Hi Mallen, Thanks for the great write-up on the most recent OHFB meeting. I'm curious how the board feels about the srawman plan vs. SB329? Do you sense that they see the disconnect (more narrow focus)? Are they saying "well later, it's too much now"? Should we be worried that SB329 won't see fruition? Thanks for any opinion on the mood of the board members. Maureen S. Reyes

It is so disheartening to watch the Oregon Health Fund Board work. Depressing, really! It's not that they aren't trying to make things better, by getting a few more Oregonian's covered with private insurance and The Oregon Health Plan, they are. It's that they could be attempting and promoting the real change that needs to take place in health care; and they are not. I don't know if they lack courage or creativity, but the board is failing the people of Oregon. At its core, the issue of health care is a spiritual one. A health care system should be about bringing together the healers of our culture with those who are sick and injured, and this should be the case no matter what walk of life or social class the hurting person belongs to. The Oregon Health Fund Board has been given the opportunity to set Oregon on a revolutionary new path for health care, and instead seems bound and determined to create "the same old thing," with one or two small improvements. An amazing opportunity is being set aside. What Oregonians need (and deserve) is a single-payer, universal health care system that would give every living Oregonian access to health care. We need a system that allows us to choose our health care professionals, allows those health care professionals to make recommendations, and help us take action for our best interests, without having to do battle with some outside insurance corporation or bureaucrat. We also need our health care system to come off of the backs of employers. They simply cannot afford it. Health care costs are destroying businesses and employers in Oregon; and that must change, for all our sakes. A second reason that the employment based system must change, is that until it does we will have a health care system of "haves" and "have-nots" that is morally and ethically wrong. As we have reached the subject of morality and ethics, one can only stand in wonder and amazement that The Board is recommending keeping private insurance corporations involved in health care. Here's the problem, health insurance companies are a big part of driving up the cost without providing any health care, and that is morally and ethically wrong. Insurance corporations are, in effect, the "money changers" in the temple of health care. They serve no medical or health related purpose, but they take in all the money and then try to keep as much of it as they possibly can for themselves. So, while it's true that there are a few unethical doctors, unethical drug companies, and unethical medical equipment makers, all of whom can all drive up the cost of health care, most doctors, and at least some drug companies and equipment makers provide a service helpful to those in need. Not so with insurance companies, who exist for one reason only, to make a profit at the expense of people who are ill or injured and, therefore, have no ethics at all. Certainly, insurance corporations do not pass the "Jesus test." Jesus would not do anything that they do. One of the techniques insurance companies employ, to keep from paying out the money they have taken in, is to make themselves difficult to reach and difficult to deal with. This has caused every medical office in America to have to pay for people who do nothing but deal with insurance companies. In addition, family doctorspend up to 20% of their time, and specialists spend a third of their time, dealing with insurance issues, themselves. Now that's a very big, unnecessary cost to the system and causes all our rates, and employers payments, to go up. Lastly, there is the sheer arrogance of insurance companies. As I watched the Health Fund Board, at their July meeting, there was a moment in which they discussed what needed to be done to control rising costs of health care. One subcommittee member, who works for a corporate insurer, said, with a straight face, that the solution was for insurance corporations to do more to "incentivise" our doctors. In other words, the insurers should have even more control over our health than they already do, and our chosen health care professionals should have less to say about it. Excuse me? Who has medical expertise and who is just a businessman looking to make a buck off the back of those in distress? Unfortunately, the members of the Oregon Health Fund Board (half of whom have been involved with private insurance corporations, in one way or another, as has their executive director), seemed to agree with the idea of greater "incentivising" of our chosen health care professionals. They also seemed to agree with a suggestion by their executive director, to have "gold, silver, and bronze" plans of care, thereby putting a stamp of approval on the continuation of inequality of care in Oregon. In summary: On the one hand, all The Oregon Health Fund Board is guilty of is trying to apply mid-twentieth century solutions to 21st century problems. On the other hand, they have the opportunity to be the catalysts for one of the greatest public/cultural/spiritual discussions of our times, and they appear to be taking a pass. Too bad. Mark J. Weiss