Opinion
A4
Thursday, June 23, 2022
OUR VIEW
Being up-front
about cost
of universal
health care
he plan for universal health care in Oregon
may sound great. We wonder if people are
being given enough information to judge it.
The task force building the plan off ers a long
list of selling points:
• Everybody in Oregon would have health care.
• The health care benefi ts would be more gen-
erous than most current plans.
• There would be more benefi ts available for
behavioral health treatment.
• Everyone would have dental benefi ts.
• Health coverage would not be related to
your job.
• People wouldn’t have to pay when getting
care. No copays. No deductibles. People would
pay based on how much they make.
• The state board that runs it would have open
public meetings and report to the governor and
Legislature.
The state’s universal health care task force is
holding meetings with the public, through Zoom.
You can learn more about those at tinyurl.com/
ORhealthmeetings.
In the background provided for these meetings,
the possible benefi ts of the program are clearly
spelled out. Some of the possible downsides, not
so much.
For instance, this change means much of the
private health care insurance industry in Oregon
and any jobs associated with it would likely be
wiped out. No need for them when the state is
running the system. And the fact that it would
be a transparent, government board running the
system may not be such a plus if you don’t like
the prospect of the government taking over more
of the private sector and attempting to manage it.
It would be nice not to have to worry about
what treatment might cost when you go to the
doctor or are wheeled into the emergency room.
But what will people pay?
The rates of the new income taxes that fami-
lies will pay are not in the background documents
for the meetings. The rates of the payroll tax
employers will pay are not there, either.
It’s one thing to tell people that overall they
would pay 13% less in premiums, deductibles
and copays than they do now. It’s one thing to
tell employers that they would pay 11% less than
they do now in premiums. They should be told
up-front the expected rates for income and pay-
roll taxes that those assumptions are based on.
At least according to some task force docu-
ments, households would pay income tax rates
of up to 9.3% in addition to the income tax they
already pay. There would be marginal rates based
on the federal poverty level. The rates ramp up.
For instance, households below 200% of the fed-
eral poverty level would pay zero. The line for a
family of four to start paying would be just over
$55,000. A family of four would pay the highest
marginal rate of 9.3% for income over $110,000.
Employers would pay a payroll tax based
on employee wages. Below $160,000 a year an
employer would pay a marginal rate of 7.25%,
jumping up to 10.5% for income of $160,000 or
more.
A plan for universal health care in Oregon
needs to be as frank with the costs as it is with
the possible benefi ts.
T
Oregonians deserve the truth about
forest management, collaboratives
MARK
WEBB
OTHER VIEWS
n a recent opinion piece (“State’s
forest collaborations are a
sham,” June 2, The Observer),
Rob Klavins, of Oregon Wild, cites
fi ve diff erent restoration projects as
evidence that collaborative eff orts
across Eastern Oregon are eroding
environmental protections, deci-
mating forests and silencing envi-
ronmental dissent as “extractive
interests” take over collaborative
groups.
Klavins is not telling the truth
about forests or collaborative groups.
Klavins claims the Wal-
lowa-Whitman National Forest
“invoked collaboration to get away
with logging centuries-old trees
in the Lostine ‘safety’ project”
that resulted in “lawsuits and an
increased fi re risk.” But this project
does exactly what years of scien-
tifi c research in Eastern Oregon has
shown to be eff ective in reducing fi re
risk: reduce stand density and shift
species composition from fi re-intol-
erant grand fi r to fi re-tolerant larch
and ponderosa pine. Moreover, the
harvest prescription retains all trees
21 inches in diameter and larger. The
Wallowa-Whitman is not logging
“centuries-old trees.”
This project did result in a law-
suit fi led by Oregon Wild. But the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the lower court’s ruling that the
Wallowa-Whitman developed the
project in accordance with federal
law and that its public and collabora-
tive engagement process was open,
inclusive and transparent.
Klavins claims the Wallowa-
Whitman is now “doubling down
with the Morgan Nesbit Project,
I
which would nearly clear-cut virgin
forests from the edge of the Eagle
Cap Wilderness into the Hells
Canyon National Recreation Area.”
But this project is in the early stages
of development and no decisions
have been made about what man-
agement actions will occur in the
Morgan Nesbit area.
Next, Klavins claims the Uma-
tilla National Forest has “proposed
logging over 27,000 acres of pris-
tine forests and some of the biggest
trees in Eastern Oregon on the Ellis
Project.” Again, he misrepresents
the facts. No decision has been made
about what management actions will
occur as part of this project. A Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
that analyzes fi ve diff erent alterna-
tives has been released for public
comment. But no alternative does
what Klavins claims.
Klavins also claims the Umatilla
is “with no environmental analysis
… developing Parkers Mill, which
would allow more logging of road-
less forests than has occurred across
the lower 48 in the last two decades
combined.” But the USFS cannot
undertake any kind of action that
will have environmental impacts
unless it performs an environmental
analysis. There is no environmental
analysis for Parkers Mill because
formal development of the project
hasn’t started yet.
Next, Klavins claims the Big
Mosquito Project on the Mal-
heur National Forest was supposed
“to thin small trees to protect old
growth from fi re.” But when “the
logging equipment rolled in, the big
old trees were considered a danger,
splashed with blue paint, and cut
down.” His tacit claim here is that
loggers ignored unit prescriptions
and treated “big old trees” as danger
trees simply to log them.
His claim is misleading. The
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
Subscription rates:
Monthly Autopay ...............................$10.75
13 weeks.................................................$37.00
26 weeks.................................................$71.00
52 weeks ..............................................$135.00
█
Mark Webb is the executive director of Blue
Mountains Forest Partners.
STAFF
SUBSCRIBEAND SAVE
NEWSSTAND PRICE: $1.50
You can save up to 55% off the single-copy
price with home delivery.
Call 800-781-3214 to subscribe.
unit he describes is a line-side
unit for steep slope logging that
uses a mechanical tower anchored
by cables to nearby trees for sta-
bility as it pulls cut trees uphill to
the landing. Anchor trees and trees
near the landing are treated as work
hazards and cut down per Ore-
gon’s Occupational Safety & Health
Administration regulations.
Apart from these trees, you won’t
fi nd “big old trees splashed with blue
paint and cut down” inside Big Mos-
quito units. In fact, this project was
designed to increase survivability of
old-growth trees in the face of fi re
and drought by thinning young trees.
The “big old trees” are still standing
throughout this project area.
Finally, Klavins claims that “long-
standing protections for big and old
trees called ‘the (Eastside) Screens’
were eliminated” during the Trump
administration. This is utterly false.
The Eastside Screens were amended
to better refl ect current science and
prioritize the protection of old trees,
facilitate the recruitment of old and
large fi re-tolerant species like larch
and ponderosa pine, and adaptively
monitor this eff ort in the face of cli-
mate change.
All of Klavins’ claims are part
of a larger pattern: ignore important
details and misrepresent the facts as
needed to support his view. Klavins
cannot be trusted. Nor can Oregon
Wild, his enabler.
Collaborative eff orts across
Eastern Oregon have enriched public
engagement, improved environ-
mental protections and enhanced
forest health. They embody the best
way forward for those who truly
care about fi re-adapted landscapes
and rural communities in Eastern
Oregon.
Anindependent newspaper foundedin1896
www.lagrandeobserver.com
Periodicals postage paid at Pendleton, Oregon 97801
Published Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays
(except postal holidays) by EO Media Group,
911 Jefferson Ave., La Grande, OR 97850
(USPS 299-260)
The Observer retains ownership and copyright
protection of all staff-prepared news copy, advertising
copy, photos and news or ad illustrations. They may
not be reproduced without explicit prior approval.
COPYRIGHT © 2022
Phone:
541-963-3161
Regional publisher ....................... Karrine Brogoitti
Home delivery adviser.......... Amanda Turkington
Interim editor ....................................Andrew Cutler
Advertising representative ..................... Kelli Craft
News clerk ........................................Lisa Lester Kelly
Advertising representative .................... Amy Horn
Reporter....................................................Dick Mason
National accounts coordinator ...... Devi Mathson
Reporter...........................................Isabella Crowley
Graphic design .................................. Dorothy Kautz
Toll free (Oregon):
1-800-781-3214
Email:
news@lagrandeobserver.com
POSTMASTER
Send address changes to:
The Observer,
911 Jefferson Ave.,
La Grande, OR 97850
A division of