It's starting to seem a little more possible. JUSTIN SULLIVAN / GETTY


Single payer is a non-starter in WA as long as Republicans control the state Senate. Even if most Republicans wanted this, the Republican leadership in the Senate won't even bring it up for a vote.

Want to get single-payer in WA? Then get your ass over to Kirkland/Redmond/Sammamish and volunteer to help Manka Dhingra win the upcoming special election in the 45th LD. That is THE ONLY THING you can do that will make a difference!
HCFA-WA and Whole WA have fatal flaws in their "plans"--

1) Relying upon ACA, Medicare, etc (federal money) which may not exist tomorrow

2) Pretending they can reconfigure other sources (MMJ taxes, lottery money) which is 100% spoken for already

3) Relying upon "just take what you pay now and dump it into a public market" (relying upon employment for health care)

4) Relying upon 20 year old ways of thinking about health care (not covering mental health or substance use, for example)

5) Pretending we don't need a progressive state income tax when the cost of coverage for the entire state would be at least $50 BILLION per year

I want single-payer, but we need to quit beating around the bush and fundraising for "planning committees." HCFA-WA has been "trying" for 18 years, and Whole Washington has raised nearly $15,000 and delivered nothing HCFA-WA hasn't already figured out (and the only health care provider on their "board" is a nurse).

It's time for Democrats in Olympia to stop being afraid of a progressive income tax, grow a spine, and propose exactly that, because that's the ONLY way this is going to happen.

My guess is we'll get federal Medicare For All before WA can get our collective shit together and pass an income tax.
WA, OR, CA and HI should create a joint single-payer system. The individual states can still have control over the fine details (similar to the way four countries that form the UK have differing NHS regulations), but having one central administrative organization instead of four would cut down on overhead costs and make things easier for large providers that span multiple states.
SandraL @7-- Not an altogether bad idea, but scratch HI. The main problem with single-state single payer systems is that any such state becomes a magnet for high-cost individuals, who account for a large share of total medical expenses (in extreme cases, on the order of $1M/month - which readily destabilizes any reasonable funding model).

If we could insulate WA, OR, CA from ID, MT, WY, UT, NV, AZ, we'd have a fair shot at a stable system. Failing that, this is the main reason national universal coverage is vital to single payer (or any other UC design).

If worst comes to worst, i.e., the current GOP initiative passes, we might go this route anyway - but at something approaching double the cost, effectively subsidizing our neighboring red states by absorbing their high-cost populations.
"Financing is going to have to be worked out with input from all stakeholders, but the notion that the money is not there is nonsense. We now pay over $10,000 per capita for health care, well over twice what other industrialized countries pay. All we need to do is to direct the money to a single payer system." -Martha Koester, Board member HCFA-WA And BTW, HCFA-WA currently has FOUR physicians on our Board of Directors
Too many Negro-haters in WA ( & they have higher birthrates than White Progs) for that to happen . . . .
The DemonKrap-loving Stranger staff-majority should PUBLICLY acknowledge the no-show by their idols in BOTH D.C. AND Olympia when they each had majorities in both chambers PLUS the White House AND the governwhoreshit . . . .

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.