« The Palace Guard | Main | Two Events for Progressive Political Junkies »

October 12, 2006

Measure 48 an Unhealthy Choice

Chalk up one more reason to vote NO on Measure 48: The need for government health care assistance in Oregon is rising faster than population and inflation.

Over the next ten years, the number of people who will be needing the State to pay for their long-term health care will increase 23%, and due to rising health care costs, the State's costs to care for those citizens will likely increase 25% to 30%. Meanwhile, Oregon's population is only expected to grow 11.6%, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and incomes are increasing just 3% to 4% per year (as compared to health care costs, which are increasing 8% to 10% per year).

According to Dr. Bruce Goldberg, director of Oregon's Department of Human Services, the increasing disparity between income and health care costs is driving more people to look for government assistance (which, under Measure 48, would be less and less available).

If the state responds by cutting people from health plans, increases copays or reduces benefits, he said, more people end up going to emergency rooms for free treatment, which is reflected in higher private insurance premiums, which means Oregonians "pay, pay, pay."

Making the matter worse, Oregon will be particularly vulnerable to demographic shifts that will leave income-earners with an ever-increasing burden. According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of Oregonians who are classified as "elderly" will see a dramatic upturn. In 1995, the figure was 13.6. By 2025, it will be 24.2, putting Oregon in 4th place among the fifty states in terms of greatest percentage of elderly population. Meanwhile, for every 100 people of wage-earning age in Oregon, the number of youth (under age 20) and elderly will reach 90, up from 71.4 in 1994.

In short, proportionally more people will need the State's help to pay for health care that is increasing in cost two to three times faster than income growth while proportionally fewer people will be working and paying taxes to pay for that care, forcing the needy to seek care in emergency rooms and shifting those even higher health care costs back onto the shoulders of wage-earners who increasingly will be unable to pay for their own health care.

And we want to make this situation worse by limiting the resources available that could mitigate that desperate shift to higher-cost emergency room services? Are we nuts?

Posted by Becky at October 12, 2006 10:28 AM