2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I fully support effective health reform and always have.

That being said, if legislation is passed and signed into law that the feds enforce to require everyone to be insured and do not provide a public option, then it is tantamount to federal alliance with the insurance companies!

Yes, there is language to require certain things from the companies, but there are most likely loopholes.  Companies will find a way to hurt people and health providers if it means they can clear a profit. 

The only effective way to get profit motivated companies to tow the line is to give them competition that is motivated by the public good.

I will not support any candidates in the upcoming elections if they vote for or approve health care "reform" that is ends up being government enforcement of furthering profits for the private sector!

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

rationed health care: we already have it, except the insurance companies are doing the rationing.  I have absolutely no control over what they decide to do.  *If* the government rationed as badly as the insurance companies do today, at least I can vote to change the government.  And don't talk about how market forces will allow us choices to command insurance companies to do the right thing.  The only thing that market forces drive is profit and profit for insurance companies is staked in denying coverage or reducing coverage.  The government goal is better health care for all Americans and efficiency so that dollars go farther...but it is not on a simple profit motive.

government control: why is this touted as a bad thing?  Again, to the extent that government will control how I get health care, at least I can play some part in making sure it is done correctly.  Insurance companies, not health care providers and certainly not patients control health care today.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

This is an ideal time to think about reducing! In other words, what can product producers do to limit the amount of packaging, first that is non-recyclable (which goes into the landfills anyway) and second, the packing that is recyclable. Can governments provide an economic incentive for companies which use less packaging? Will consumers band together and pick products with less packaging?

The word "recycling" includes the word "cycle" and so if we do have things which can be recycled, it is important to not only focus on the things to recycle but the things which can be made from recycled products. If I remember correctly, Portland recently considered incentives for businesses which buy more recycled products to get a reduction in their trash collection fees. Not sure what happened with that proposal...but the idea was a good one: try to improve the market for recycled materials. More needs to be done in this area.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context