A4
OPINION
Blue Mountain Eagle
Wednesday, September 22, 2021
When the
state faces its
own mandates
W
e have from the
start advised those
old enough and
medically able to be vaccinated
against the COVID-19 virus.
We have also pressed employ-
ers to take reasonable steps to
protect their employees, and that
everyone take whatever steps
they believe necessary to protect
themselves.
We are fi rmly in the anti-
COVID camp.
We have been critical of
many government regulatory
actions related to the pandemic,
particularly those borne of
sweeping emergency executive
orders that have escaped legisla-
tive review.
Almost from the start, the
state governors imposed strict
rules on businesses and employ-
ers, and sent out regulators to
force compliance.
The state of Oregon found
out recently how hard it is to
enforce its own mandates.
After a one-year hiatus, the
Oregon State Fair returned this
year with the theme “Fun makes
a comeback.” Maybe a little
too much fun, at least for some
patrons.
Late last month, Gov. Kate
Brown mandated that masks be
worn in public settings, indoors
and outdoors, at large gather-
ings such as the fair and the
recently-completed Pendle-
ton Round-Up. The fair, a pub-
lic corporation, is a govern-
ment entity that operates under
the authority of state statute.
The fairgrounds and the facili-
ties located on the grounds are
owned by the state. The fair is
patrolled by the Oregon State
Police.
Several news outlets reported
that Oregon OSHA received at
least a dozen complaints that
mask rules were not enforced
on the grounds. Photos posted
on social media indicate wide-
spread fl outing of the gover-
nor’s rules.
“We are adding steps. Over
the weekend, we talked with
Oregon OSHA, and they will
be visiting the fair on their
time frame,” Oregon State Fair
spokesperson Dave Thomp-
son told KOIN. “They will be
looking specifi cally at the ven-
dors and staff and the people
we do have some control over
and make sure they’re wearing
masks. Vendors could be fi ned
thousands of dollars.”
OSHA was sent to hold ven-
dors to the rules, but not to
make the fair enforce the rules
on its patrons. Ejecting uncom-
pliant fairgoers would have
been hard, unpopular and not
much fun.
Ag employers can empa-
thize. They have, in eff ect, been
turned into agents of the state.
If they fail to comply with the
rules, or are thwarted by unco-
operative employees or cus-
tomers, they can be heavily
fi ned by the state.
In an ideal world, the expe-
riences of an actual agent of the
state with enforcing state dik-
tats would inform regulators to
the practical problems of com-
pliance and ameliorate their atti-
tudes toward good faith eff orts
put forth by the regulated.
Alas, the world is far from
ideal.
Oregon committee is creating
a single-payer health system
I
am one of 13 gubernatorial
appointees and voting mem-
bers of the Joint Task Force on
Universal Health Care created by
the 2019 Legislature. In June, we
released a status report presenting
our current thinking on the design of
a universal health care system. Our
proposal is a work in progress, not
fi nal.
Our plan will not be “Medi-
care for all.” Medicare requires pre-
miums, co-pays and private insur-
ance companies for supplemental
or advantage plans. In contrast, we
propose a single-payer plan. A new
public corporation would be created
to bear the fi nancial risk that insur-
ance companies and self-insured
businesses carry today.
Our plan could “help fi x some
problems by making health care
accessible to more people and more
equitable.” And there’s ample room
for cost control and lower adminis-
trative costs.
A new health care system will
indeed make Oregonians “happier
and healthier” by improving qual-
ity of care.
A major challenge is improving
how we access health care, espe-
cially “uncoupling health insurance
from employment.” And, our plan
will ultimately need support from
the public, our businesses and the
Legislature.
In Oregon today about half
of private insurance is purchased
through employers. The Legislature
rightly considers the cost of employ-
er-provided health insurance as both
tax free income to employees and a
deductible expense for the employer.
That deduction, not available
to Oregonians
buying individ-
ual policies, cou-
pled with the tax
break for employ-
ees, reinforces
our dependence
Chuck
on employer-pro-
Sheketoff
vided insurance.
We want to equal-
ize access to health care with a dif-
ferent method of payment: progres-
sive fees and taxes providing health
care access to everyone regardless
of employer. Our task force is confi -
dent that the new payroll fee to fund
health care will be less than the cost
of employer-provided insurance. We
expect Oregon families will wel-
come a plan that is not tied to their
employer; that eliminates premiums,
co-pays and deductibles; and that
ends battles with insurance compa-
nies to approve a provider or benefi t.
Employer-provided insur-
ance hurts Oregon’s economy.
The employees receive lower pay
and the impact on pay is regres-
sive: Employer- provided insurance
premiums take a bigger share of
income from lower paid employees
than from higher paid employees.
Our approach, which is still
evolving, favors a moderately pro-
gressive payroll-based fee, meaning
less impact on employees receiv-
ing lower pay. Like the insurance
premiums that employers cur-
rently pay, a payroll health care fee
would be a tax deductible business
expense.
However, because a payroll
health care fee will be less than the
insurance premiums most employ-
ers pay today, our plan will improve
profi tability, pay and benefi ts to
workers, or both.
Today, all families and individu-
als pay at least something for health
care, even those Oregonians with
limited income who seek alterna-
tive care not provided by the Oregon
Health Plan. Under our plan, funded
by progressive taxes, Oregon fami-
lies won’t have premiums, co-pays
or deductibles.
Our task force is committed to
ensuring that any new taxes will be
less than what Oregonians currently
pay for insurance, co-pays, deduct-
ibles and noncovered services.
Consistent with our legislative
charge, we created a consumer advi-
sory committee with representatives
from a wide array of Oregon com-
munities and interests. We encour-
age public testimony at our open
meetings. We listen to all contri-
butions and have included them in
our planning. With bipartisan sup-
port, the 2021 Legislature extended
our timeline to present a plan.
This renewal of our charge pro-
vides funds for even more rigorous
engagement with the people, organi-
zations and businesses that our task
force needs to honor.
We hope your readers will con-
sider contributing their ideas to our
critical work. Vibrant public par-
ticipation will help create a health
care system that is universal and
that answers the needs of all Oregon
families and businesses.
Chuck Sheketoff submitted this
piece on behalf of the voting mem-
bers of the Task Force on Univer-
sal Health Care. Readers can get
involved and follow the task force’s
work at bit.ly/JTFUHC21.
Drug price ‘negotiations’ are
a danger to America’s seniors
WHERE TO WRITE
GRANT COUNTY
• Grant County Courthouse — 201 S.
Humbolt St., Suite 280, Canyon City 97820.
Phone: 541-575-0059. Fax: 541-575-2248.
• Canyon City — P.O. Box 276, Canyon City
97820. Phone: 541-575-0509. Fax: 541-575-
0515. Email: tocc1862@centurylink.net.
• Dayville — P.O. Box 321, Dayville 97825.
Phone: 541-987-2188. Fax: 541-987-2187.
Email: dville@ortelco.net
• John Day — 450 E. Main St, John Day,
97845. Phone: 541-575-0028. Fax: 541-575-
1721. Email: cityjd@centurytel.net.
• Long Creek — P.O. Box 489, Long Creek
97856. Phone: 541-421-3601. Fax: 541-421-
3075. Email: info@cityofl ongcreek.com.
• Monument — P.O. Box 426, Monument
97864. Phone and fax: 541-934-2025. Email:
cityofmonument@centurytel.net.
• Mt. Vernon — P.O. Box 647, Mt. Vernon
97865. Phone: 541-932-4688. Fax: 541-932-
4222. Email: cmtv@ortelco.net.
• Prairie City — P.O. Box 370, Prairie City
97869. Phone: 541-820-3605. Fax: 820-3566.
Email: pchall@ortelco.net.
• Seneca — P.O. Box 208, Seneca 97873.
Phone and fax: 541-542-2161. Email:
senecaoregon@gmail.com.
SALEM
• Gov. Kate Brown, D — 254 State Capitol,
Salem 97310. Phone: 503-378-3111. Fax:
503-378-6827. Website: governor.state.or.us/
governor.html.
• Oregon Legislature — State Capitol, Salem,
97310. Phone: 503-986-1180. Website: leg.
state.or.us (includes Oregon Constitution and
Oregon Revised Statutes).
• Oregon Legislative Information —
(For updates on bills, services, capitol or
messages for legislators) — 800-332-2313,
oregonlegislature.gov.
• Sen. Lynn Findley, R-Vale — 900 Court St.
NE, S-301, Salem 97301. Phone: 503-986-
1730. Website: oregonlegislature.gov/fi ndley.
Email: sen.lynnfi ndley@oregonlegislature.
gov.
• Rep. Mark Owens, R-Crane — 900 Court St.
NE, H-475, Salem 97301. Phone: 503-986-
1460. District address: 258 S. Oregon St.,
Ontario OR 97914. District phone: 541-889-
8866. Website: oregonlegislature.gov/fi ndley.
Email: rep.markowens@oregonlegislature.
gov.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20500; Phone-
comments: 202-456-1111; Switchboard:
202-456-1414.
• U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D — 516 Hart Senate
Offi ce Building, Washington D.C. 20510.
Phone: 202-224-5244. Email: wayne_kinney@
wyden.senate.gov. Website: http://wyden.
senate.gov Fax: 202-228-2717.
• U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D — 313 Hart
Senate Offi ce Building, Washington D.C.
20510. Phone: 202-224-3753. Email: senator@
merkley.senate.gov. Fax: 202-228-3997.
Oregon offi ces include One World Trade
Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St., Suite 1250,
Portland, OR 97204; and 310 S.E. Second St.,
Suite 105, Pendleton, OR 97801. Phone: 503-
326-3386; 541-278-1129. Fax: 503-326-2990.
• U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz, R — (Second District)
1239 Longworth Building, Washington D.C.
20515. Phone: 202-225-6730. No direct email
because of spam. Website: walden.house.
gov Fax: 202-225-5774. Ontario offi ce: 2430
SW Fourth Ave., Suite 2, Ontario, OR 97914.
Phone: 541-709-2040. Medford offi ce: 14 N.
Central Ave., Suite 112, Medford, OR 97501.
Phone: 541-776-4646. Fax: 541-779-0204.
• Pending Bills: For information on bills in
Congress. Phone: 202-225-1772.
D
emocrats just passed a bud-
get plan that would give fed-
eral bureaucrats the ability to
“negotiate” drug prices directly with
manufacturers.
To the uninitiated, that sounds
attractive. After all, who wouldn’t
want to pay less for medicines?
But in reality, the negotiations
aren’t going to lead to lower prices
at the pharmacy. They’re going to
instead mean less access to lifesav-
ing medicines today and fewer new
medicines tomorrow.
The word “negotiation” is a
euphemism, of course. When Big
Government bigfoots its way into
a market to tell a private business
what it can charge for its products,
that’s a price control.
The lawmakers touting nego-
tiations hope to achieve their goal
by repealing the “noninterference”
clause that’s embedded in the law
governing Medicare’s drug bene-
fi t. This language bars the Secretary
of Health and Human Services from
interfering in the private price nego-
tiations for Medicare Part D plans.
The rule has served America well,
keeping government at bay for the
18 years (and counting) of Part D’s
existence.
Part D plans are currently admin-
istered by private insurers that
already extract
steep discounts and
rebates from drug
manufacturers.
Government
negotiators are
unlikely to fare
Saul
as well — unless
Anuzis
they restrict access
to medicines. As
the Congressional Budget Offi ce
has noted, “the Secretary would
be unable to negotiate prices across
the broad range of covered Part D
drugs that are more favorable than
those [already] obtained” absent the
ability to put “pressure on drug
manufacturers.”
Indeed, the noninterference
clause has remained a key com-
ponent of Medicare because law-
makers have recognized that the
tradeoff s are too high. Negotiations
would only work if patients’ access
to drugs is diminished. Prices will
only be driven lower if the provi-
sion of new medicines is restricted.
Certain drugs just won’t be avail-
able to seniors any longer.
Will those restrictions be
through a national “formulary”
that only covers older, less expen-
sive medicines? Or through the
philosophically toxic device of
QALYs — quality-adjusted life-
Blue Mountain
Grant County’s Weekly Newspaper
SUBSCRIPTION RATES
(including online access)
EAGLE
Editor & General Manager ..............Bennett Hall, bhall@bmeagle.com
One year ..................................................$51
Monthly autopay .............................. $4.25
Outside Continental U.S. ....................$60
Published every
Wednesday by
Reporter ...................................................... Steven Mitchell, steven@bmeagle.com
Sports ........................................................sports@bmeagle.com
Multimedia ............................................................. Alex Wittwer, awittwer@eomediagroup.com
Marketing Rep .......................................Kim Kell, ads@bmeagle.com
Subscriptions must be paid
prior to delivery
MEMBER OREGON NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION
Online: MyEagleNews.com
Periodicals Postage Paid
at John Day and additional
mailing offi ces.
POSTMASTER
send address changes to:
Blue Mountain Eagle
195 N. Canyon Blvd.
John Day, OR 97845-1187
USPS 226-340
Offi ce Assistant .....................................Alixandra Hand, offi ce@bmeagle.com
Phone: 541-575-0710
years — by which younger,
healthier patients are deemed more
worthy of treatment than older,
sicker ones?
The strongest argument against
drug-price controls is the asphyx-
iating eff ect the policy would
have on innovation. Companies
must have a chance of a return on
investment. Reduced revenues that
result from reduced prices will
mean greatly reduced investment
into new treatments and cures.
These tradeoff s are the dirty
secret of “negotiations.”
Another dirty secret is, of
course, that these “negotiations”
would be a scam. The $500 billion
“savings” that the Democrats claim
will result from negotiation will be
used to pay for billions in spending
on the Green New Deal and other
initiatives entirely unrelated to the
medical needs of our seniors.
The real debate isn’t between
those who are for or against “nego-
tiation.” It’s one between those
who would protect a law that safe-
guards access and choice for seniors
and those with disabilities, versus
those who would put it all at risk for
cheap political points.
Saul Anuzis is president of 60
Plus, the American Association of
Senior Citizens.
Copyright © 2021
Blue Mountain Eagle
All rights reserved. No part of this
publication covered by the copyright
hereon may be reproduced or copied
in any form or by any means — graphic,
electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, taping or information
storage and retrieval systems — without
written permission of the publisher.
facebook.com/MyEagleNews
@MyEagleNews