Thanks for mentioning it, as I hadn't heard of it before. I fully support singel-payer. As I've put it, I'm not fond of the ACA because it's about health insurance. I don't care about heath insurance, I care about health care.

But the image gallery at the top of that page is awful, as it makes the text on the page jump every 3 seconds.

If Oregon has the revenue base to pay for health insurance now, it'll have the revenue base to pay for single-pay health care.

The same money comes out of your collective pockets and into the pockets of doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists, the difference is whether you pay it to an insurance company or to the State government.

I mean, billing specialists are cheaper, but it's still ridiculous. I know one two-doctor practice that has five front-office staff who do nothing but call up insurance companies to chase down payments, appeal rejected claims, and so on and so on. Five people. 40 hours a week. For two doctors' patients.

There's a lot of money currently being spent in the US healthcare system that really doesn't need to be spent at all (for example, the insurance-side people the doctors' billing specialists are talking to on the phone). That does theoretically "cut jobs," but with the unemployment rate as low as it is and the middle-insurance-jobs workers being relatively educated, I think it's a loss we could absorb. And all of them would have more money to spend in the economy instead of on throwing it down a hole.

But FYIage: Oregon voted in two mandates last fall (Outdoor School, Veterans care) but failed to pass a new corporate tax. There's a BIG budget hole as a result.

The gist: he's super concerned about the dismantling of the ACA. Last year, if the bill actually makes it out of the Health Committee to a general Senate vote (unlike last year), and if my senator & counsel review it and it hasn't had any poison-pill riders attached to it, then yeah, he's in favor. But he can't definitively say yes till he sees the version that gets out of committee -- and, given the current balance of power in the chamber (including the "independent Democrats" who caucus with the Republicans), chances seem low.

Another reason to work to flip the State Senate at the next opportunity.

I wanted to ask where I could find this "liberal media" they spoke of, but instead I asked whether there were any particular provisions in the bill that I should be concerned about. "No, you should just read the whole thing and make up your own mind." But constituents are busy, I replied, and don't have time to read legislation before forming an opinion about it. Not only that, it's not easy for lay-people to understand legislative language. If *you* have concerns, what should I be looking for? Office worker again declined to cite any specifics, just expressed vague suspicions.

I asked whether the Senator has any position on the bill. No. When will the Senator have a position on the bill? No idea. Weeks, months? No idea.

Could the Senator's staff--I know you're overworked already, but could you and other staff in Albany--develop a voters' guide to describe the bill, drawing attention to the parts you think we should be aware of?

That actually struck the staffer as a new idea, and not an unwelcome one. So perhaps something good will come of my call, if it moves the staffer to suggest a voter's guide to the Senator.

The staffer was not altogether bad--spoke to me politely, and was open to talking. But the underlying tone was strongly against the bill. (Not surprising--it's a Republican State Sen.)

So I'm glad that I called!!