Advocates Warn Gregoire that Appeal Could Allow Conservative Supreme Court to Reverse Disability Rights


"...relatively well cared for."? Define relatively.
Part of the problem may be that when Gregoire was AG, an assistant AG screwed up and missed an appeal date, and as a result the State had a multi-million dollar judgment to pay. Gregoire really took heat for that. Even though this would not be the same kind of situation, she may not want that effect to happen again.
@1 Relative to many other states.
@1 not dying forgotten somewhere due to poverty.

It seems like we've gone too far in the deinstitutionalization process when it comes to mental health though. Downtown Seattle is testament to that.
I wonder what elswinger (Larry Davenport) would have made of this. If he had remained in a nursing home he might (might) still be alive. Yet his joy at moving into his own apartment was obvious, as was his frustration at getting the assistance he needed (even before many of the recession-caused budget cuts took full effect).
@6, great example, rob! RIP elswinger.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You mean as AG Gregoire UNILATERALLY took it upon herself to decide what the state's position was on a health care issue before the Supreme Court? The exact same thing that you got all worked into a froth over w/r/t McKenna?
@8, no, it wasn't at all the same thing. Read and think before you get worked into a froth of righteous gotcha-ism.
@9 - that's not what this post says. I'd be happy to have it cleared up though
McKenna and other AGs sued. Gregoire didn't sue. Organizations concerned with the cut in home care hours sued. The State was the defense.

And she unilaterally decided what the state's position was going to be by substituting her own position, yes?
@12 - no. My read is that a budget was passed cutting this home health care. The lawsuit was to overturn the cuts in the budget. It has nothing to do with what Gregoire's personal opinion is. In other words, it's nothing like what McKenna did. Nice try, though.
@13 - then what does the following phrase mean, exactly

"As Attorney General she reversed the state's position on Olmstead"
@1: relative to other states. For instance:
This AARP-sponsored study rates Washington the 2nd-best state for long-term care services provided to the elderly and persons with disabilities.…

And according to NPR, Washington devotes a higher portion of its disability services budget to community-based care than any other state.…

Regardless of how much of the state budget you think should be devoted to Medicaid services, it seems pretty strange to me that the Ninth Circuit would call it "discrimination" when a state simply reduces the services it funds--especially when that state still provides more services than most other states. Are all those other states discriminating by failing to provide services as good as those in Washington? Is it really "discrimination" to slow the growth of Medicaid spending?