It's a folly that will ruin the state's economy and drive jobs out of state.
@2 Yes and this is a matter for the country, not the state and certainly not the city. I can just see the unintended consequences of medical tourism and relocation by those with expensive conditions who elect to not be responsible in their home state and move here. And this is the tip of the iceberg. Check out PNHP.org and others seeking a national solution.
What are we even debating here? They admit they have no shot of getting this on the ballot next year and from the sound of things they have no legislative support either. This whole thing is just a progressive fantasy that may or may not get traction in 2023. Is it even news that the SCC supports creating a massive government agency that will pull tax dollars into another black hole ala Sound Transit?
Again... you can have it all. Health care, paternity leave, unemployment insurance, L&I, guaranteed retirement.... free education, free day care, free food, free housing...you name it....everything you can imagine..... You just have to be willing to say I give up my individual right to do things for myself, allow the government to handle it in an efficient manner (ha, ha, ha) and am willing to live with half a pay check.
This isn't rocket science... its done all over Europe. You get it all... and half a pay check.
So if you feel its time to be European then now is the time... jump right in there.
If you really, really, really want we can go medieval on it and go complete socialist/communist and simply see how that works out.... remind me again how USSR, East Block, ... oh North Korea... yes, there is the model to follow.
Thank you for reaching out to the campaign! It takes an incredible amount of effort to get something on the ballot statewide (especially during COVID), which is why you haven't seen it happen in many years. In order to successfully create a statewide healthcare plan that covers all 7.5 million resident of Washington state it will take an incredible effort, which is why we say we are building a universal campaign for universal healthcare. We need every one of you to make this happen.
If you'd like to get involved:
The Washington Health Trust would cover every unhoused person in Washington state (many of whom are broke and houseless because of healthcare expenses). It covers the undocumented no questions asked. It covers abortion, it covers gender-affirming care. And like say the fire department, you will never be charged out of pocket for the services.
If you'd like to learn more about The Washington Health Trust you can check out our FAQ which answers the vast majority of questions that come our way.
A few things folks should know:
Universal single-payer healthcare is 100% possible at state level, but we do recognize that ultimately the best implementation would be a federal system. We believe that passing a statewide version is one of the best ways to ACCELERATE the process of a national health plan being implemented. Whole Washington is also an active supporter of Medicare for All and has held many events and actions supporting its passage federally.
State single payer has been studied multiple times for Washington state including by the Washington legislature and Dr. Gerald Friedman of U Mass Amherst. Their findings are that the total cost of healthcare spending in Washington would drop by $5-13 billion annually. Friedman's analysis finds that 95% of Washingtonians would save money. (WA Legislatures study: https://www.hca.wa.gov/assets/program/final-universal-health-care-work-group-legislative-report.pdfUniversal, Friedman study: https://wholewashington.org/friedman-financial-analysis-2021/).
Whole Washington is open to working with the legislatures and universal healthcare commission. We have introduced The Washington Health Trust into the legislature multiple times as SB.5222 and SB.5204 and plan on reintroducing this January.
Whole Washington is committed to building this movement within the community and is 100% open to feedback on our proposal, which has already gone through multiple iterations. If folks feel strongly that the language could be improved, please get in touch and we can review and consider your suggestions with our legislative development team.
If you would like to get in touch with me (the campaign director) you can email:
Our general email is:
I would think the state’s recent (bad) experience trying to get a rather modest universal disability insurance program up and running should argue for pragmatism for something way more complex as universal medical coverage.
That said, I’m also inclined to agree with Park Place @3 with the downsides of a state-only approach.
I agree with @9. If the State can't even get relatively modest long term care plan off the ground, we have no business even considering a far more ambitious first-in-the-nation universal health care plan.
Also, this initiative proposes a new 10.5% payroll tax.* I don't know what led the initiative's supporters to believe that won't effect workers. It's ridiculous to assume the state's employers will just eat that cost.
I love the idea of universal free healthcare options but state level will lead to unintended debts unless they’re taxing flights into Washington, and hotels enough to pay for “medical tourism” to not be a burden on Washington businesses and residents. Florida has a high enough tourism tax to fund most of the state so Washington should be able to do the same thing as well.
Universal coverage is a great goal, but any serious discussion about health care reform must address cost--total cost, not just individual out of pocket costs. Every other OECD country has universal coverage, yet the U.S. per capita cost is twice that of the costliest European system. In other words, we're already paying for it. We do not need a single additional dollar diverted to health care. What we need is the will to push back against special interests that have engorged themselves at the health care trough. That includes providers, hospitals, SNFs, labs, carriers, big pharma, and medical device firms. Working in health care should not be a pathway to the 1 percent, particularly when most health care is publicly funded. [Side bar: 33 percent of all physicians are in the top 1 percent of earners, compared to 15% of lawyers, 5% of financial managers, and 2.4% of software engineers. Google it.] We must also revamp the patent system to eliminate exclusivities for minor advances that have no therapeutic benefit.
We've never had a shortage of good-hearted people doing their best to increase coverage, when what we need even more is the political will to say that unfettered capitalism is simply not appropriate when if comes to health care. And continuing to finance the federal share of health care through debt spending is simply immoral from the perspective of intergenerational equity. Thank you.
Forgot to add, tax the cruise ships enough to pay for it as well.
@7 If you had actually visited Northern Europe, you'd find its completely homogenized ...basically white and do not have to deal with all the social and ethnic issues we do in the US let alone Washington.... and they also have the highest tax rates in Europe.
So you are comparing white bananas with a bowl of wild, mixed berries.... it doesn't work the same way.
It like comparing flat Holland to Seattle and saying ... oh we should be like that with 1/10 the density and lots of hills... see biking to work is great. Until you have to pay for the system with out money, density and you find hills everywhere.
Seattle is full of people who think this way... lot's of them who travel, but never live there, have no concept of economy of scale and think this is how we should be.
@15 Now pay attention.... I said you can have all these things .... but the price is 1/2 your pay check. Its just a simple question for people to think about. It goes to a basic concept of whether you want the government to do for you that which you can do yourself...or if you'd prefer to handle things on your own.
Now to your questions.... A very good question btw... I would respond....: So why all the chatter and focus about disparity in quality of health, longevity and quality/level of helth care and services for minorities.
Answer that one..... and then you will have your answer as to why social and ethnic issues affect health care.
There is a difference between a homogenized culture (85% white in Sweden) and an ethnically diverse one-- I would hope at this stage of your life you understand this basic precept.
Thanks for the social -economics study and report. Glad to see you are catching up to the basic problem now.
How about not condemning all of us to a bloated, non responsive, generally crappy national health insurance such as in Canada and UK... where they have lots of minorities and special problems.
How about saying if you are poor, have a pre-existing condition which pre-empts coverate... can't afford health insurance we issue you a medicare card which you qualify for each year when you file your income tax return. We don't have to do much in the way of change as we already have the system in place. -- medicare system and the IRS is sitting there waiting for you to file.
Then if shit hits the fan you can apply for medicare ... just like if you are poor and need assistance. Originally Social Security was to be a safety net for the poor... but you can see how they messed that up by making it universal. ... hint, hint ...same thing will happen if you go to NHI. : (
Now the rest of us can buy regular insurance outside through private insurance companies.... and not compromise quality, service and pay wickedly high taxes to fund a mediocre systems.
Solves the problem handily.... provide for the poor and keep a very good health care system.... and retain a private insurance systems which has worked very, very well.
You know people aren't racing to Canada & England to be treated... no they come to the USA where we have the best research, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, medicine, doctors... all because of a free market...none NHI systems.
Its amazing to see how quickly you'd trade that in for 1/2 a paycheck and very poor quality medical treatment.
@18 - well of course you have medicare....but now the real clincher... ready wait for it!
Do you have a supplemental policy issued by a private insurance company? for supplemental -- A, B or C
I'll bet you do...ha, ha, ha. -- that's why it works so well for you. (supplemental PRIVATE insurance)
See you don't even believe your owns discredited arguments.
Don't worry you are just like many of the other social far left wankers here in Seattle that think socialism works....as Margaret Thatcher said "it works well until you run out of money". ... and that my little government program proponent is exactly what happened in the UK.
@21 It's clear now why you are having such difficulty... you read but have no comprehension.... no understanding of what's going on or repercussions. Its as if you live in a make believe bubble.
You are aware that both social security and medicare are on a collision course for underfunding....insolvency. I'll slow this one down for you so you can comprehend.... It means the incoming contribution will not equal the payments going out.
This is what I meant when I quoted Thatcher... "it works well until you run out of money".
Now how many doctors will be interested in working for the government? i wonder? Let's compare the VA with say private practice at say the Mayo clinic... where would you go for treatment?
Once pharmaceutical companies have their drug prices fixed by the government, which drugs and research to you think they will pursue? Not new risky ones to be sure, but the old paints, the bread and butter drugs .... and a decline in new therapies, drugs and solutions will follow.
This is your utopia.... and I note you are clinging hard to the option ability to buy supplemental insurance for your discredited medicare plan. (by the by... In my discussion, I did not offer medicare for all, bur rather for those who cannot afford regular insurance or are unable to obtain regular insurance due to pre-existing conditions.... again you comprehension is the issue here.) I suspect is has been this way most of your life.
Tell me...what will you say to the million of people ready to retire when the Social Security benefits are only 75% of what was promised and the plan is facing acute insolvency. Will they have to wait until 68 or 70 years of age to retire.... will they still love you once the money is gone? Amaze me with your acumen on how you'd like to solve this problem..... go ahead thrill me with your solution. More taxes?
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.