January 10, 2003
The Human Face of Measure No. 28
Despite the weariness of letter writers like this one of personal stories about actual flesh and blood human beings who will be negatively impacted should Measure No. 28 fail this month (or, for that matter, the views of the state's Libertarian Party, which cynically opposes the measure in the delusional hope that the state will then wise up and cut funding for items such as the Oregon Liquor Control Commission) the ramifications of this measure's passage or failure are not merely some intellectual exercise over government spending.
The effects of the potential spending cuts should Measure No. 28 fail are real. There are real people on the other end of the rhetoric and financial analyses. What follows is the story of one of those people. Ms. Lori Schneider of Oregon City (the aforementioned letter writer) need read no further if this will offend her stunted sense of basic human decency.
I am a 33 year old female. I have worked since I was 13, started full and over time at the age 16.
In later 2001 I was diagnosed with a rare auto-immune disorder and was forced to quit work and apply for disability, which takes (if you are rarely accepted) upwards to two years. Since I was put on General Assistance I received $314.00 a month to live on. Homeless people in San Francisco get more than that. This General Assistance has to be paid back by myself. January 5th, 2003, notice was given through the mail that General Assistance would no longer be available starting February 1st, 2003. On top of this all medical, mental, and dental help will be reduced or completely elliminated.
On a personal note, I want to put emphasis on Measure 28 and mental health, and how the Oregon Health Plan saved my life. I was raised by drug-addicted parents,severly physically and psychologically abused, neglected and malnourished until I was 12. It instilled a worthlessness, hyper-sensitivity, and a worsening, sickening depression up to suicidal and self-harming behavior.
I discovered early that alcohol numbed, gave false courage and self-esteem, and helped me to ignore my past in order to be a person that society tells to "pull up their boot straps" even though I wasn't taught how -- nor had I even seen that boot they were talking about. It wasn't until after an extremely near-fatal suicide attempt that I was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- PTSD is a complex of symptoms that follow an extraordinarily severe trauma. It is characterized by intense fear, emotional re-experiencing of the event(s), nightmares, exaggerated startle response, dissociative disorders, etc. I would learn later I had all my attempts in a "dissociative phase."
I was hospitalized through the Oregon Health Plan. Afterwards I received treatment, medicine, and classes to give me techniques to deal with PTSD episodes and more. I was only able to get help because of OHP and its services. I have been sober and finally see a glimpse of a future for the first time.
Failure of Measure 28 will pull the rug out from under so many people like me. Through groups offered I have met people from all ages and classes of society. Many have finally been able to get off the streets and substances through OHP. Some people start with a chemical problem then develop a mental problem. Often, like my case, it is the reverse -- numbing an underlying severe mental illness, then developing a substance abuse problem.
If Measure 28 does not pass Oregonians will be throwing people in various stages treatment out on the streets -- without medicine, safe haven, or support . There has been so much crying and jobs being laid off at the facility I attend. We have until the end of this month, then it is all gone.
This is what Measure 28 is about. It isn't about striking an intellectual stance against "wasteful government spending." It isn't about teaching the State Legislature a lesson.
It's about what you -- personally and individually, as well as socially and collectively -- believe to be our mutual responsibility to one another. It's about whether or not you will have the intelligence and fortitude to think about other people, and put a concern for those people and these services before any knee-jerk aversion you might have against giving the government any more of your money.
This isn't about forcing the government to be more responsible with our tax dollars. It isn't about hoping the state will axe the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. It isn't about any cloying, pandering political pose.
It's about what kind of society you want to live in. It's about people like the one above. And it's about you.
Comments (8)
peter on 11 Jan 2003
the letter above makes me think there will be super ramifications .An increase of crime and shorter prison sentances;which will make robbing someone's home not to much of a big deal beacause with 28 the will be reducing beds andvery short jail time. We will end up paying more for prisons filled with in and out petty crimes and drug felonys. Lock your doors!
Ron on 11 Jan 2003
Some of announcements of state cuts are politics. Government employees are prohibited from politicking on government time, but they are not prevented from listing the consequences of budget cuts or from the failure to pass Measure 28. Indeed, they were instructed to build such a list of consequences, and the news revealed just the highlights of these lists.
Chris displays the idealism that inspires people to involve themselves in political decision-making. He is not alone. I did not see the Libertarian position on the matter of the Oregon Health Plan or OLCC. However, I believe that it is safe to say that they too are concerned about the general well-being of all Oregonians. The differences in position are not explained by someone trying to “teach[] the State Legislature a lesson[]” but by genuinely differing views about how best to achieve a common goal.
The Oregon Health Plan is one of the best examples of a group effort to make the very hard, life and death, choices in the fairest possible way. Once someone recognizes that resources are not endless, and that the pre-existing system was a form of rationing, then one can turn to the question of how to best prioritize what and who gets covered.
The unfortunate thing today is that some people, in my opinion, are getting too high a salary at the expense of good programs such as the OHP. I think others feel the same and that the OHP has a much greater chance of survival than many other programs. It has survived many challenges. Each of our state legislators are certainly not there for the pay; so it is safe to say that they are no less inspired than Chris. The mere existence of the OHP is good proof in and of itself.
The One True b!X on 12 Jan 2003
Some of announcements of state cuts are politics. Government employees are prohibited from politicking on government time, but they are not prevented from listing the consequences of budget cuts or from the failure to pass Measure 28. Indeed, they were instructed to build such a list of consequences, and the news revealed just the highlights of these lists.
Perhaps. But witness David Sarasohn's profile in today's paper of Barbara Roberts, who once upon a time had warned that certain budget cuts would eventually lead to people's deaths. The underlying point, of course, being that budgetary decisions are not some abstract exercise in one political philosophy versus another, but have real, actual, and serious repercussions for real, actual people out in the real, actual world.
My argument stands (and it's not merely some pie-in-the-sky "idealism"): Failure to approve Measure No. 28 will further erode services which are vital to real, actual, flesh-and-blood human beings.
If the people of Oregon want to mimic the state Legislature in giving the shaft to such people, then so be it. At least then I will know a little bit more about the people with whom I share this state.
Brad on 13 Jan 2003
After reading this article (and articles like it) and the comments posted I have come to the conclusion that the collective mind of most Portlanders has been hijacked.
Do you not see that the letter by Ms. Lori Schneider is written just to tug on your heart. Can you not see that it is obviously not written with sincerity? While there may be a Ms. Lori Schneider who suffered the things this letter claims it is highly doubtful that she owes all of her success to OHP.
As a person who has worked with mentally ill adolescents for ten years I can tell you that the OHP does little more than enable people to continue to medicate rather than change.
This problem is not going to be solved by throwing more money at it.
Truth: The state government miss-manages our money.
That may be a fact that we are all aware of. I don't stand against this measure because of that fact though. No ammount of money is going to solve the problems we face. An understanding of community will though. A turn from rugged-induividualism to a true understanding of community and responsibility is what will begin to change things for the better. I stand against this measure because, as a long-term social worker, I know how the money gets used. I know how lies get spun into "truth."
I just ask that everyone open their eyes a little bit more and question wether they think more money will actually solve any problem that love for and commitment to community can't do a better job solving.
The One True b!X on 13 Jan 2003
First of all, Ms. Lori Schneider didn't write what I posted here, she wrote the letter in The Oregonian that irked me. As for the veracity of what I posted here, its author is known to me personally, and it's not some story invented to manipulate people. That's a dangerous accusation to be thrown around, and could just as easily be aimed at your comment, Brad. So let's not start down that particular road.
Ron on 14 Jan 2003
If you research the origins of www.nami.org you will find that it began its existence here in Oregon; by a little old lady (who was younger then) whom I call mom. It was around the time that Barbara Roberts was active in politics. (Tom McCall had some influence too.) At that time the new drugs that were just reaching the market enabled people who were institutionalized to make great strides in group home settings, at much reduced costs and with greater quality of life. There were, and still are, contining problems regarding placement of group homes.
I have no intention to mimic anyone, and hope that I have not been misunderstood. I still hold the belief that public employees who make more than enough to buy trophy houses are paid too much. The real consequence of this is that it has created a dramatic anti-tax attitude that affects OHP and all issues where government can have a very positive role to play. I'll stick to my argument that the overpaid people are messing things up for those who are genuinely deserving.
I have not followed the issues regarding mentally ill adolescents but recall there was a great struggle to get funding for adolescents vs adults. The were also fights for money between the mentally retarded folks and mentally ill folks, etc.
I have personally seen the benefits of the OHP on relatives. Conservatively, 1% of the population is affected by mental illness. I believe that I am arguing on their behalf and that of others when I whine about government excess.
The One True b!X on 14 Jan 2003
I believe that I am arguing on their behalf and that of others when I whine about government excess.
In a long-term sense this is certainly true, but as ever it's more complicated than that.
My problem is not with those who hammer away on the issue of government waste -- but with that subset of these who would throw hundreds of thousands of people to the wolves as part of trying to prove their point.
Jamie on 27 Jan 2003
I want an extra week off school off and I dont want my mother to lose her money.