Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Is Rob McKenna's Daughter Benefitting from the Health Care Law Her Dad Wanted to Take Down?

Posted by on Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Attorney General Rob McKenna's daughter, Madeleine McKenna, is currently working as the Coalitions Coordinator for her dad's gubernatorial bid.

As Rob McKenna's own web site points out, Madeleine is a 2011 graduate of the University of Washington. A knowledgeable political source puts her age at 24. That would make Madeleine eligible for taking advantage of a very popular provision of Obama's Affordable Care Act—the one that allows children to stay on their parents' health insurance until the age of 26.

So: Is Madeleine McKenna getting health care coverage as part of her job working for her dad's gubernatorial bid, or is she getting health care coverage by staying on her parents' insurance as the ACA allows?

Rob McKenna's campaign did not respond to this question.


Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Before ACA the age limit was 25, so she is still too young.
Posted by zonod on July 17, 2012 at 5:26 PM · Report this
That's because it's a stupid question.
Posted by Hutch on July 17, 2012 at 5:26 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 3

The real question is as a young worker serving as a volunteer, or at a low salary, if she's didn't get health benefits, would she be required to pay the penalty -- which still would not get her insurance -- or to use 6 percent or more of here income to pay for insurance.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on July 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM · Report this
Get a job, Madeleine.
Posted by DOUG. on July 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM · Report this
Is your "knowledgeable political source" Facebook?
Posted by ishf on July 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM · Report this
@3: Maybe you should read about the law from somewhere besides Rush's transcripts before commenting. If you had, you'd know that people with next to no money will receive subsidies to buy health insurance.
Posted by maddogm13 on July 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM · Report this
Even if she was, the Inslee campaign is too balls-less to use it.
Posted by I Got Nuthin' on July 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM · Report this
in-frequent 8
Eh, you take the laws as they are, you don't get to choose which to follow. If something were illegal, we'd expect her to follow it, why not expect her to follow something legal? That's like asking those who support a State income tax if they paid that money to the State last year.
Posted by in-frequent on July 17, 2012 at 8:12 PM · Report this
@1 the limit was, but most policies cut you off as soon as you graduated. I graduated in 2006 and received notice from Blue Cross a week later that I was officially uninsured.
Posted by wxPDX on July 17, 2012 at 8:19 PM · Report this
seatackled 10
And whatever insurance she's using, is the company forced to provide her with birth control coverage if she desires it, or pre-natal coverage even in the event that she is unmarried?
Posted by seatackled on July 17, 2012 at 9:00 PM · Report this
OMG: did Obama ever benefit from a tax break that he disagreed with? And THEN he still didn't donate his tax break savings to the government?

The issue you are raising is as stupid as the hypothetical one I just made up. This is just lazy journalismish.
Posted by give me pom on July 17, 2012 at 9:10 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 12
Lazy what?

Is that in your How To Speak Real Good And Impress Serfs book?
Posted by Will in Seattle on July 18, 2012 at 12:15 AM · Report this
But McKenna didn't want to ditch the whole act, just the individual mandate. And luckily, according to him, he and the other attorneys general won! Because Roberts did just what they wanted and upheld it as a tax, and now that can be used against Obama.

Unfortunately, @7's right.
Posted by sarah70 on July 18, 2012 at 12:27 AM · Report this
Has Rob McKenna told the voters that he wanted to get a law passed saying that the citizens of Washington cannot sue the State of Washington? I doubt it!! Of course, that would mean that we would not be able to sue the Dept. of Corrections if a felon escaped and killed someone due to the State's negligence; or the Dept. of Ferries if, due to a Captain's negligence or whatever, a citizen were injured or killed; or the Dept. of Trans. if a road or highway is left unsafe and a citizen were to be injured or killed; or DSHS if it doesn't do the right thing; or CPS or APS or the State Patrol or any of the other state agencies or departments that should be accountable for its employees, actions &/or inactions etc.!

Sounds like fascism to me!!
Posted by True Blue Boomer on August 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM · Report this

Add a comment


Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy