Democratic primary race, safer) to just answer your question “yes” and be done with it. But I think Thad may be right. Are we here to make a noble philosophical point, one likely to lead to endless arguments and litigation over interpretation and enforcement, or to make sure that all Oregonians actually have access to quality health care? I’m running to do the second. I honestly think that Oregon’s positioned to create the “public option” that millions of Americans want, and that we could follow Canada’s example, where success in one province made its adoption at the national level unstoppable.
The framework guiding me doesn’t go to the philosophical level of “human rights.” It’s simply this: in a country as rich as ours, that spends more money on the military than the next several nations combined (that’s before Trump’s huge Pentagon increase), it is nakedly immoral for people to die or chronically suffer because they can’t access good health care. The U.S. seems to be the only prosperous county in the world that doesn’t get that.
The Oregon Constitution is chock full of amendments, hundreds of them; they’re one reason Oregon’s become so hard to govern. Many that were pushed as great ideas at the time went on to handcuff legislators from considering sensible solutions years down the road (income tax kicker, anyone?). It’s really hard for me to believe that what’s needed now is more amendments.
Democrats only have so much energy and political capital in Salem. I’d rather have us spend it on specific, effective universal health care legislation—and it’s within reach—than lofty philosophical battles likely to be re-fought again and again among legislators and judges who read the language differently. Let’s put doing good over feeling good. Before making a final decision I’m willing to listen carefully to Democratic colleagues who want this amendment, but at first blush I can’t get excited about it."
Peter Sage, repeating the question, seeking clarification:
"Does 'can’t get excited' mean you would vote yes or no? If I run this, in its entirety of course, I will need to put a headline on it. You tell me what the fair headline is, please? In the Senate they don’t offer choices, of
Good Golly yes!.
Can’t get excited, but ok yes.
Jesus, I’ll pass, call in sick.
Can’t get excited, so no.
Just cannot do it, no.
Jesus, it’s a disaster, no!
Julian Bell and Alan DeBoer [and shortly after, Kevin Stine] gave me a direct answer. Should I lump you with [those]? You tell me, please."
Jeff Golden, more clarification and elaboration:
"You’re right that you don’t get those options on the Senate floor when it’s time to vote, Peter. But YOUR options as a headline-writer are much broader than that. In my view one of the things making us collectively dumber is journalism that goes for the binary (especially in headlines) rather than pushing us to think. “Leans against, based on current information,” for example, is a headline—if this post really needs a headline—that’s available to you.
If I were in office preparing to vote, I’d have something I don’t have now: attendance at several Democratic Senate caucus meetings where I had listened to the arguments that led, according to your reporting, to unanimous support for the measure. That would be excellent information to have, the kind of info I WILL have in the future if I’m elected. But right now, on this issue, I don’t... none of us candidates do. So…based on the incomplete input I have right now, I would probably vote no, for reasons I described. But I realize that might be different if I’d fully participated in the caucus conversation. Part of good sevice as a Senator is effective and thoughtful collaboration.
Is that over-nuanced or squishy? I don’t think so. It’s meant as a thoughtful alternative to knee-jerkcorrectness . But that’s up to voters to decide.
Please include this exchange between us as well. Full transparency. Thanks. Jeff
Jeff Golden, next day. More clarification and elaboration:
"Peter, this is completely fair. Your decision to run all of our exchange unedited has higher integrity than today’s journalistic norm. The expression “never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel" [maybe best modernized as “someone who uses electrons by the trillions"] comes from experience with journalists who skew things to make themselves look better. Easy to do. Not doing that speaks well of this blog.
If I can have a little more space—obviously your call—there’s something I want to add:
"One more point, more political than substantive, belongs in the decision mix. This proposed amendment would go to Oregon voters for approval. If it follows the pattern of past progressive measures, it will start out polling strong approval. Then a wave of corporate money for deceitful advertising would flood the state (in this case, probably “Harry and Louise”-style propaganda largly funded by Big Insurance and Big Pharma), enough to deliver a NO majority on Election Day. At that point, what do opponents of change get to claim about how Oregonians feel about “socialized medicine?” In cold political terms, there may be more to lose than gain in this electoral venture."
A reader will see his entire response below. He wrote on condition that his responses be quoted verbatim and in full. I complied with that request.
Readers get an unfiltered insight into Jeff Golden's approach to decision-making on a controversial issue, his consideration of pros and cons, caveats, and conditions--and then his final response.
Jeff Golden, condition for participation:
"Peter, I’ve drafted an answer to your healthcare question. It’s not the orthodox D response, so it’s vulnerable to having excerpts used out of context. For that reason I’d want it run in its entirety (300 words). You good with running our answers unedited? Thanks, Jeff"
 |
| Jeff Golden |
"Peter, it would be easy (and in this contested Democratic primary race, safer) to just answer your question “yes” and be done with it. But I think Thad may be right. Are we here to make a noble philosophical point, one likely to lead to endless arguments and litigation over interpretation and enforcement, or to make sure that all Oregonians actually have access to quality health care? I’m running to do the second. I honestly think that Oregon’s positioned to create the “public option” that millions of Americans want, and that we could follow Canada’s example, where success in one province made its adoption at the national level unstoppable.
"Does 'can’t get excited' mean you would vote yes or no? If I run this, in its entirety of course, I will need to put a headline on it. You tell me what the fair headline is, please? In the Senate they don’t offer choices, of
"You’re right that you don’t get those options on the Senate floor when it’s time to vote, Peter. But YOUR options as a headline-writer are much broader than that. In my view one of the things making us collectively dumber is journalism that goes for the binary (especially in headlines) rather than pushing us to think. “Leans against, based on current information,” for example, is a headline—if this post really needs a headline—that’s available to you.
If I were in office preparing to vote, I’d have something I don’t have now: attendance at several Democratic Senate caucus meetings where I had listened to the arguments that led, according to your reporting, to unanimous support for the measure. That would be excellent information to have, the kind of info I WILL have in the future if I’m elected. But right now, on this issue, I don’t... none of us candidates do. So…based on the incomplete input I have right now, I would probably vote no, for reasons I described. But I realize that might be different if I’d fully participated in the caucus conversation. Part of good sevice as a Senator is effective and thoughtful collaboration.
Is that over-nuanced or squishy? I don’t think so. It’s meant as a thoughtful alternative to knee-jerkcorrectness . But that’s up to voters to decide.
Please include this exchange between us as well. Full transparency. Thanks. Jeff
Jeff Golden, next day. More clarification and elaboration:
"Peter, this is completely fair. Your decision to run all of our exchange unedited has higher integrity than today’s journalistic norm. The expression “never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel" [maybe best modernized as “someone who uses electrons by the trillions"] comes from experience with journalists who skew things to make themselves look better. Easy to do. Not doing that speaks well of this blog.
If I can have a little more space—obviously your call—there’s something I want to add:
"One more point, more political than substantive, belongs in the decision mix. This proposed amendment would go to Oregon voters for approval. If it follows the pattern of past progressive measures, it will start out polling strong approval. Then a wave of corporate money for deceitful advertising would flood the state (in this case, probably “Harry and Louise”-style propaganda largly funded by Big Insurance and Big Pharma), enough to deliver a NO majority on Election Day. At that point, what do opponents of change get to claim about how Oregonians feel about “socialized medicine?” In cold political terms, there may be more to lose than gain in this electoral venture."
13 comments:
Legislating, and governing, is hard. Politics wants an easy answer and journalism wants a glib one.
This candid explanation from Jeff represents just the sort of representation we need in Salem and Washington, in my opinion.
An easy out and easy way to win progressive votes would to have been to exclaim "Hell yes!", but that would have been an uninformed exclamation of support.
I am reminded of a recent social media flurry of posts and comments regarding the possibility of Oprah Winfrey running for President. When asked if I would vote for her, my only reasonable answer, in my mind, was "I don't know.".
Without solid information regarding her stance on various issues, no responisble voter should be able to say yes or no based on the information we have.
I find it very refreshing to see a Senate candidate with the guts to say, "I don't know for sure yet. I need more information.", rather than take the safe, easy way, and answer in the affirmative for the sake of party and ideological support.
Cop out!
Why did you let Jeff blather on with wishy washy mush, and evade your question? Is he waiting to see which way the wind blows? Have some integrity, Sage. You caved to him. Tell Hamlet Jeff to show leadership, which you do by making decisions and explaining them, not by waiting until somebody with balls writes a Mail Tribune editorial to tell him what is safe, or his ex wife whispers in his ear to tell him what is politically smart.
Ashland Man
Does a yes or no question merit a y/n answer?
Yes or No?
Yes.
Maybe a better question would be:
"Do you believe that healthcare is a public utility and therefore should be provided by the society to everyone?"
or
"Do you support single payer healthcare knowing full well it will take tax dollars away from military spending?"
or
"Do you support legislation that would raise corporate taxes in order to fund universal health care?"
and so on...
Making healthcare a constitutional right is a symbolic gesture, but without providing a means to actually make it a funding priority it doesn't mean much more than that. Saying that, on principle I'd answer yes, the same way I'd have answered yes to suffrage in 1917.
One has to chuckle at the irony, when one reads an anonymous post by "Ashland man", questioning the integrity of someone, in the course of making snide remarks in an attempt to anonymously tear good people down.
SMH
You shouldn't let candidates tell you how to do your blog thing. If a candidate tells you they will only answer a legitimate question if you meet their terms tell them to buy an ad. You let Jeff avoid answering. I have been reading you for over a year. I agree with what you say about Trump. He is an evil genius and we can't stop watching him. I am a Bernie Democrat.
RDH
Thanks for sharing Jeff's full answer. He (in the first post) said exactly what I would have said. I'm a progressive voter who wants to see more health care solutions, not more symbolic moves that create confusion and roadblocks.
Notice to commenters:
I would prefer that people who comment on this blog do so giving their actual names. Over the years some of my best blog comments have come from people who are anonymous, but when we are dealing with candidates I would prefer people to identify themselves.
I will exercise my power to take down comments I think are particularly mean spirited, especially when voiced against other people. I have found that harsh criticism of me actually seems to stimulate readership, so have at it.
Good thinking.
Probably right.
The ball never moves.
Thanks to a Jeff.
A committee is needed to explore the options.
Yawn...
With long years supporting Hope initiative in 2006, legislation and the principle of health care as a right I will continue to support HJR 203 Hope bill . I also respect Jeff Golden's careful analysis leading to his mild non support. There are questions of huge opposition money and possible litigation. My thoughts are that with all the national and statewide races big insurance may not put all their funds in this Oregon ballot measure. And when it passes and the legislature makes educated and good faith effort to find the path to affordable universal care it would be difficult to litigate for the opposition. The fears of losing are to be considered but Oregon voters will make the continued good decisions on health care and the upside of a Nov win will take us to the next steps toward universal care using the already in place Oregon health care model
Whether or not to pass a constitutional amendment establishing healthcare as a right isn't a lofty philosophical question; its a mandate for the legislature to craft policy that ensures access to healthcare for all. It would legally compel the legislature to remove barriers to healthcare access for all Oregonians (like a lack of revenues, for instance; and a Democrat who doesn't support revenues isn't much of an improvement from Deboer. Voters will feel the same way and apart from the Ashland old-guard progressives, Democrats will not feel compelled to rally behind Jeff in the general. You need the Ashland old-guard for primaries but if those are the only voters you can move, running is a waste of resources).
If Jeff would prefer to spend his time passing more substantive healthcare policy, I'm not clear as to why he wouldn't already fully support restricting the abilities of some of the very conservative members of the legislature from pulling the kind of stunt we saw from Julie Parrish and Sal Esquivel at the end of this last session. Not everybody will choose to come to the table in good faith and have these drawn out conversations in Salem. Sometimes you have to compel your opponents to come to the table and make them stay until they come up with a real solution.
As far as the probability of the legislation passing the ballot test is concerned, it has been less than a month since voters overwhelmingly approved Measure 101, which shows more promise for healthcare as a voting issue than we've seen from any other issues in years. I don't think that its appropriate to assume that a ballot measure which is more closely related to Measure 101 than it is to GMO labeling or corporate taxes would go the way of the latter. The Measure 101 campaign built a meaningful coalition like I haven't seen before and if we have the ability to utilize that resource to take bold action for underserved Oregonians, we should capitalize on it.
Also worth considering is the significant impact that Janus v AFSCME is likely to have on one of the largest sources of funding for Democratic candidates and ballot measures in Oregon. Having just lost an executive seat to a conservative Republican as well as the SD3 seat while we still had that funding, we ought to be hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, *especially* since we'll have Richardson in office during redistricting. Recognizing the threats that we face and preparing for the future requires both a revitalization of the organizing model, and real policy like this amendment. If this policy passed the ballot test it would require more than a simple majority to reverse it, and that's a long-term insurance policy for low-income Oregonians.
Reading a long explanation for failing to give a clear and substantive answer for such a timely question was frustrating and irritating. Maybe I was spoiled by Bates and Buckley but I'm not about to support someone who wouldn't show the same respect to their base as they did. We knew where they stood on most issues because when we asked them, they told us. If Jeff really doesn't have an answer to this question, let him ramble on and on to RCC students or radio listeners and send someone who is ready to take a position who we can trust to caucus for those positions to represent us.
We need folks in the legislature who will show up ready to do more than just talk. We need folks who will be effective in the building. We need champions for progressive issues. And we need someone who can win. Jeff is none of those things.
Guess which one is Kevin Stine?
Our federal Constitution has the 2nd amendment, giving people the right to bear arms. This has never been interpreted as the federal government providing people with arms (weapons ��).
The problem with the proposed Oregon healthcare amendment is the language used - "obligation of state to ensure every resident of state access to [effective] cost-effective, medically appropriate and affordable healthcare."
Everyone already has access to healthcare.
The real question is paying for it. How much will this new right cost? And who will be paying for it?
This could easily siphon almost existing state tax revenue away from public services like schools, police, pensions, etc if there aren't limits defined.
Poorly worded amendment.
Disclaimer: I am not a gun owner.
Post a Comment