My appreciation for the thoughtful, reasoned, sincere debate on this issue in committee. This experience has come closest to resembling what I once imagined the Legislature to be - back in my youthful and idealistic days. It's a credit to chair and committee members. This debate over the status of health care should be put squarely before the public, and that is why I support HJR 100.

About rights:
When does a "good," such as organic produce or digital television or health care, become a "right"? To answer that question, it may be worth trying to establish what it is about human beings that is important or special enough to create a right -- any right. There can be considerable disagreement on this question, but the members of this body may be able to reach some consensus that what's most sacred about human beings, what's really worth preserving and what grounds rights, is our status as individuals who are capable of deliberating over and choosing a good life for ourselves. I'll repeat: a right is a guarantee that plays a fundamental role in allowing us to deliberate over and choose a good life for ourselves.

This understanding gives rise, for instance, to the rights that limit government's ability to interfere with our freedom to pursue the life we have chosen. It suggests that we don't have the right to organic produce or digital television. But other goods are in a different category. We must have a minimum education to be able to make reasonably informed choices about the good life. We must have a modicum of material resources with which to pursue those choices. We must have a basic level of health to enable us to make and enjoy our choices.

Note that this foundation for rights does not suggest that someone is obligated to provide me with my particular version of the good life: my particular preference for an extra-long bed, for example, or first edition books. Nor does it suggest that I am owed unlimited education or material resources or health care.

For those who are nervous about what this would do to our budget, I would point to how Oregon's Constitution already treats education. Article VIII, Section 3 guarantees each and every Oregonian child a public education. But Article VIII, Section 3 does not guarantee a particular level of state funding for education. I would argue this Legislature is constitutionally obligated to provide first grade, but we are not obligated to provide one-on-one instruction for every first-grade child. Similarly, it seems reasonable to think that while HJR 100 would require the Legislature to adopt a plan for providing health care to all Oregonians, it would not obligate the Legislature to guarantee, for example, that Oregonians would always be healthy, or that they are entitled to every conceivable health care service or treatment.

This is an important, timely question for Oregonians to consider, and I urge your aye vote.