Healthcare a "Fundamental Human Right"?

[NOTE: I'm taking the text of this initiative from a post on Portland Indymedia. It's worth clicking on the the link (I'll include it again at the bottom) to read some of the discussion but since I don't know how long the post will be on their site, I'm going to include the initiative's text and the author's contact information here for reference.]

Initiative number 40

AMENDS CONSTITUTION: REQUIRES ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE AS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT; LEGISLATURE MUST ADOPT PLAN EXPANDING HEALTH CARE

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote requires state to ensure access to health care as fundamental right, and legislature to adopt plan expanding health care coverage, for Oregon residents.

RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains current law, which does not require access to health care as fundamental right or require legislature to adopt plan expanding health care.

SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Currently, state statutes establish goals for universal health care; state constitution does not require legislature to adopt health care plan. Measure requires state to provide access to health care as fundamental right for every Oregon resident; legislature must adopt plan that incrementally expands health care coverage so residents can regularly obtain effective, affordable health care. In developing plan, legislature must consider ways to: conserve, strengthen existing health care system; conserve, strengthen system of providing health insurance as employment benefit; encourage individual responsibility for health care; maximize use of federal programs; encourage efficient, effective use of expenditures; improve health of every Oregon resident. Plan must be adopted not later than July 1, 2009; repeals requirement to adopt plan on December 31, 2012. Other provisions.

Be it enacted by the people of the State of Oregon:

PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating new sections 46 and 46a to be added to and made a part of Article 1, such sections to read:

SECTION 46. Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity and there is an obligation for the state to ensure that every Oregon resident has access to effective and affordable health care as a fundamental right.

SECTION 46a. (1) The Legislative Assembly by law shall adopt a plan that incrementally expands health care coverage so that every Oregon resident is able to obtain effective and affordable health care on a regular basis.

(2) When developing a plan for expanding health care coverage, the Legislative Assembly shall consider ways to:

(a) Conserve and strengthen the existing health care system to the greatest extent possible;

(b) Conserve and strengthen the existing system of providing health insurance as a benefit of employment;

(c) Encourage individual responsibility for one's own health care;

(d) Maximize the use of Medicaid, Medicare and other federal health care programs;

(e) Encourage the efficient and effective use of health care expenditures; and

(f) Improve the health of every Oregon resident.

(3) The Legislative Assembly by law shall adopt a plan that incrementally expands health care coverage pursuant to this section not later than July 1, 2009.

(4) This section is repealed December 31, 2012.

State Rep. Mitch Greenlick -- mitchgreenlick@msn.com

In Eugene, contact state Rep. Paul Holvey -- Holvey.Rep@state.or.us

Here's my take:

I hate to say it, but I'm having a problem getting excited about this initiative and was talking with a buddy about it just a couple of hours ago. We too asked the big "why" question and one thing we wondered was if it isn't an attempt to lay some sort of very basic groundwork to start building upon -- you know, like agreeing on the definitions or learning a common language or even adopting policies and procedures -- if most of us were to agree that healthcare was a basic human right then it would be (an albeit different) place to start the discussion (rather than starting with 'fixing a system that is broken'). But honestly, I fear we were just looking for some reason to support the thing.

I find the inclusion of an incremental approach very troubling. Gee, so can they adopt a plan that extends coverage to themselves in 2009 and adds everyone else 50 - 100 years later? While I understand the appeal of an incremental approach has for some, I have to wonder if this could stand constitution muster since it would not treat all citizens equally (they get healthcare now but I've got to wait 10 years but my current prognosis is death in 6 unless I get healthcare NOW). Seems like a great class action "angle" to me. And do I need to say much about "conserve, strengthen existing health care system?" If the current system is so bad, and like many others, I agree it is bad enough to be scrapped completely, why on earth would I want to put it into the constitution to "conserve" it?!?!? Throw the damn thing out - baby, bath water, bath tub, bathroom and all!

Last, if healthcare is a "fundamental human right," why on earth would we constitutionally tie it to employment? It's almost like saying that those who aren't employable (too young, too old, too sick, etc) don't qualify for basic human rights. This just feels like an oxymoron to me. If it's fundamental then it's not tied to something else. You 'qualify' for it because you are a member of the class. We qualify for health care because we are human, not because we are or aren't employable.

Bottom line, I will not support this initiative either by donating time, money, or energy now will I vote for it should it actually reach the ballot and my bettin' cash says it won't. While the concept of calling healthcare a "fundamental human right" has great appeal to progressives and (carefully said) liberals, that it all it's got going for it. And the downsides simply outweigh that single positive for the reasons outlined above.

[As promised, read more about what people are saying about this initiative at Portland Indymedia.]