A4 BAKER CITY HERALD • THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022
BAKER CITY
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
Oregon’s look
at single-payer
health care
W
hen you hear that Oregon might move to a
single-payer, state-run health plan, you may
think: Yes!
Every Oregonian would get health care coverage
and the same level of coverage. Equity and quality
might go up. Overall costs may be held down. You
would pay taxes instead of health care premiums.
Th at’s the kind of plan the state’s Joint Task Force on
Universal Health Care is supposed to develop. It met
again Jan. 27, taking another step toward its goal of
submitting a Health Care for All Oregon Plan to the
Legislature by September 2022.
Is Oregon going to make such a momentous shift in
health care? Should skeptical Oregonians, health insur-
ers, pharmaceutical companies and others be nervous?
We can’t answer that. We are just going to slice off
one piece of this issue. Th at’s a form of care that the
plan won’t cover: long-term services and supports.
Long-term services and supports is medical
and nonmedical care provided to people who are
not able to do things for themselves, such as cook,
dress, bathe or make it to the bathroom. Th e harsh
reality is that while people can need that at any
stage of life, Medicare and most health insurance do
not pay for it. People need to “spend down” their as-
sets to where they have very little left and keep their
assets low to be eligible for government assistance.
Buying additional insurance can help.
Th at harsh reality would continue under an Oregon
single-payer plan, at least as the task force discussed on
Jan. 27. Th ey even deleted language from their pro-
posed recommendation to the Legislature that high-
lighted the issue. Struck from the recommendation
was this sentence: “Oregonians who are not eligible
for LTSS benefi ts will continue to ‘spend down’ assets
before becoming eligible.” Task force members weren’t
trying to hide what they were doing. It is just not
something Oregon’s single-payer plan would do. It’s a
state of aff airs in health care that isn’t going to change.
No state that has been developing a single-payer
plan has found a simple way to cover long-term
services. Th ey have all struggled with it, as Oregon’s
task force is. If the government started paying for
that type of long-term care, it would increase health
care costs substantially for any new health system
because substantial parts of it aren’t covered now.
It might be that an Oregon single-payer plan
would cover long-term services and supports at
some point in the future. For now it’s important to
note that a type of care that many Oregonians may
need at some point in their lives would not be cov-
ered by the Health Care for All Oregon Plan.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Baker City
Herald. Columns, letters and cartoons on this page
express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily
that of the Baker City Herald.
YOUR VIEWS
Baker County United seeks to
uphold our constitutions
I would like to respond to the
thoughtful and well-written letter to the
editor from Karen and David Andruss
from several weeks ago addressing Baker
County United’s (BCU) proposal for a
constitutional resolution.
First, I do not believe that the char-
acterization of BCU as being a far-right
radical group is based in evidence or
personal experience of any of the people
who make this claim. Every one of the
meetings have opened with The Pledge
of Allegiance, The Star Bangled Banner
and prayer. The purpose and substance
of the meetings has been to pursue
peaceful and lawful remedies to what
we believe to be violations and over-
reaches by our state and federal govern-
ments. Please ask any of the hundreds
of people who have attended if they be-
lieve differently.
Concerning the constitutional reso-
lution, every point of the resolution is
found in the US Bill of Rights and our
Oregon State Constitution. The pro-
posed resolution does not seek to add,
subtract or amend any laws whatsoever
(find resolution here: www.bakercoun-
tyunited.com). What the resolution does
is reaffirm that our county will uphold
and defend our basic liberties, as out-
lined in our founding documents, re-
gardless of the mandates, executive or-
ders or rulings of governors, legislators
or judges. The Bill of Rights is inviolate.
In 2018, Baker County passed a sim-
ilar resolution dealing with just the
Second Amendment and it passed by
66%. Again, the resolution did not add
or change any law; it simply reaffirmed
that our county officials and law en-
forcement are committed to protecting
the liberty of Baker County citizens
regarding gun rights. No governor,
judge, nor any government official has
the authority to suspend or violate the
Second Amendment.
The current proposal is called a “con-
stitutional resolution” because we seek to
hold our governments to the documents
they took an oath to uphold and defend;
we are in no way trying to change law
or our type of government. Over the
last two years we have been subjected to
many mandates that are not even laws,
and many of them are created and en-
forced by unelected officials and agen-
cies. How can we keep our government
accountable via the ballot box when
many of the mandates and bureaucrats
in question are not on the ballot?
I encourage everyone to read the res-
olution and make your own decision
based on primary sources. It is one way
that our county can keep and defend our
constitutional republic.
Joe Brown
Halfway
Residents formed Baker County
United to support community
Baker County United (BCU) formed
as a group of local residents seeking an
open discussion about the threats to
our jobs, businesses and children from
the never ending list of requirements
coming from Oregon Health Author-
ity (OHA).
The people that comprise BCU are
passionate about our county and dili-
gently work to find answers and com-
pile resources to help our neighbors
who seek remedy to their grievances.
The BCU website is filled with such re-
sources including PDF’s, videos and
great podcasts: bakercountyunited.com.
When a need arises in our commu-
nity we try to fulfill it. For example,
during this year’s gubernatorial race,
we have been approached by a number
of candidates who have been unable to
make connections through the tradi-
tional political volunteers at the grass-
roots level. We gladly offered a venue
and a platform for candidates to share
their positions so that voters can be ed-
ucated before making a decision.
This scenario is playing out again
Feb. 12 when Candidate Marc Thiel-
man will be in Baker City. We hope
that parents, teachers and volunteers
trapped in the 5J school district will
come glean from Marc’s experience as
a superintendent that resisted the man-
dates and gave choice back to the par-
ents. (Venue to be announced on our
website very soon!)
Baker County United is here for you.
Debbie Henshaw
Baker City
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
President Joe Biden: The White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-
1111; to send comments, go to www.whitehouse.gov.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. office: 313 Hart Senate
Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510;
202-224-3753; fax 202-228-3997. Portland office: One
World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250,
Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386; fax 503-326-2900.
Baker City office, 1705 Main St., Suite 504, 541-278-
1129; merkley.senate.gov.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. office: 221 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-
5244; fax 202-228-2717. La Grande office: 105 Fir St.,
No. 210, La Grande, OR 97850; 541-962-7691; fax, 541-
963-0885; wyden.senate.gov.
U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz (2nd District): D.C. office: 1239
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.,
20515, 202-225-6730; fax 202-225-5774. Medford
office: 14 N. Central Avenue Suite 112, Medford, OR
97850; Phone: 541-776-4646; fax: 541-779-0204;
Ontario office: 2430 S.W. Fourth Ave., No. 2, Ontario, OR
97914; Phone: 541-709-2040. bentz.house.gov.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown: 254 State Capitol, Salem,
OR 97310; 503-378-3111; www.governor.oregon.gov.
Oregon State Treasurer Tobias Read: oregon.
treasurer@ost.state.or.us; 350 Winter St. NE, Suite 100,
Salem OR 97301-3896; 503-378-4000.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum:
Justice Building, Salem, OR 97301-4096; 503-378-4400.
Oregon Legislature: Legislative documents and
information are available online at www.leg.state.or.us.
State Sen. Lynn Findley (R-Ontario): Salem office:
900 Court St. N.E., S-403, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-
1730. Email: Sen.LynnFindley@oregonlegislature.gov
State Rep. Mark Owens (R-Crane): Salem office: 900
Court St. N.E., H-475, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1460.
Email: Rep.MarkOwens@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. Councilors Jason Spriet,
Kerry McQuisten, Shane Alderson, Joanna Dixon,
Heather Sells, Johnny Waggoner Sr. and Dean Guyer.
Baker City administration: 541-523-6541. Jonathan
Cannon, city manager; Ty Duby, police chief; Sean Lee,
fire chief; Michelle Owen, public works director.
Baker County Commission: Baker County Courthouse
1995 3rd St., Baker City, OR 97814; 541-523-8200.
Meets the first and third Wednesdays at 9 a.m.; Bill
Harvey (chair), Mark Bennett, Bruce Nichols.
COLUMN
Punishing the unvaccinated a threat to human rights
BY KATHERINE DRABIAK
A recent Rasmussen Reports
poll revealed a significant percent-
age of the public agrees with puni-
tive actions for people who decline
COVID-19 vaccines, such as fines,
confinement or imprisonment. This
mindset reflects a power strategy
designed to chip away at the rule of
law and spur divisiveness among
the public.
Based on the poll, this strategy
has successfully — and deeply —
influenced public opinion. View-
ing people as inherently dangerous
based on their status rather than
their actions poses grave risks to ev-
eryone’s human rights.
According to the poll: 59% of
Democratic voters would favor a
government policy requiring that
citizens remain confined to their
homes at all times, except for emer-
gencies, if they decline a COVID-19
vaccine. Forty-five percent of Dem-
ocratic voters favored removing peo-
ple from their homes to reside in a
designated “facility” if they decline
the vaccination.
Today, many progressives view
aggressive mitigation policies as a
smart hedge against COVID-19.
Notably, allegiance to this strategy
would have been labeled conserva-
tive during influenza and Ebola pan-
demic concerns. In fact, in reaction
to the rise of a deadly strain of avian
flu in 2008, law professors writing
for the American Civil Liberties
Union explicitly cautioned against
an expansive quarantine, coercive
medical interventions and treatment
of people as a threat.
Quarantine law attempts to bal-
ance restricting a person’s move-
ment and liberty with protecting
society from that person potentially
spreading a dangerous disease. By
definition, quarantine applies only
to deadly or very serious communi-
cable diseases, traditionally includ-
ing diseases such as severe acute re-
spiratory syndrome, better known
as SARS; Ebola; or tuberculosis. It
applies only to people with a known
exposure, such as all people in one
school or one ship, not an entire state
or class of people.
Quarantine lasts only for the pe-
riod of disease incubation, not for
months on end. Importantly, quar-
antine is not designed as a punitive
measure, but rather a method for
monitoring and facilitating agreed-
upon medical care.
This poll proposition is not a quar-
antine, but a penalty designed to co-
erce people to submit to medical in-
tervention.
Broadly closing businesses, schools
and places of worship and restrict-
ing travel did not merely revise the
name for quarantine, but overlooked
well-settled principles behind it.
Health officials and policymakers
exerted power over all businesses, all
schools and all people under the pre-
sumption that everyone could possi-
bly be exposed or acting as potential
asymptomatic carriers of the virus.
This dismantled the law’s delicate
balance: To exert control over a per-
son or place exposed to communica-
ble disease requires narrow precision,
not attenuated or distant possibilities.
These requirements exist as a built-in
mechanism to balance the important
coexisting rights at stake.
The constraints imposed by stay-
at-home orders and theoretical poll
scenarios are not merely inconve-
niences, but also contravene human
rights law and constitutional law.
This encompasses a variety of rights,
such as the right to go to work and
earn a living; the right to preserve
one’s business and property; the right
to congregate in groups to socialize,
protest or worship; the right to travel;
and the right to make one’s own
medical decisions.
Importantly, these are naturally ex-
isting rights. They are not granted by
the government but must be shielded
from governmental attempts to in-
fringe upon them.
World leaders and media com-
mentators have expressed animos-
ity toward people based on vaccine
status, with calls to condemn and
exclude them from public spaces
such as workplaces, restaurants, and
theaters. For the majority of peo-
ple who complied with Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention
recommendations and received the
COVID-19 vaccine, following this
directive as a prerequisite to partic-
ipate in work and social activities
likely seems reasonable and imbued
with good intentions.
These statements displace fear of
the virus and a yearning to return to
normalcy with a divisive call to view
other people who resist compliance
as a menace or impediment.
But what happens if those in
power mandate compliance with an-
other directive or medical interven-
tion with which people do not agree?
During the height of anti-com-
munism in the 1960s, the Supreme
Court opined that engaging in cul-
tural, social and political activities
constitutes the “very essence of our
free society.” The Supreme Court
warned that curtailing those rights
based on the proposition that a per-
son could be dangerous can lead
to abhorrent concentration of state
power in totalitarian regimes that se-
cure power by ticketing citizens and
demanding identification papers.
Public health officials and govern-
ment leaders can recommend and
endorse medical interventions. In
times of crisis or public health emer-
gencies, people still retain the right to
consent or refuse medical interven-
tions, even when public health pro-
fessionals declare that the interven-
tion is necessary and beneficial.
We must vehemently resist the re-
classification of certain people as pre-
sumptively dangerous based on their
status alone. Cultivating suspicion
and shaming people based on their
status rather than conduct constitutes
a recipe for hostility, human rights
abuse and erosion of the rule of law.
Katherine Drabiak is a professor
of public health law, health law and
medical ethics at the University of
South Florida.