MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2019
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
EDITORIAL
Gun
storage
measure
confusing
No responsible gun owner would object to the
basic premise that guns should be stored in a way
designed to ensure that nobody who shouldn’t have
access to the guns will have.
The National Rifl e Association, no fan of restric-
tions on gun owners, emphasizes safe handling and
storage of fi rearms. One of the NRA’s gun safety
rules puts it this way: “Store guns so they are not ac-
cessible to unauthorized persons.”
This is basically the ostensible purpose behind
a ballot measure that Oregonians could vote on in
November 2020 if supporters gather suffi cient signa-
tures.
But that measure, No. 40, also includes some provi-
sions that seem intended more to discourage people
from owning guns at all, than to prompt them to
safely store their fi rearms.
Section 1 of the measure requires gun owners to
“secure” all fi rearms, or face potential fi nes.
The measure defi nes a “secure” gun as one with an
engaged trigger lock or cable lock, or that is stored in
a “locked container, equipped with a tamper-resistant
lock.”
The measure also calls for the Oregon Health
Authority to adopt temporary rules by Jan. 1, 2021,
setting minimum specifi cations for those locks and
containers, and to adopt permanent rules for those
specifi cations by July 1, 2021.
Using locks, or locked containers, is a legitimate,
and common, way for gun owners to secure their
fi rearms.
But the measure would also impose on gun owners
a much more stringent, and potentially unrealistic,
legal standard.
It reads in part: “... a fi rearm is not secured if a
key, combination or other means of opening a lock or
container is readily available to a person the owner
or possessor has not authorized to carry or control
the fi rearm.”
The key phrases in the preceding sentence are “or
other means” and “readily available.”
If we’re going to require gun owners to secure guns
with locks, it’s sensible to also ensure that they keep
track of the keys, or combinations, that open those
locks.
But mandating, at penalty of law, that gun owners
also ensure that nobody can have “other means” to
access a locked gun is such a broad requirement that
in effect it means if anybody gets your gun, by any
means, it’s your fault, legally speaking.
What if the “other means” is a pair of bolt cutters,
an item that’s “readily available” at any hardware
store?
The measure also states that “space within a
vehicle” does not qualify as a container that meets
the requirement for “secure” storage. This ignores
the growing availability of lockable storage spaces,
particularly in pickup trucks, which could be nearly
as secure as a locked container inside a home.
The measure’s section regarding transferring fi re-
arms to a person younger than 18 is also ambiguous.
It requires that “a person who transfers a fi rearm to
a minor shall directly supervise the minor’s use of
the fi rearm,” yet the same section also states that the
requirement doesn’t apply to the transfer of a fi rearm
“that is owned by the minor.”
It’s not clear how a person can transfer a gun to a
minor who already owns that gun — or more to the
point, why this would be a “transfer.”
Measure 40’s backers have good intentions, but the
initiative doesn’t deserve voters’ support as written.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
We can afford Medicare for all
Democratic presidential candidates
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
have struggled to explain how they
would pay for “Medicare for all.”
This is puzzling. A single-payer ap-
proach like Medicare for all can reduce
overall health spending. Other wealthy
countries that have universal coverage
spend far less on healthcare than the
United States as a share of their gross
domestic product. A lack of money is
not the problem. That’s why it should
not be diffi cult to devise a way to pay
for Medicare for all to benefi t the vast
majority of us, particularly low- and
middle-income earners.
Canada has such a system, which
should cast doubt on all the naysay-
ers who claim that it is impossible or
ruinous. Canada, with a single-payer
system, spends half of what we do on
health care and gets better results.
Britain, France, Australia and Japan,
all with universal health care, also
spend less than half of what we spend
per capita and get better results.
Medicare for all is widely expected
to cost about $3 trillion a year. The gov-
ernment — through Medicare, Medic-
aid, CHIP and various other programs
— already pays more than $1.5 trillion
of this health care bill. Private insur-
ance and out-of-pocket costs account
for another roughly $1.5 trillion. Going
to Medicare for all would increase the
budget of the government by about
$1.5 trillion a year.
STEPHEN MARKS
Here are some ideas on how to fund
it:
End the cap on payroll taxes and ap-
ply payroll taxes to all income, includ-
ing interest and capital gains. This will
not have a signifi cant effect on anyone
whose income is less than $132,900,
the current cap, and will raise about
$1.5 trillion. Those making somewhat
above the current cap will end up pay-
ing a bit more, but they will not have
to pay health insurance premiums or
out-of-pocket medical expenses and will
come out ahead.
Large employers now pay on average
$6,000 per employee for individual
health insurance and $14,000 per
employee for family health insurance.
Many smaller employers pay similar
rates, as do the self-employed. Let’s
suppose that we tax all employers
$5,000 per year per employee and
relieve them of the burden of provid-
ing employee insurance. Most come
out way ahead. This raises about $650
billion.
Elizabeth Warren’s proposal of a 2%
wealth tax on wealth over $50 million
would raise another $250 billion a year.
Her proposed corporate tax on off-shore
earnings would raise $100 billion a
year by requiring companies like Ama-
zon to pay taxes on their worldwide
income.
Finally, if Canada, spending less than
half of U.S. expenditures on health care,
has better health outcomes, that suggests
there are savings to be had. Let’s be
conservative. Suppose a Medicare for all
system can help the U.S. cut total health
spending by 20%. That would save us
$600 billion — and still leave us with the
highest per person health care spending
in the world.
If we add all of these together, that
would be more than $3 trillion in ad-
ditional revenues or savings per year,
well over the $1.5 trillion in additional
government spending necessary to fund
Medicare for all.
None of this would increase the
burden on the middle class or the poor.
Indeed, without insurance premiums
and out-of-pocket expenses, their overall
costs would fall dramatically. And none of
this puts an excessive burden on the rich.
Corporations would reap huge savings.
And all Americans would get health care,
with enough left to invest in other health,
wellness and education programs.
Other ideas may be even more at-
tractive. These simply demonstrate that
we can have Medicare for all without
ruining the economy or raising taxes on
middle- and low-income earners. Let’s
do it.
Stephen Marks is an economist and
professor of law at Boston University
School of Law.
Your views
Baker City Fire Department
should continue as
ambulance provider
We are gravely concerned with the
potential of changing Baker City am-
bulance service to a contractor instead
of continuing the excellent service pro-
vided by Baker Fire Department. We
support continuing to use the Baker
Fire Department for the ambulance
service.
We observed contracted ambulance
attendants recently in another com-
munity care for a family member. They
were scheduled for transport from a
hospital to a treatment facility and
return. They were very late, nearly
causing our family member to lose his
appointment. He was in a great deal
of pain and very cold. They were not
respectful of his condition, handled
him poorly, did not provide a blanket
or protection from the weather (rain-
ing) during transport, and worst of all,
they did not know where they were
going and missed the location several
times. We made a complaint, but the
community said that this was the only
ambulance service available and they
were contracted. We have not used the
current Baker City Fire Department
ambulance service, but know friends
that have. They are reported to be very
prompt, caring and careful with the
patients. They certainly know where
they are going as well.
Another signifi cant reason to keep
the ambulance service with the Fire
Department is that it allows the Fire
Department to keep the permanent
staff they currently have. This helps
our community twofold; by keeping
qualifi ed fi refi ghters on hand that are
also trained as paramedics. We get
more bang for our bucks this way plus
we continue to employ folks that live in
and contribute to our community. Also,
if a private ambulance company takes
over then the city fi re department will
most likely lose much of their capabili-
ties for fi re suppression and rescue due
to reduced staff.
Baker Fire Department staff are
dedicated employees that provide
important professional services, both
medical and fi re suppression, as well
as fi re prevention education and other
services. Baker Fire Department staff
have knowledge of the people who live
here and where the medical services
are located.
Please support keeping the am-
bulance service with the Baker Fire
Department.
Dorothy and Bob Mason
Baker City
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
President Donald Trump: The White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-1414; fax
202-456-2461; to send comments, go to www.whitehouse.gov/
contact.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. offi ce: 313 Hart Senate Offi ce
Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3753;
fax 202-228-3997. Portland offi ce: One World Trade Center, 121
S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386;
fax 503-326-2900. Pendleton offi ce: 310 S.E. Second St. Suite
105, Pendleton 97801; 541-278-1129; merkley.senate.gov.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. offi ce: 221 Dirksen Senate
Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244; fax 202-
228-2717. La Grande offi ce: 105 Fir St., No. 210, La Grande, OR
97850; 541-962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885; wyden.senate.gov.
U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (2nd District): D.C. offi ce: 2182
Rayburn Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20515, 202-225-
6730; fax 202-225-5774. La Grande offi ce: 1211 Washington Ave.,
La Grande, OR 97850; 541-624-2400, fax, 541-624-2402; walden.
house.gov.
State Sen. Cliff Bentz (R-Ontario): Salem offi ce: 900 Court
St. N.E., S-301, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1730. District offi ce:
P.O. Box 1027, Ontario, OR 97914; 541-889-8866.
State Rep. Lynn Findley (R-Vale): Salem offi ce: 900 Court
St. N.E., H-475, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1460. Email: Rep.
LynnFindley@oregonlegislature.gov
Baker City Hall: 1655 First Street, P.O. Box 650, Baker
City, OR 97814; 541-523-6541; fax 541-524-2049. City Council
meets the second and fourth Tuesdays at 7 p.m. in Council
Chambers. Mike Downing, Loran Joseph, Randy Schiewe,
Lynette Perry, Arvid Andersen, Ken Gross and Doni Bruland.