2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 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 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 terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

If many of the jobs go to Washington state compared to Oregon, why  is the unemployment rate just north Portland, on the other side of the river, just about the same or higher than in Oregon?

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

When I moved here from another state, I knew I was going to get paid 10 to 20% less than had I not moved. But the cost of living here more than made up for it. Housing costs and rent were 30% to 50% less. The quality of life here is higher. Leave things they way they are, bringing oregon income to parity with the rest of the nation will cause living costs will rise, it is a no win situation, although it might help Oregon get out of the foreclosure crisis a bit sooner.

Bob

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Couldn't these records be copyrighted? The records could be inspected by anyone, but republishing would be prohibited?

Bob

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Neither the Fed or the State should "decide" where ... There is a role for regulation from both the federal govt and the state govt and even local and international. The issue is veto power.

My point is that while the FERC should be able to approve projects, the state and local governments should be able to veto, that is to say where projects should not be, and they should also be able to add additional regulations. This would make it more difficult, but welcome to the real world! Most of the rest of us have to abide by both Federal and State laws.

Bob

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

But wars decreases the population. So in the long run, won't that decrease greenhouse gases? I think I am making a bad attempt at humour here.

On a more serious note, all of us must do what we can to reduce global warming. Not populating shouldn't allow one to consume huge resources, but those that choose to reproduce should somehow be called on to consume even less than average.

If there was a carbon tax, it would make cost of living go up and U.S. population growth would probably decrease as a result. If an economical carbon free source of energy was developed, it doesn't matter what population does.

Bob

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

It is quite simple. The larger the population, the smaller the "carbon footprint" must be per individual. Double the population, then each person's carbon footprint must be half of what it otherwise would be.

The real question with the unknown answer: Is it more realistic to decrease population, or decrease per person consumption, pollution, etc.

I think the world needs to do both. Given a choice, I would rather live in a world with fewer people and per person consumption was allowed to be higher. Those that restrain their reproduction should be allowed to consume more per individual than those who reproduce.

If we had policies such as no tax credits for children, no health insurance coverage for birthing, no public funded education, stopping all subsidies for children,... Then population growth might not increase as much, but those policies would be so unpopular, the population will not decrease anytime soon, for the US or the world. Ergo most of the effort needs to be put into producing energy with little or no CO2 added to the atmosphere.

Bob in Salem

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

For current employees, since retirement benefits differ for tier 1, tier 2, etc., there should be different salary ranges depending on which tier they are in. All other things being equal, a tier 2 employee should receive a higher salary than a tier 1.

Bob

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

The more I listen to the radio program, the more it sounds like Larry simply wants to develop (into high density housing/commercial) a part of his farm. All he is doing is adding a twist to sell/distract from what he is ultimately after.  You can sell development as eco or green or alternative or experimental, but it is still development.

What would be better is to leave "wild" islands within the UGB, aka parks. Having parkland between farms and development sounds a lot more practical to me.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I can not agree more. Instead of imagining what it might be like and speculate, why not examine what has happened where rural and residential have collided in the past. This is not a new thing, it is called rural residential (RR), usually outside the urban growth boundary. The only new thing is bringing it inside the ugb, with higher density.

I have a house in RR, a chemical grass farmer to the north, an organic farm 1/2 mile to the west. I used to get smoke from field burning from the north, now I get dust and chemicals. And every so often, I get the <sarcasm> sweet <sarcasm off> smell of manure from the organic farm.

Represenative Morris (?) (Albany) has commented on the conflict between residental and farms. Grass seed farmers used to burn their fields, and the city folk moved in and complained. New residents often complain about smells, noise, chemicals, water rights and usage, etc. from farms nearby.

Bob

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Instead of the current model of all taxpayers subsidizing public education, and higher ed students borrow/pay as they go, what if, in the simplest form, students would not pay nearly as much for college when they attend, but would pay an additional income tax (a percent or two, no matter where they live) after they graduated? Of course, it would be a bit more complicated for those students who don't complete degrees...

This would not immediately bring in revenue, but may allow Universities to borrow assuming a future revenue stream.

Bob

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

At least with the system we have now, one can go around the insurance company and directly pay the health care provider, or go to an alternative provider of your choice (if you have the money). I seem to remember from the Clinton plan that doing something like that would have been illegal!

And if one works for a large employer, there is usually choice between rationers (insurance plans); once a year you can switch to another insurance if you didn't like your present one.

As much as I do not like insurance companies rejecting claims, they do provide a service in that it does help to keep costs down. If they do that too often, they should eventually lose all their premium paying customers, although employers don't always care ; [unfortunately there may be a delay, and the CEO can resign with a golden parachute before the long term consequences.] The insurance companies also keep cost down when they negotiate with “preferred providers” and pay less than the regular rate. How would negotiation work if there was only a single payer? (Although sometimes I think the rates are artificially high because they become the starting point for negotiation. When I was uninsured and saw a doctor for about the third time, I asked if I could get a discount since I was paying in advance and out of pocket, the doctor without hesitating marked 50% off my bill. I wish I had asked the first time.)

I would feel much better if there were more insurance companies, with more true choice, transparency, and regulation rather than a single-payer system. I would also like to see a system that rewards those that eat healthy, exercise, don't smoke, choose least cost solutions etc. And unreward those that do the opposite, while not punishing those that cost more due to no fault of their own (accidents, birth defects).

Bob

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

(OPB and TOL need more computing power to handle peak web traffic. I am getting repeated proxy errors, bad gateway, etc... I am typing this into a document and will copy and paste it after I successfully login.)

 

A few different some what unrelated points.

 

The main problem is that most people get their health care paid by insurance, and the individual does not have a lot of incentive to get the best treatment per dollar spent. With insurance mainly provided by employers, the whole system is skewed and free market principles don't apply.

 

I have a chronic disabling condition, lets call it “back pain.” I would be more than happy to pay say $200,000 (and out of pocket!) to anyone that could guarantee that they could cure me enough to allow me to have a normal life and regular work. If that would result in obscene profits, so be it. I would be so thankful.

 

Doctors should be able to advertise and publish their rates, providing transparency to the consumer.

 

Do any major insurance companies provide incentives to the consumers to wisely spend, such as profit sharing with the individuals or employers (premium rebates) when claims were less than forecast? How about a law to require this?

 

A couple of weeks ago I saw an old medical bill, where I was billed $29 for a doctor office visit in the 1990's. These days, I get billed $150 to $250 for similar visits.

 

Bob

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Would it be OK if parents attempted to cure their child's starvation by praying rather than with food?

I thought the law was currently about neglect.

There is a grey line between neglect and what is criminal. As for what is a religious defense or not, that should no longer be for juries to decide. Ultimately it should be up to the Supreme Court, not a case at this level.

Bob

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Sorry to object the main question for todays show, but from what I understand, verdicts should not say much about law; it is not up to juries to decide if laws are good or bad, just or injust, fair or unfair, constitutional or not... Those things should be discussed when the law is drafted, and then when a case is before the supreme court. I think there are opportunities to argue constitutionality before judges, but not juries. At most what verdicts could say about a law is whether it is clearly written or written in such a way that it may be impossible for a prosecutor to obtain a conviction.

So what does this verdict say? Understand this is from me, somebody that was not at the trial, and didn't follow it in much detail, and assumes that the law was written for exactly this type of tragedy. This verdict says either (1) the law is poorly written, or (2) the prosecutors did poor job, or (3) the jury allowed their emotions/prejudices to effect their decisions or took it amongst themselves to decide what would be fair/unfair. Or some combination.

As I understand it, there is no law against prayer/faith, and probably most M.D.'s would support families doing that. What is wrong is not seeking other help when a "reasonable" person would have done so.

Bob in Salem

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Hmm. Washington state has a sales tax but is having budget problems. California has sales taxes, even higher I think, and it has even more budget problems. Ergo, sales taxes aren't the solution, are cyclical just as bad or worse than income taxes. Sales taxes are regressive, where poor consumers pay a higher portion of their wealth/income than the wealthy. Unstable revenue is not a problem if it is spent in a stable way.

I too object to your notion that state governments are like the rest of us.

If one knows anything about economics and Keynes, government needs to spend more during recessions, at the least there is greater demand on the safety net, and then (arguably) there can be tax cuts and stimulus spending; it is an excellent time for government to spend money on infrastructure.

However, too many forget what should happen during booms: the government should restrain spending, increase taxes and pay off their debt. Even for those who disagree with Keynes, if you were to ask if a massive infrastructure project is needed, when would be a better time to build it, when unemployment is 3% or when it is 10%, I think all would agree it would be better to build during the time of higher unemployment.

The stupidity is that most state governments don't save up during the boom times, and aren't allowed to borrow during busts. When they cut their budget during a recession, it effectively nullifies the Federal stimulus and prolongs the recession.

Bob in Salem

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

What is the point of the guest from Cates properties? That buying and flipping properties doesn't add value to the economy, is unsustainable, and is now dead? That is a good thing. Unfortunately the swing is so hard that construction workers are hurt, but at some point there will be normal demand for homes again.

In the long term, something of value, and over time better value, needs to be produced in a sustainable way in order to increase standards of living.

Bob

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Basic free market economics theory say price, salaries, fees, etc., are determined by supply and demand. However, in the healthcare industry, it is not a free market. Mainly oligopoly  insurance companies determine fees. I would guess that the insurance companies bargain harder with primary and family care doctors than with specialists.

But there are other barriers to free market economics in health care. I have heard that medical care doctors and hospitals are not allowed to publish/advertise what they charge. If this information was more public then there could be a more meaningful public conversation.

Now, for a question: In medium and large size clinics where doctors are on salary, how are doctors evaluated and salary increases determined? I quit going to one clinic (after wasting thousands of my insurance company's dollars there) because my doctor totally ignored my chronic pain and focused mainly on my cholesterol scores. Then last week I heard a story on NPR where a complaint among primary care doctors was that they could not focus on the patient because the doctors were evaluated and compensated according to their patient's scores on things such as blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. What ever happened to patient satisfaction?

Short and simple: When doctors are on salary (not fee for service), how are the evaluated and their compensation determined?

Bob

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I thought I saw an article, maybe in National Geographic a few years ago, it mentioned a couple of lakes in the southeast U.S. that, when there was an excess of power, water was pumped from the lower lake to the upper. It was the only place in the U.S. where this was done at the time. It takes up real estate, but it can be done.

Bob

posted 4 years ago
view in context

Stop calling this state spending. They are tax credits, state revenue not taken. You can not compare this to state spending because of the likely possibility that if the credits were not available, then the companies would not have spent the money. Therefore, remove the credit, the business doesn't spend the money the same way, and the state does not receive any more revenue either way!

posted 4 years ago
view in context

scottmil: Then you are against the drunk driving law as it is, if you fail the breath test, it does not matter that you were driving just fine (this would only apply if Oregon brings back random check points, a topic of a previous talk out loud.)

fred: What if the fee for the special permit covered the transaction cost and then some, and was good for about 10 years; I would guess it would be less than $250, or around $25 a year? Or subsidized through a cell phone tax? (I'm generally against more restrictions, taxes and fees, but I do think talking on a cell phone while driving is probably one of the most dangerous (to innocent 3rd others)  legal activities one can do these days.)

posted 4 years ago
view in context