We Need Real Reform Eugene nurse opposes Constitutional Amendment 35. BY JODIE L. WIZE RN, BSN As a nurse, I've dedicated my life to helping people. In my current role as a consultant, I talk daily with people who are trying to understand why their medical care went so wrong. Sometimes there are no clear answers, however, there are times when it is clear in the record that a patient has suffered an egregious medical error. These are the people who have been seriously injured by the negligence of a health care practitioner. These are the people who would be most directly affected by the passage of Constitutional Amendment 35. I'm opposed to this change in Oregon's Constitution because it will hurt the very patients I have dedicated my career to helping. For those who have not studied this issue, I think it's important to first look at the language of Amendment 35. It says, "Limits noneconomic damages recoverable for patient injuries caused by health care provider's negligence or recklessness." Notice the words "negligence or recklessness." Oregonians are being asked to approve an amendment that would protect health care providers who are negligent or reckless. There's no language here providing that insurance rates will go down. No language that says health care will become less expensive or that access to health care will improve. It is clear why the insurance companies advance these proposals: It limits their expenses when a provider does something negligent or reckless. I just can't believe they would ask Oregonians to change our Constitution to help the insurance companies generate greater profits. Four years ago, Oregon voters overwhelmingly said "no thanks" to a similar measure sponsored by the insurance industry. I hope voters can see through this proposal and again send the message that this approach is the wrong solution. Amendment 35 proposes a constitutional limit of $500,000 in non-economic damages. Cases that get to this level are extremely rare. But they happen. And when you're talking about brain damage, birth defects or severe permanent injury, sometimes $500,000 is not enough. These are quality-of-life issues. Juries should make those decisions on a case-by-case basis, not insurance executives using a one-size-fits-all approach. Sponsors of this measure claim malpractice rates have created an exodus of doctors from Oregon, causing a "crisis." That's just not true. In fact, a study out this year — based on figures from the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners — found the number of Oregon doctors actually increased 11 percent between 2000 and 2004. Sponsors also claim rural doctors are leaving. Again, not true. Last year, the Legislature created a new fund to help rural doctors pay their malpractice premiums. The fund was set up in January and two-thirds of rural doctors are now receiving help — up to 80 percent of their premiums are reimbursed. Let's give this bipartisan solution a chance to work before we limit people's rights with a change in our Constitution. I know there are states where limits have passed. And guess what? They don't work to reduce the cost of insurance. From 1991 to 2002, rates went up 48 percent in states that had adopted caps. Rates also went up in states without limits, but not as much. We're lucky in Oregon to have so many excellent nurses and doctors. But we also have a few bad ones. The National Practitioner Data Bank reports that only 5 percent of physicians are responsible for a majority of medical malpractice cases.    I'd like to do something more in this space than just oppose this Constitutional Amendment. So here's something that sounds a lot more like a solution to malpractice rates. It's called insurance reform. Let's ask insurance companies to open their books and tell the public how they justify rate increases. The PUC holds hearings on utility rate increases — why can't we do the same thing with insurance companies? If we want real insurance reform — let's direct our efforts at just that — insurance reform. On behalf of all patients and all Oregonians, I'm voting no on Constitutional Amendment 35. Jodie Wize of Pleasant Hill earned her RN from LCC and her bachelor's of science and nursing from OHSU. She has been working as a nurse for 18 years. She currently works in Eugene as a nurse consultant.       Raising the Bar Who will benefit from Eugene's proposed rental code? BY SONNY TAILOR "Renters' rights" is the catchphrase associated with the city of Eugene's resolution to draft a rental code, but renters' rights are not even considered by the proposed code. On Aug 11, the City Council unanimously agreed to create a rental code intended to provide enforcement of the minimum standard conditions of habitability. The planned code, that City Councilor George Poling stated, "targets the few landlords who are problems," will spell trouble for those property owners who don't comply with the community development director's (CDD) decisions. The planned code gives the director power to arbitrarily impose a fine of up to $250 per day upon property owners who fail to comply with orders, and to place liens for unpaid fines against properties deemed to be in violation. This could result in the forced auction of property to satisfy liens attached for unpaid fines that were ordered by the CDD under provisions of this code. This decision is viewed as a victory by some special interest groups; however the effect of the proposed code may not be as positive as anticipated. Championed by the ASUO, Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards, Associated Students of LCC, and OSPIRG, this proposed code is said to provide renters with fast access to assistance in resolving habitability issues with rental units. The model for this proposed rental code is Corvallis's Rental Housing Code, that proposes to, "provide minimum habitability criteria to safeguard health, property and public welfare of the owners, occupants and users of residential rental buildings." This code claims to be, "intended to supplement rather than conflict with the habitability standards of the State of Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act," yet fails in its stated purpose by being far narrower in scope than state law. As a result, the proposed code will limit rather than expand the remedies available to tenants who seek help from the commission versus pursuing a claim under ORS 90. Under Eugene's proposed code the property owner is required to; maintain the building structure so that it is able to resist collapsing under a reasonable load, maintain minimal weatherproofing standards to protect occupants and their property from running water, maintain plumbing to be free of leaks, and provide a working fixed heat source capable of maintaining a temperature of 68 degrees F. Habitability issues such as: electrical problems, cooking appliance failures, vermin infestations, holes in interior walls, debris-filled gutters, invasive trees or shrubs, water damage, and general unsanitary conditions are but some of the issues that are not considered by this proposed code. Filing a complaint under this code follows similar guidelines to filing a 10-day notice of complaint under ORS 90, except that once you have complained to the city, the city then complains to the property owner and gives him or her an additional 10-day notice to comply with the demand. Consequently, instead of being an agent to obtain speedy resolution, the proposed code actually serves as an additional step to obtaining injunctive action against the property owner. Because of these shortcomings, the proposed code can actually become an obstacle to obtaining justice. If vigorously used, the proposed rental code would be a powerful tool for city planners that could be used to eliminate the rental properties that are the most dangerous habitations, and thereby raise the "overall" standard of housing for the city. A side benefit for the city would be economic stimulation by requiring essential repairs on substandard housing and the possible stimulation of the rental real estate market. From the tenants' perspective, shortcomings of the proposed code include the lack of provisions for: providing alternate housing, reduction in rent, or the return of deposits. And the proposed code provides for no consideration to the victim for property damage or medical expenses incurred as a result of being forced to live in derelict housing. Under ORS 90, the tenant may be entitled to a reduction in rent, return of all deposits, alternative housing, and monetary awards for property and medical expenses as well as compensation for harassment and property owners who act in a malicious manner. . One does not have to read too deeply into the code to determine that the city will profit greatly and enjoy expanded arbitrary power. This proposed code is sold under false advertisement by its supporters who have endorsed the proposal as a form of assistance to renters. In fact, the code that Eugene will base its own code on had initially exempted low-income housing from being held to the regulations. So much for the code protecting the poor. The code goes before a hearing by the City Council Nov 8. The Corvallis code can be found at http://www.ci.corvallis.or.us/downloads/cd/rentalhousingcode.pdf and the proposed Eugene code is at http://www.ci.eugene.or.us/Council/Agenda/S040524B.pdf.       Electile Dysfunction The struggle for justice will go on, regardless. BY SALLY SHEKLOW I am so ready for this election to be over. The constant hype is getting to me. I've become crabby and intolerant, which if I could make a commercial, I'd say is a sign the terrorists are winning. And by terrorists I mean the fear-mongering, xenophobic, boogey men running our country. My nerves are frayed. Yesterday the phone rang and, mistaking the call for yet another automated get-out-the-vote appeal, I nearly hung up on my own wife. Talk about a threat to the sanctity of marriage. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the voter registration drives are so vigorous, really I am. I'm counting on all the newly registered voters to turn the tide and get us out of this crazy right-wing quagmire. But I've had it with the campaigning and the bickering and the constant smear. I can't take any more. No, I haven't lost my enthusiasm for regime change, for keeping marriage discrimination out of the state Constitution, or for facilitating procurement of medical marijuana. You know we need it. Neither have I put away my lawn signs/door signs/window signs/bumper stickers/campaign pins — even though they haven't done much to repel the steady stream of over-earnest, door-to-door canvassers. And yes, I've voted (yes on 31, 32, 33, & 34; no on 35, 36, 37 & 38) and hand-delivered my ballot to a county elections drop box. But this fever pitch is getting old and tired and so am I. Let's face it, come Nov. 3 the campaigning will be over. We'll wake up to the election results, cheer our victories, mourn our losses, and put away our lawn signs/door signs/window signs/bumper stickers/campaign pins. We'll dust ourselves off and get on with life. Regardless of the outcome, we'll still be who we are and doing what we do. It's not like politics ends on election day. I hope to God(dess) we will have a new president. And I will be seriously bummed if the Constitution is changed to say I can't marry my own wife. But the struggle for justice will go on. If Kerry wins I'll be pressing him to do the right thing. If, curse the thought, Bush wins (or re-steals) the election, I'll join the uprising. Luckily (and thanks in no small part to Michael Moore) we're already mobilized, informed, and pissed off enough to keep the momentum going. Naturally, I'd rather be celebrating. I hope to be cheering on all the good things a Kerry administration will do with the taxes they wrest from the greedy grip of tax-evading corporate outsourcers and collect from that famous fraction of Americans earning over $200,000 a year. I'll be thrilled to enter a prosperous era of jobs, health care, education, and peace. And oh, how I will dance in the streets if our Pablum first lady is replaced by the powerful, smart, and worldly (not to mention kick-ass feminist) Theresa Heinz Kerry. Unabashed woman muscle in the White House — bring it on! Give me a Kerry cabinet filled with the likes of Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich, and Carol Mosely Braun. I'll certainly be singing Hallelujah if the retiring Supremes are replaced by Kerry appointees who pass the litmus test, i.e. upholding our Constitution and all our inalienable rights. (Radical!) It will be major party time when national justice is restored, á la convictions against the real criminals who've committed treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity — the biggest liars and cheats who are still getting away with it. Come on America (or international court), bring Bush, Cheney, Rummie, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz. Rice and Rove to justice. I'm ready for front page news of those goons behind bars (and Martha free!). I'm keeping hope alive. My sanity depends on it. I know the wheels turn slowly, but I'm looking forward to victory, and may it come soon. I'm ready for democracy to be restored and the light at the end of the tunnel turned back on. Sally Sheklow has been a part of the Eugene community since 1972 and is a member of the WYMPROV! comedy troupe. Her column, which began at EW in 1999, also runs in several other newspapers and magazines around the country and Down Under.
		Table of Contents | News | Views | Calendar| Film | Music | Culture | Classifieds | Personals | Contact | EW Archive | Advertising Information |