Measure No. 35

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

MEASURE 35 WOULD HARM THE QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE AND INCREASE YOUR COSTS FOR HEALTH CARE

Measure 35 will turn back the clock on health care in Oregon.

Measure 35 puts restrictions on how doctors and other health care providers may be paid.

State regulators could take away a doctor's license to practice or a hospital's business license -- not based on the quality of the care they provide, but on the terms of contracts they signed.

Measure 35 would outlaw prepaid health care. Such arrangements are important. The plans emphasize preventive care, early identification and treatment of illnesses, and aggressive management of chronic health conditions.

That kind of care reduces costs and improves health.

Many Medicare-eligible Oregonians have chosen these plans for their care. The Oregon Health Plan, which expanded medical coverage for very low income Oregonians, also relies on prepayment contracts.

The Oregon Health Plan
Could be Lost.

Oregonians will lose those choices if Measure 35 passes. Health insurance costs will increase, resulting in reduced employee benefits or the risk of job cuts. For taxpayers, Measure 35 will cost us $44 million more next year to provide health insurance for government workers; plus $35 million to the cost of the Oregon Health Plan.

Measure 35 could raise your costs,
reduce health care choices for consumers,
and increase the number of Oregonians
who cannot afford health care

That's why the board of Oregon's largest employer group involved in public policy voted unanimously to oppose Measure 35. And that's why...

Associated Oregon Industries urges you to
vote NO on Measure 35.

(This information furnished by Richard M. Butrick, Associated Oregon Industries.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

MEASURE 35: BAD MEDICINE FOR OREGON

• Measure 35 would increase consumers' health care costs up to $313 million. (Source: Estimate prepared by independent actuaries)

• Measure 35 would limit consumers' choices of health care plans that best serve their needs.

• Measure 35 would increase costs for families enrolled in HMOs -- nearly half of all Oregonians -- by an estimated $286.35 for every family member every year. (Source: Estimate prepared by independent actuaries)

• Measure 35 would cost taxpayers $79 million in state and local government costs to pay for the Oregon Health Plan and required government employee benefits -- taking away money from important services like education and fighting crime. (Source: State of Oregon Fiscal Impact Committee)

A broad-based coalition of thousands of Oregonians, small and large employers, consumers and seniors join the following organizations in urging you to ...

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 35
Oregon Nurses Association
Associated Oregon Industries
Academy of Family Physicians
Associated Builders and Contractors
Association of Health Underwriters
Association of Oregon Counties
Local health plans and insurers throughout Oregon
Oregon Self-Insurers Association
Oregon Rural Health Association
Local Chambers of Commerce across the state
United Grocers
Human Services Coalition of Oregon
Oregon Medical Association
(partial list)

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 35

(This information furnished by E.E. Patterson, Oregonians for Quality Health Care.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

NURSES PUT PATIENTS' NEEDS FIRST.
BALLOT MEASURE 35 DOES NOT

The Oregon Nurses Association represents 9,000 nurses who care for patients in urban and rural clinics, hospitals and nursing homes throughout the state. We work closely with physicians and other health care professionals to make sure that our patients, whether they're children or elderly, receive the quality and compassionate care they deserve.

The ONA has serious reservations about Measure 35. We believe it poses a severe threat to the Oregon Health Plan, a system that provides health care to people who can't afford health insurance, the poor and the disabled. Measure 35 would eliminate the foundation of the Oregon Health Plan, the effective and increasingly common method of paying doctors and other health care professionals.

Further, we believe that when this payment method works as it should, patients get the care they need, in the right setting, by the most appropriate provider. The incentives for this payment method are prevention, early identification and treatment of illnesses, and aggressive management of chronic health conditions. While abuses can occur under any system, the temptations under Ballot Measure 35 are to do too much, a far greater danger. Specialty physicians would be assured a steady stream of patients under Measure 35 for health conditions a primary provider can appropriately manage.

Measure 35 is a measure we can't afford.

JOIN OREGON NURSES AND VOTE NO ON MEASURE 35.

(This information furnished by Susan King RN, MS, Oregon Nurses Association.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Ballot Measure 35 is a bad idea. It would totally undermine the Oregon Health Plan by eliminating cost-effective capitation payment to providers. It would limit consumer choice of health plans by returning to the day of indemnity insurance as the major source of coverage. And it would significantly increase healthcare costs to businesses, consumers and taxpayers by eliminating Oregon's evolving managed care delivery system.

A large part of health insurance in Oregon is currently provided through managed care arrangements on a prepaid basis: HMOs, Medicare and the Oregon Health Plan all rely on contracts with providers to treat patients for a fixed, prepaid cost.

If Measure 35 passes, our low-cost, quality-focused delivery system would cease to exist. The Oregon Health Plan no longer would be able to provide health insurance to more than 130,000 working men, women and their children who now have access to good healthcare through the prepaid, managed care plans. Measure 35 would also increase taxpayer costs by $79 million for state and local government insurance costs in the first year alone. And Oregon businesses would face an estimated $250 to $400 million in higher healthcare costs.

Do we really want to return the state to the days of healthcare costs spiraling out of control? Are businesses and workers ready to step up with checkbooks in hand and cover the cost shifting that occurs under the old system of delivering healthcare? Are consumers ready to give up the ability to choose from a large selection of health insurance plans?

Measure 35 would eliminate prepaid healthcare plans that pay doctors a fixed fee to provide medical care to patients -- care focused on quality, prevention, wellness and cost controls. Protect your right to choose. Protect the Oregon Health Plan. Vote NO on Measure 35.

Ken Rutledge, President
Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems

(This information furnished by Ken Rutledge, Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

HELP PRESERVE YOUR CHOICE OF HEALTH PLANS.

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 35.

As a physician and former president of the Oregon Medical Association, I have spent a large part of my career exploring ways to improve the quality and availability of health care. I am opposed to Ballot Measure 35 because it would threaten the quality and choices of health care service available to Oregonians.

Many health plans in Oregon achieve the highest quality of health care by not only treating patients when they get sick, but also working to help keep people healthy. Hundreds of thousands of Oregonians have chosen to receive this type of comprehensive health care coverage through plans that rely on prepayment compensation arrangements. Ballot Measure 35 would take that choice away because consumers could no longer choose the type of health plan they want.

Dr. Leigh Dolin, MD
Past President, Oregon Medical Association

(This information furnished by Dr. Leigh Dolin, MD.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

OREGON'S RURAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
OPPOSE MEASURE 35.

Measure 35 is bad for the health of rural Oregonians. It would place an unfair hardship on Oregon citizens who live outside the state's urban areas ­ working families already burdened with fewer choices and higher costs for their medical care.

Measure 35 would take Oregon back to the days when health care costs were too high for many rural citizens to afford. At the same time, quality of care would suffer. Much of the preventive medicine covered by health insurance now, such as immunizations for young children and mammography screening for women would be just too expensive to include in regular health benefits.

Measure 35 would increase health insurance costs for families by up to $500 per year, causing many to lose benefits or putting health insurance coverage entirely out of reach. Those employed by small businesses, the backbone of rural Oregon communities, would be hurt most. Many small businesses simply could not absorb the higher health insurance costs created by Measure 35.

The number of Oregonians
without health insurance coverage
will increase if Measure 35 passes.

Measure 35 would unfairly swell the rolls of the uninsured and place the Oregon Health Plan in jeopardy, while at the same time increasing the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance. County and local governments, such as cities and school districts, would be forced to pay higher premiums for their employees' health insurance ($22 million in the first year, according to state estimates). In rural communities that money would come directly out of the pockets of local taxpayers.

It's time for Oregonians to unite for the good of the hard-working people that live here and pay taxes.

The members of the
Oregon Rural Health Care Association
urge you to vote NO on Measure 35.

(This information furnished by C. Hayne, Oregon Rural Health Association.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

YOUR DOCTOR'S LICENSE IS ON THE LINE

MEASURE 35 dictates how health care providers may or may not be paid for services.

MEASURE 35 would make it ILLEGAL for doctors to be paid by "capitation" (by exclusion) and subject them to possible LOSS of THEIR LICENSE.

"Capitation" means prepayment for health care. A physician or group of physicians are paid a predetermined amount per month for a patient's health care.

To outlaw "capitation" as opposed to salary, fee-for-service, reimbursement for time and material or other methods of payment makes no sense.

Physicians and other providers should be judged on the basis of their professional skills and conduct, not on how they part their hair, what church they go to or how they are paid.

LET'S USE OUR COMMON SENSE!

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 35

Submitted by the Oregon Medical Association

(This information furnished by Frank J. Baumeister, M.D., Oregon Medical Association.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

Measure 35

Explanatory Statement

Arguments in Favor

Criminal background: She was arrested at UC-San Diego medical research lab (San Diego Union-Tribune, Apr. 25, 1986). When her 3-year probation was up, she told the San Diego Union-Tribune (Nov. 19, 1990) that she would probably break the law again.

Meanwhile, Sally's partner as co-spokesman for the Bear & Cougar Coalition, William Spencer Lennard, was arrested on September 11, 1995, for criminal trespass and jailed after staging a protest at the Sugar Loaf Mountain timber sale in southern Oregon.

DON'T LET THE WACKOS GET AWAY WITH THE LIES
THIS TIME!
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 34!

(This information furnished by Gregg K. Clapper.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Here's what wildlife managers say about Measure 18:

"Measure 18 is one of the most unfortunate incidents that has happened to wildlife management in this state, this century... The difference is, rather than providing a recreational opportunity for hunters... we have created a cost to the department and our hunters by having to contract with someone to take care of the damage complaints."

--OREGON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION,
March 17, 1995, ODFW press release

"Damage complaints from bear and cougar have been increasing every year, even with carefully controlled hunting... Measure 18 has placed much of the management of these species on an emotional rather than a scientific basis."

--Rod Ingram, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
Deputy Director
March 17, 1995, ODFW press release

Now that you know how our trained wildlife managers feel about Measure 18, it's easy to understand why the animal rights fanatics want to take wildlife management out of their hands, and it's easy to understand why the animal rights fanatics oppose Measure 34, which would entrust the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission with the management of our state's wildlife. In a fund-raising letter to their fellow-fanatics, they call this concept "A classic case of the fox guarding the hen house."

Well, we know who the real varmints are.

Stop the animal rights fanatics from interfering with sound wildlife management practices in Oregon, and give the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission back its authority to manage our state's wildlife.

Vote YES on 34.

(This information furnished by Duane Dungannon.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

Measure 34

Explanatory Statement

Arguments in Opposition

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

OREGON HUMANE SOCIETY URGES A
NO VOTE ON MEASURE 34

Measure 34 is a deceptive attempt to overturn Oregonians' November 1994 vote barring the unsporting, inhumane and unnecessary methods of baiting and hounding. The 1994 law, Measure 18, allows continued hunting of bears and cougars using fair methods and allows for the take of individual bears or cougars posing a threat to public safety or livestock.

Hound Hunting is Cruel to Bears, Cougars and Their Young

* Some hound hunters develop a blood lust in their dogs by allowing them to tear apart bear cubs or cougar kittens. Dogs that have been allowed to maul bear cubs or cougar kittens will more aggressively pursue their quarry during hunts.

* Some hound hunters will shoot treed bears in the paws or face and allow their dogs to attack the wounded and defenseless bears that fall to the ground. This, too, teaches hounds to be aggressive.

Hound Hunting is Cruel to the Hounds

* Many adult bears and cougars do not meekly scamper up a tree when chased by hounds. Some will turn and fight, resulting in the maiming and killing of the dogs.

* The state of Oregon bans dogfighting and cockfighting. There is no reason to sanction bear-dog fighting or cougar-dog fighting by allowing hounding.

Measure 34 Goes Too Far and is Misleading

This initiative would give the ODFW commission exclusive authority - over the will of the people - to regulate wildlife. No other state agency would have the power of the ODFW commission. The voice of the public would be superseded by a politically appointed, not elected, commission. It also would repeal 20 years of publicly developed laws and ordinances that were drafted by other state agencies or that were enacted by a direct vote of the people, including Measure 18. The proposed initiative simply goes too far.

Vote No on 34.

(This information furnished by Dale Dunning, President, Oregon Humane Society.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals and the Humane Society of the United States Say
Vote No on 34

Oregonians voted to outlaw bear baiting and the high-tech hound hunting of black bears and cougars in the most recent general election. The existing law, Measure 18, should be given time to work.

Hunting for bears and cougars is still allowed in Oregon. In the very first year after Measure 18 passed, hunters killed at least 624 bears and 31 cougars -- unmistakable evidence that sportsmen can successfully hunt the animals without bait or dogs.

Existing law allows for the use of otherwise prohibited methods to eliminate individual bears or cougars that might pose a threat to public safety or livestock.

In Colorado -- just four years after voters there approved a law similar to Measure 18 -- the state is selling twice as many bear licenses and sportsmen are successfully hunting bears.

SAY NO TO BEAR BAITING

It is unsportsmanlike to set out jelly doughnuts, rotting vegetables, and other foods to lure bears to a bait station in order to shoot them from close range.

Most other states, including California, Colorado, and Montana, already ban bear baiting. They have recognized that baiting is unsporting and creates wildlife management problems.

Baiting habituates bears to humane foods and scents and leads them to raid campgrounds and garbage cans.

SAY NO TO HIGH-TECH HOUNDING

It is unsporting to chase down a bear or cougar with a pack of radio-collared dogs, tree the animal, and then shoot the animal off a tree limb.

Hounding inevitably leads to bloody fights between bears and dogs when the bears turn and fight.

Houndsmen are known to sic their dogs on bear cubs, in order to give them a taste of blood and to instill aggression in the dogs for future hunts.

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 34 AND GIVE THE BEARS AND COUGARS A SPORTING CHANCE.

(This information furnished by Roger Caras, President, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA); Nancy Perry, Northwest Regional Coordinator, The Humane Society of the United States.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

Measure 34

Explanatory Statement

Arguments in Favor

Charles Stoudt Judith F. Duncan

Janet L. Koch Mary E. Blue

Kimberly Peckover Sandra Peckover

Patrick Morgan Kindra Morgan

Mary L. Kulm Lucinda M. Watrous

Suzan Beam Gordon Van Tyne

Anna O'Guinn Sally Moncrieff

John W. Littlehales Thomas L. Bean

Christopher M. Locke Bryan K. Cosgrove

Lettie Molzan Madelyn Antinucci

Walter K. O'Dowd Karen O'Dowd

Susan Trotter Don Trotter

Clarence Worthington Patricia L. Lent

Floyd Bennett Anne Nickel

(This information furnished by Charles Stoudt.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Vote
YES on 32.

For road repairs &
Willamette Valley passenger rail improvements
for Eugene and Willamette Valley communities.

Measure 32 allocates a portion of the state lottery to cities and counties all over Oregon for critical transportation projects.

Measure 32 is not just about light rail in Portland!

• Measure 32 means funds for transportation needs all over Oregon, including over $150 million in lottery and other funds for transportation projects in Lane, Linn, Marion and Benton Counties.

• Measure 32 is not a tax. It uses only a small portion of the lottery for transportation. The rest will still be available for schools and other projects.

• City Councilors and County Commissioners in the Willamette Valley have pledged a portion of the money from Measure 32 to capital improvements for valley passenger rail.

• Measure 32 lottery dollars can be used for road repairs, road improvements, bridges, local airports, bicycle paths, and transportation for seniors and people with disabilities.

• Local communities will decide how to spend their Measure 32 money.

(This information furnished by Ed Grosswiler, Oregonians for Roads and Rail.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Vote
YES on 32.

Citizen organizations all across Oregon say:

SAVE FARM AND FOREST LANDS.
SAVE COMMUNITIES.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 32.

Jackson County Citizens League
Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County
Hood River Valley Residents Committee
Citizens for Orderly Development (Curry County)
Friends of Eugene
Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition
Friends of Yamhill County
1000 Friends of Oregon

...urge you to vote YES on Measure 32 as a way to protect Oregon's communities and our priceless farm and forest lands.

• Measure 32 improves the quality of life in Oregon by providing funds for transit, high-speed rail, and road improvements -- not just in Portland, but all across the state.

• Without Measure 32, traffic congestion will increase. The quality of life in our towns and cities will decline.

• Increased congestion will lead city residents to look to Oregon's farm and forest lands for places to live, and will increase pressure to expand city urban growth boundaries.

• As the number of houses on farm and forest land increases, more farms and forested areas are consumed and the land needed for Oregon's farming and forest industries disappears.

• As growth moves outward, the hearts of our towns and cities will decline and our sense of community will be lost in a sea of sprawl and polluted air.

Keep our state's towns and cities livable.
Save Oregon's farm and forest lands.

Vote YES on 32!

(This information furnished by Keith Bartholomew, 1000 Friends of Oregon.)

(This space purchased for $500 in accordance with 1993 Or. Laws 811 §11.)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Vote
YES on 32.

Southern Oregon gets critical lottery dollars
for transportation from Measure 32.

• Measure 32 is more than light rail for Portland!
  It provides an equal amount for communities throughout Oregon take care of our own local transportation problems, such as road repairs. If we don't repair our roads now, it will cost us even more in the future.

• Measure 32 is not a tax.
  It uses lottery dollars to pay for transportation needs. Measure 32 will use only a small portion of the state's lottery money, the rest will still be available for schools and other projects.

• Measure 32 lets us decide locally how to spend the money.
  In Jackson and Josephine Counties, we may choose to spend it on road repairs. Coastal communities may choose to spend it on port facilities or bridges. It's up to us.