Some people like Jeff Golden. Some do not.

Pushback on Jeff Golden and his comments yesterday.

Some people thought Golden was thoughtful and cautious.  Others thought he was weak and cowardly.

Jeff Golden insisted that his comments in this blog on the Health Care Amendment be published verbatim, in full, and with a neutral headline.  Golden told me he wanted unfiltered "full transparency."  

I consented.

Click: Golden in Wikipedia. Long History.

This blog got a flurry of comments sent primarily by email.  Many criticized me for agreeing to let him--or any candidate--tell me what kind of headline to use and that I must not summarize or interpret what he or she said. They said either Golden was a prima donna, or I was a total wimp who failed my readers.

But others praised Golden and the blog:  They said we got to hear Jeff straight up and unfiltered, and they found that useful.

In the spirit of the "full transparency" Jeff requested, here is the longest and most analytical of the comments I received.  It is from a detractor.

I have zero idea who wrote it--but it does not matter.  What is important is not the identity or credentials of the author.  It is whether this point of view is legitimate and rings true to people.  Readers can decide, again on their own, with this comment published verbatim and in full. 

Golden has been here a long time and many people know him well. He has a reputation; he has friends; he has detractors.  If this comment below is a lonely voice, then I expect Jeff will win the Primary election handily. If lots of others feel this way, then maybe he has a problem, and it is better for him and the voters to know about it now, and each can take the appropriate action.

I am aware of no polling in this race, but I suspect Golden is the only one with significant name recognition at this moment.

A reader comment:

Jeff Golden?   "Frustrating and irritating."

"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).

Comment to yesterday's blog post

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."

Yes and No and Jeff Golden

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."

"Shut Up and Dribble"

The Trickle Down of Sneering Contempt

This blog has repeatedly cautioned progressives and coastal elites to watch their tone when describing the people and politics of "flyover country."   

People don't like being sneered at and called "deplorable." Some 70% of white working class men voted for Trump. They felt dissed.  They voted.

Public sneering serves a purpose.  Sharing a sneer confirms one is part of a group.  One is communicating that one is in on a joke, that the group "gets" something the outsiders do not. 

Click Here for the Video

It is harder to see this behavior when it is ones own people doing the sneering.  People might miss how unlovely and counter-productive it is when one is on the inside. Fortunately there is a text available for progressive sophisticates, Laura Ingraham's two minute commentary on LeBron James and Kevin Durant.

She sneers at the black athletes.  She mocks their grammar.  Her vocal tone confirms the point even when she isn't saying it overtly:  those big stupid black men, uneducated and uneducable, with big undeserved incomes, uppity, not knowing their place, talking politics when all they are good at is "bouncing a ball", they aren't as good as people like us.

That is harsh to say.  Surely I must be exaggerating? See for yourself.  Watch the video. Two minutes well spent.

Communication is amplified through eye-roll and tone, a primary vehicle in political communication.

"Shut up and dribble."    Ingraham, wearing her trademark gold cross, is on Fox News.  She does what Trump has done so successfully, political judo on the political left and coastal elites.  They take resentment of urban sophisticated Democrats and amplify the outrage they feel at being thought deplorable.  They send it back adding to it subtle or not-subtle racism: we white, Christian, heterosexual "normal" Americans can do some sneering of our own. Just look at those black athletes, freakishly big and dumb, talking about stuff they know nothing about, criticizing their betters. Shut up and dribble.

Guest Blog Poem: What would Jesus Do?

What would Jesus do about Health Care for all?

How would Allen Ginsberg write it?  Or an angry Gertrude Stein.  Or Hunter Thompson?

I received the rant-poem from a teacher and videographer who retired, moved to southern Oregon, and, decided that patience and mild talk was for people who had a lot of time, and he didn't.  He decided to stop all pussyfooting around and just write what he feels.

Guest Comment: 

"What Would Jesus Do? First, some tricks to get attention---walk on water, turn water to wine---then get down to walking the highways and byways casting out demons, laying on of hands, commanding people to pick up and walk and not worry about the costs and law suits since he had no money to lose in court. And then he did SNAP by multiplying fishes for the hungry at no cost or worry about bills. And then they crucified him---but then he rose again and went straight up.

So who’s afraid of the costs? Those with money. Those who know how to bilk money from others. Those who have health insurance already. Those who have shoes on their feet and a dentist.

I know what those people think.  Comfortable people. Some people deserve to die. Some people deserve to go bankrupt. Some people deserve to live in the street. Some people are just plain toothless. Some people are just nuts. What can you do? They are all high, breed like rabbits, have so many husbands and little bastards. Lepers. Retarded. Overweight diabetics. Shit humanity living in shitholes. They need to eat more fruit.  

Suffer the little children. And that frigging takes a lot of frigging money."

Kevin Stine and Julian Bell say "Yes.'

They said it clearly and decisively.  Yes.  

They would support the proposed amendment now before the Oregon State Senate:

"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."

Kevin Stine said he would vote yes.  He said the amendment moves forward his agenda to expand health care access to every Oregonian, and the dangers warned about by DeBoer are not valid. It isn't a litigation risk and it won't break the state's budget.

Click: Stine Video. 75 Seconds

"Article VIII Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution states: "The Legislative Assembly shall appropriate in each biennium a sum of money sufficient to ensure that the state's system of public education meets quality goals established by law, and publish a report that either demonstrates the appropriation is sufficient, or identifies the reasons for the insufficiency, its extent, and its impact on the ability of the state's system of public education to meet those goals."

I don't know of anyone that believes that Oregon is sufficiently funding public education, but the State is not being litigated for any violation of the Oregon Constitution, and we get an interesting report every biennium about the education system funding. Placing the healthcare measure on the ballot is harmless. I would vote yes in the State Senate, and recommend a yes vote. I prefer we adopt my plan of Medicaid-for-All, single-payer buy-in system as it gets us much closer to accomplishing the goals of the proposed ballot measure, than the ballot measure does itself."

Stine described his overall plan this way:  

"We can all agree that healthcare should be a right, but I'm focused on solutions. I'm proposing a Medicaid-for-All, single-payer solution. This will allow people that do not otherwise qualify for the Oregon Health Plan to be able to be eligible if they pay to get into the system."

Kevin Stine is currently a Medford City Council Member, and works on behalf of fellow veterans at Access in Medford. At both the Medford City Council and in his campaign for the Oregon Senate, he advocates for affordable housing, saying current local and state laws drive up the cost of housing to crippling levels.

Website:  https://www.drjulianbell.com

Julian Bell said he would support the issue currently before the Oregon Senate.  He observes that it has problems unless the system of health care changes, but that he would vote yes.

"I would support the bill establishing health care as a basic human right - but it will be cripplingly expensive if it is just a beefed up version of the health care system we have at the moment.  For this to work, health insurance has to be state run, no-opt out, and not for profit.  Otherwise it'll kill us."

Click: Video, 92 Seconds

His website outlines his health care goal, reading, in its entirety:  Health Care of All Oregon.  A comprehensive, equitable, high quality, universal health care system serving everyone in Oregon.

The video below gives a bit more detail:

"I am running for office to build an all inclusive, government run, not for profit health insurance system, a single-payer health insurance system for Oregon.  It's the only rational thing to do for our state.  This will contain health insurance costs, and provide insurance for everybody in our state."

Julian Bell is a physician living in Ashland.  He previously ran for Oregon governor became closely identified with the issue of climate change.  The subtitle of his campaign website cites that issue, "It's time for action, not debate, on climate change."

Two other candidates. There are two other Democratic candidates for this seat, and this blog will report on their position on this issue in future posts.  Senator Alan DeBoer, a Republican, is the incumbent.  He opposes the proposed amendment.

"Virtue Signaling" and the Window of Discourse

Oregon Democrats are Virtue Signaling.  The proposed amendment is "primarily aspirational."

They are trying to move the goalposts on what is considered reasonable and possible.   

Democrats are sending a message to their left flank  They are doing competitive signaling of moral virtue to communicate that the Democratic brand is consistent with the vanguard of the progressive movement.  Look at how good we are!

The good is the enemy of the perfect.  We see virtue signaling within political cohorts, particularly those at the vanguard of change, who jostle to greater extremes to prove the purity of their views and to stay on the vanguard.  

NRA--Staying on the vanguard

For example, the NRA does not want some other organization to appear more devoted to the 2nd Amendment and gun freedom than themselves. Planned Parenthood does not want any organization to be a more vigorous spokesperson for reproductive freedom than themselves. Each have turf and a brand to defend.

There is strong pressure for moving to the extremes because the edge of the thinkable goes on the table the moment it is voiced and a vanguard must include the thinkable.

The Democratic Party in Oregon--and nationally--has a problem.  The progressive left flank in American politics, energized by Bernie Sanders, does not trust Democrats.  A national party needs to be a coalition of multiple, somewhat contradictory interests.  Parties are a big tent. They cannot be too pure or narrow.  But a progressive vanguard has a point of view.  They want to move the edge of the possible, not consolidate the muddle in the middle.  

Democrats need the progressive left within their coalition because without them they lose their majority, witness 2000 and 2016.

Virtue signaling. In the Oregon House of Representatives Democrats passed, unanimously among Democrats, a resolution to put on the ballot a constitutional amendment to declare medically appropriate health care a cost effective, affordable right for every resident of the state.  It is a statement to the progressive left saying we really do want single payer health care, just like Bernie did, and you can trust us. Tina Kotek, Democratic Speaker of the House, called it "primarily aspirational." 

Democrats are hoping to move the goalposts of the politically possible. The "window of discourse," described by political scientist Joseph Overton, is the range of plausibility and acceptability of policies: Unthinkable, Radical, Acceptable, Sensible, Popular, Policy.  

Established representative democracy.

That is what pressure groups do: think the unthinkable and claim it to be sensible.  Democrats are moving the idea up the "Overton Window" from crazy to bold to reasonable on the way to policy.

There is a hazard here.  They might win.

Democrats are taking steps to putting a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot. It may look good to voters, and they might vote their instinct and impressions.  If it makes its way to the ballot it will establish a frame that could be dangerous for Democrats: Careless Democrats vs. Prudent Republicans.  Or it might win.  This could be very, very expensive.

Alan DeBoer

DeBoer:  "Just politics.  Just for show."   Incumbent State Senator Alan DeBoer said he thought this was just taken for show.  He thought it might just die in the Senate.

He said Democrats are just looking for something to put on the ballot that will place Democrats as "good guys" concerned about health care and Republicans as stinkers who want people to die. 

He thought it might work as show business--so long as it was certain to fail--but it was another example of what disappointed him about life in Salem.

His view is that it would be a disaster as actual policy, opening up the state to lawsuits from medical tourists demanding whatever medical science might devise.  It would gobble up resources for every other task of the state, he said, and "destroy education."  He said it would make plaintiff lawyers like Guest Post writer Thad Guyer a whole lot of money.

He repeated the statement he made earlier to the press:   "It'l break the state."

Health Care as a Right. (Like everything, it goes back to Trump)

The Oregon legislature is considering making health care a basic right, and putting it into the Oregon Constitution.

Trump portrait

"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."

Democrats are pushing this because Trump and the GOP have made it politically necessary. They must resist.

The bill has unanimous support from Democrats in the State House of Representatives. Possibly some Democrats have reservations, but if so, they are lying low.  Trump and the GOP have pushed the range of Orthodox Democratic Policy. 

Trump is a compass pointing at limiting health care access, so Democrats point the opposite way. If Trump says it, it must be wrong.  In the bright light of Trump-disgust among Democratic leaders and voters,  Democratic officeholders felt the time was ripe to codify what had been a general sentiment.

Health care as a right is now Orthodox Democratic Position.   A Democratic officeholder in Oregon would have hell to pay to oppose this law. A lawmaker would sound Trump-ish. The lawmaker would have broken ranks, and none did.

Health care is a complex semi-right already. We do not have people left bleeding and dying on hospital doorsteps. They get emergency service as a right.  Emergency crisis service is different from treatment for bronchitis, asthma, diabetes, removal of moles, colonosopies, back pain, arthritis, and all the other things that constitute health care.  

One Democratic Senator called it "a moral decision" and credited his lifesaving treatment to having health insurance.  The Democratic House Speaker Tina Kotek called the Constitutional Amendment "primarily aspirational" and "an important values statement about the importance of health care, particularly as you see at the federal level there are a lot of efforts to scale back Medicaid and Medicare." 

Activists want action.  Obama didn't do enough.  Hillary was too centrist.  Orthodox Democratic Policy wants to see action not aspirational values statements. 

l'estât c'est moi

This is a big deal.  

A constitutional amendment moves this right to the head of every other priority. There could be reasons to attack the proposed amendment as dangerously expensive, and a huge source of litigation.

1. Obligation of the state.  Health care becomes a primary obligation, putting it ahead of the mere day to day obligations of a state. Health care would step to the front of the line.

2. Resident of the state. Not citizen of the state, not two-year resident of the state, but just simply resident.  This is a giant liability.  A resident of a low tax/low service state like Texas, of whatever nationality and legal status, penniless and uninsured and uninsurable, can be driven to Oregon, set up in an apartment, change his driver's license and registers to vote here, and now is now a legal resident of Oregon. Oregon as destination for health refugees.  Expensive.

3. Cost-effective, medially appropriate and affordable.  This is a price guarantee and a medical guarantee, a dangerous combination. Oregon becomes provider of last resort, and giving residents a legal right to demand the service be "affordable" to them, which means that the state essentially guarantees to pick up every tab. There are very, very expensive chronic cases and procedures, perhaps prolonging life, and which now patients and families have a constitutional right to demand.  Plan for lawsuits and complaints of death panels.

Alan DeBoer

Democrats will worry about costs and implications later.

We have battle lines and the issue framed.  The gravitational force of Trump affects Republicans, too. Democrats want an aspirational sentiment locked into the Constitution. Republicans see this as a case of the Republican minority showing fiscal maturity and realism by resisting Democratic excess.   

Local Republican State Senator Alan DeBoer says he supports a single payer system, in theory and in general, but not this constitutional amendment.  "It'll break the state."  

DeBoer pictured here is watching Governor Kate Brown at work. He has progressive instincts, but Democrats have given him a role: watching Democrats, and trying to block and dampen Democratic excess.  

Republicans have a plausible 2018 message:  Elect Republicans to the legislature so that Democrats wont have a big enough majorities to do something that will break the state.

                                 ****     ****    *****

A comment from plaintiff attorney Thad Guyer elaborates on the concerns I outline above. This could be a bad self inflicted wound, created out of the very best of intentions:   

What an exciting new field of litigation against state, county and city governments. Once health care is literally an enforceable "constitutional right", the government must meet it regardless of budget limitations. Like education, the rural, the less affluent and illegal immigrant advocates will be able to sue to even out "unequal distribution" of the health care entitlement. Government regulated and funded "health care districts" can be ordered by the courts, and the legislature can be ordered to fund them. The sick will be able to sue to get education and transportation dollars reallocated to free or subsidized health care, the sick elderly vs. young families with kids. Hospitals and doctors could be named in the same lawsuits against the government to discharge unpaid bills. And best of all, Salem will have to pay for expensive drugs and ecpermental surgeries-- if the rich can buy it, then we will all have a right to it. 

What a litigation bonaza for the national "health care law" lawyer groups. This could be the biggest thing for my profession since tobacco litigation. And you say it's only because of Trump that we are getting this? Awesome! 

Thad Guyer

Attorney