Steve Buckstein
Steve Buckstein helped found the Cascade Policy Institute in January, 1991 and served as its president until 2004. As a senior policy analyst, he writes and speaks both in Oregon and nationally on several policy issues including education and Social Security reform.
Prior to founding Cascade, Steve coordinated the 1990 general election campaign for a citizens’ initiative which would have provided educational tax credits to every student in Oregon so they could choose public, private, religious or home schooling. Steve served on the board of Oregonians for Cost-Effective Government in 1987 and 1988 and was a 1988 candidate for Oregon State Treasurer.
Steve received his Bachelor of Science degree in physics and his Master’s of Business Administration from Oregon State University.
Saturday, January 26, 2008Oregon Tries to Make Health Care a "Fundamental Right"By Steve BucksteinCategories: OregonThe Oregon House Interim Committee on Health Care held a lively public hearing and work session yesterday on a proposed Constitutional Amendment which would declare access to health care to be a “fundamental right.” If approved by the February special legislative session, it would be voted on by Oregonians in November.The key language of Legislative Concept 91 reads: The people of Oregon find that health care is an essential safeguard to human life and dignity and that access to health care is a fundamental right. In order to implement that right, the Legislative Assembly shall establish by law a plan for a system designed to provide every legal resident of the state access to effective and affordable health care on a regular basis. The hearing started with representatives from health care providers and insurance companies testifying in favor of creating this new “fundamental right.”
Then Cascade Policy Institute board member Michael Barton and I testified in opposition. Michael gave the committee a history and philosophy lesson, explaining how the American government was founded on the principle that government does not grant rights, it simply protects our inalienable rights such as those to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He explained that our rights define what we are free to do without interference; they are not goods or services that others must provide for us. He gave each member a copy of his 2006 Cascade Commentary, "Right" to health care violates individual rights, which was published in response to an early version of the current “legislative concept” facing us now. I followed Michael with a discussion of the political implications. Here is the gist of my testimony: On a philosophical level, I object to defining health care as a right. On a political level, I understand that government tries to grant such positive rights all the time. In this case, passing this constitutional amendment will make some people feel good. It says that we care deeply about the uninsured, but it only gives intellectual lip service, if that, to the matter of future costs.After our prepared testimony the committee members asked us a number of questions, giving us the opportunity to expand on our position. Chairman Mitch Greenlick seemed to enjoy the back-and-forth; at one point likening it to a good college debate. Then Rep. Greenlick himself testified in favor of what is really his proposal. The committee then spent a considerable amount of time discussing the pros and cons, before approving it, and the accompanying joint resolution setting the November election (LC 88), on a party line vote. A key argument against the proposal was made by Rep. Dennis Richardson who observed that, if enacted, a “fundamental right” to health care would seem to trump everything else in the Oregon Constitution. If the legislature comes up with a plan to make good on this “fundamental right” what happens when voters reject the new taxes needed to pay for it? Since neither education, transportation, criminal justice, or any other state government service is defined as a “fundamental right” in our Constitution, then funding for these services might be cannibalized to fund the one “fundamental right” in that document, health care. But voters won’t be presented with this reality when marking their ballots in November. This potential clash of essential services may make for strange bedfellows in future election battles. Will the teachers union, for example, want to lose funding to the health care providers? The unintended consequences of this proposal are almost endless. But that’s the way the game is played for now, and the next inning will play out in the Capitol building over the next few weeks. Stay tuned…
|
Wednesday, November 7, 2007Oregonians Vote Down SCHIP-like MeasureBy Steve BucksteinCategories: Oregon, SCHIPOregon voters sent Congress a message on Tuesday when they voted down a new cigarette tax to pay for children’s health insurance. The vote was 60% against and 40% in favor of funding the so-called Healthy Kids Plan. Measure 50 would have locked an 84.5 cent per pack increase into the Oregon Constitution to fully fund health insurance for children in families up to 200% of the federal poverty level. It would have partially subsidized insurance for kids in families from 200% to 300% of the poverty level. Voters apparently weren’t willing to saddle just smokers with the cost of this expensive new government program, and they didn’t buy claims that a declining revenue source could cover rising health insurance premiums for very long. Oregon U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer said before the vote that passage would be "a shot in the arm" for federal SCHIP efforts. On the flip side, Oregon’s Democratic Governor Kulongoski warned, "If you can defeat it here in Oregon, you send a chilling message to the rest of the country." Well, it was soundly defeated here in liberal-leaning Oregon. The resultant chill of federal SCHIP efforts will hopefully encourage consumer-driven health care advocates to redouble our efforts.
|
Thursday, September 13, 2007NO SCHIPMake insurance more affordable instead By Steve BucksteinCategories: SCHIPCascade Policy Institute summer intern Anthony Stinton gives his views on why SCHIP should not be expanded in a recent commentary, NO SCHIP. Anthony, who graduated first in his class from the US Air Force Academy and now attends Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, says: "More public money is not the answer. Instead, Congress should act to make insurance more affordable."
|
Wednesday, April 4, 2007Is "Single Payer" a Dirty Word?By Steve BucksteinWhen Sally C. Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco gave invited testimony* before the Oregon House Health Care Committee last Wednesday, she briefly commented on the major health care reform bills before the legislature. She noted that all of them had the potential to devolve into a single payer system like the one she is so critical of in her native Canada. Committee member Rep. Ben Cannon (D) challenged her, arguing that since none of the bills actually mentioned "single payer" that she might want to be more careful with her use of language. Sally responded by reiterating that whether or not they actually contained those words, their flawed approaches to health care reform could inevitably lead to a single payer system. The very fact that a legislator seemed so concerned with keeping "single payer" out of the discussion may mean that those in favor of such a system have concluded that the public won't go for it. Good news, if it's true. * Listen to to the entire hearing through this link. Sally's testimony occupies the first 23 minutes, then two stateworkers testify, then Sally and the state workers answer questions beginning at 34:30 into the hearing. This portion of the hearing ends at 59:00 into the two hour session.
|
| SPN Headquarters: 2020 North 14th Street Ste 250 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 243-1655 | West Coast Office: PO Box 5208 Richmond, CA 94805 Phone: (510) 965-9700 |
