From state Rep. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale:
Rep. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, today said the governor’s recent announcement that she may eliminate the Basic Health Plan, is a prime example of the perils of a government-run health care monopoly. He urged the governor and the Democrat majority to look at all options, including his proposal to reform the state run health care plan for low-income families.Ericksen
“Instead of looking at just scrapping the plan, we should be working together to provide citizens more health care options, more affordable choices and ensure there is a safety net for those who need it,” said Ericksen. “The current budget situation presents lawmakers the opportunity to reform how government programs and services are delivered. Now is the time for reform, not for throwing in the towel.
“This illustrates exactly why government should not be in the insurance business,” said Ericksen, the lead Republican on the House Health Care and Wellness Committee. “I’m concerned that the very people for which the plan was intended to serve would be left with no viable options. They need a place to land if the government pulls the rug out from underneath them.”
During the 2009 session, House Republicans offered a comprehensive plan to increase access to health care while reducing costs, providing affordable coverage to all families and fixing the state’s safety net. Part of this plan included reforming the Basic Health Plan. All solutions were ignored by the majority party and governor.
“The solution we are offering is comprehensive and detailed, I understand why it may have taken some lawmakers in Olympia some time to wrap their arms around it,” said Ericksen. “Now It’s time to act, we can’t wait any longer.”
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Lemme see if I have this straight.
The reason a public option for people that can’t afford private health insurance and so have none,
is bad,
is because they might lose their funding first in a budget emergency?
Even after the premiums they paid and the subsidy directly targeted at that premium through the Federal budget?
The Federal budget that has the power to run deficits.
Don’t all Government/Public safety nets face that same problem?
The idea that a Federal plan would allow for the security of insurance exempt from employment status and the real monopoly we face right now through the state’s programs - private and public - seems to me like the best reason for such a plan.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 PM
There’s nothing like a crisis to bring out the Republicans with a proposal that would make things worse. Doug’s giving us slogans not solutions and there not even new slogans… it’s just the same old snake oil that the Republicans have been trying to sell us for over fifty years.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:43 PM
I just love people who criticizes the R’s for not having a plan then attacks them for having a plan!
One day soon when the state is completely broke and there is no more to be squeezed out of the taxpayers then people will not have a choice but to try to work together with anyone from any party that wants real solutions!
And that is when real solutions will be found, when both sides work together and only then!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:47 PM
AFY!!!, Where is the plan in The Good Representative’s statements?
I can give you all the slogans, they stick right out!
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Hey ciz, go back and read it agin! I’s don’t want me friend to look like a fool, don’t you know!
“During the 2009 session, House Republicans offered a comprehensive plan to increase access to health care while reducing costs, providing affordable coverage to all families and fixing the state’s safety net. Part of this plan included reforming the Basic Health Plan. All solutions were ignored by the majority party and governor.”
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:23 PM
AFY… WHAT IS THE REPUBLICAN PLAN? Saying it was offered doesn’t prove it exists, much less say what’s in it, nor how it would achieve the stated goals of “increasing access while reducing costs”, nor provide evidence that would support such a claim. I can’t even find anything on The Washington State Republican Party website that says anything about such a plan.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:05 PM
For those who are interested they can go to my legislative web page and find details of the plan I put together to fix our health care system: http://www.houserepublicans.wa.gov/ericksen/
The solutions offered are comprehensive, detailed and would empower the consumer.
If you want a look at what is currently happening in Canada you can click on this link:
http://www.hsabc.org
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:24 PM
You really can’t blame the liberals for wondering where the opposition health plans can be found for the simple reason the press chooses never to cover them . Call it media bias and/or liberal talking points or both. Doug Ericksen has a very good plan, which he laid out at a townhall meeting in Ferndale earlier this year. Look at it first, then come back and carp if you must.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Rep. Ericksen has thoroughly discussed the GOP plan for healthcare not only with me but hundreds, if not thousands, of county residents during meetings he’s set up and interviews with me. He’s discussed healthcare for years now.
It appears he already came on and gave you the link, otherwise I was going to link it.
I’ve also blogged about his healthcare positions several times, too. Use the search function.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Thanks to the Good Representative for his prompt reply!
I read through the PDF featured under health care solutions and,
except for the offer to purchase across state lines from the same monopolies that exist now,
I don’t see much in the way of innovation.
Will you get Alabama’s great price on personal coverage?
How will Nebraska handle Washington’s document requirements?
It does shift a tax burden/credit from the employer to the employee,
and it does limit somewhat who can apply for ’special coverage’ depending upon their youth,
but otherwise it seems most of the Ideas never even made it into committee.
HSAs for Government employees sounds good since it’s their money anyway,
but then to save money insuring these employees already assumes some co-pay, doesn’t it?
I may not have fully understood the complexities of the simplicity of the solutions.
The link to Canada is a site for 16,000 ‘concerned Union professionals’ that may or may not have the best interests of the insured populace in mind.
It’s hard to tell,
except for the complaints about the BC government,
which I figure is the reason it was included.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Everybody but everybody knows about Erickson’s health care plans!
And they have for years!
Yer funny!
It’s our own fault we have questions and concerns about his statements.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Doug your link to a professional union website is more than disingenuous.
Your reference to what is happening in Canada has all the legitimacy of you telling me your thoughts represent what is happening in the USA.
Canada is much larger than the link you have provided to skew your point!
Well done Doug!
Now I can disregard your Point, legitimately!
November 24th, 2009 at 10:27 AM
I’s a better link on what is happening in Canada!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U&feature=player_embedded
Can’t wait for this to happen down here, can we?
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Did you watch that Video?
They have health care.
Did you hear the part about spending the inheritance money to pay for the surgery?
Right, so that is already happening here, also people are mortgaging their homes to pay for medical care??
..This is a case example, it is not a system wide defect, but the author of that piece alleges such!
It’s despicable to use this as an example of medical care Canada wide!
November 24th, 2009 at 11:27 AM
I knows the truth does hurt!
You can vote for that kind of health care but I’s will always be agin it!
Maybe you would like what is happening in England better:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8156432.stm
Government health care don’t work because government can not run a business successfuly, did you know most doctors are small businesses:
“Alongside getting rid of pointless bureaucracy, our policies of patient choice, payment by results, competition, information and innovation provide the necessary levers to make this happen.”
If we want to improve things here, do the above and you can do that with out a government takeover!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 11:31 AM
14 years ago, the state of Washington spent 11% of it’s budget on Health Care. Today, we are spending 33% of the budget on health care. How much will we be spending 10 years from now?
Good points, Iian. Did you know that the state of Washington will force a former employee to cash in their retirement benefits before DSHS will allow them to sign up for medicaid?
Talk about shooting taxpayers and citizens in the foot!
November 24th, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Madam E, there’s a simple solution methinks, get the state out of the health care business and turn it over to someone who can make a profit out of it and then they can pay some taxes, then it would be a net gain instead of the constant net lost everything that government puts it hands on is!
Government ain’t the solution but the problem!! And will only make it worst! AS IT ALWAYS DOES!!!!!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 11:54 AM
AFY:
Could you explain to me the rationale behind forcing a former state employee to cash in their retirement plan in order to qualify for medicaid?
When the state strips a mature citizen of their retirement program, they are in effect, announcing to the world that they will be financially responsible for that citizen from that point on. The alternative is to allow the employee to have medical assistance without forcing them into poverty during their retirement years.
Does this make sense to you?
November 24th, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Did AFY just advocate taxes? Where am I? Did I wake up in Bizarro Whatcom County this morning!?
November 24th, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Running a business requires making a profit - even for non-profits since they just call it something else.
The Government is never in the running to produce a profit and therefore can service everything cheaper.
War, disaster recovery, health insurance. transportation, food safety and education are all good examples of Government superiority over private enterprise,
especially concerning costs.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:09 PM
My answer is a question, Madam E, is government rational?
It’s the Twilight Zone for sure, I luvs the music, y’all got me all wrong, I’s don’t hate taxes, I’s wait a minute for that to sink in, ……………………………………, I’s don’t even hate government, that should take more than a minute,……………………………………………., what I don’t particular care for, a little bit at least, is waste in government, government intrusions into people life’s when unnecessary, and anything that gets in the way of FREEDOM!!!!
That was all done to that Twilight Zone music, BTW!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Goodmorning ciz, hope you had a good night, so ciz ole man, since government does things so much better, why not let government do everything?
Instead of the USA we then could be the USSA!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Hey I’s do have this small question that just keeps buggin me, kinda like a horsefly(the big ones that bite), so when government employs everyone, does that mean service for everything will now be kinda like the DMV, where they wish you would go away or better yet never come back, heck if it saves money, what the heck, right?
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 12:22 PM
There another thing that keeps bugin me, kinda like a buzzard, has anything that government ever done gone under budget, I’s reckon we could say its just keeps gettin cheaper can’t we, but aren’t they always askin for mo & mo & mo taxes all of the time, but it ain’t no more then a cup of coffee they say, but when I’s pay taxes it sure do feel like a big cup I must say! Well all I’s can say ciz ole man if if you say so it must be true, I’s reckon!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 12:36 PM
The Government handles services for an increasing population and,
as do we all,
faces increasing costs.
Why does that bug you?
Are your private sector costs decreasing?
I don’t think my post listed Everything and I never used the word Better.
AFY!!! I think you’d gain credibility if you were less evasive and addressed the issues responsively.
That Founding Father’s and their distaste for their debt to the French is a good example.
You crossed historical facts so many times,
I thought you were Jules Verne.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Opps, I did say everything cheaper.
I guess I’ll stand by that.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Underwater like 25% of the mortages under Obamonics!
BTW, in private industry right now, at least that part I am in, cost are going down, at least the part that government hasn’t gotten its paws into!
Construction cost/bids are down big time! How bout that, but all we hear with government is mo & mo & mo taxes are needed, there are reasons for that, I’s think I was covering that in another tread on this blog, it’s the recent Ericksen posting on taxes, check it out you might learn something.
Ciz, what do you have agin our forefathers, they have only done you good son, yeah they had allies in their war agin the Brits, and the debt we owe them is a lot more than $$ but also their blood, I’s felt as if that was surely paid in WWII if not before.
But if you hate our forefathers so much, who is it you look up to (I’s do look up to TJ and his buds!), or is it like because with you, you can only look down?
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Even the commie’s think we need to get control of our government spending!
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/11/16/china-questions-costs-of-us-healthcare-reform/
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 2:32 PM
They weren’t allies,
they were mercenaries.
Paid for by loans from the French,
the same French that invested their treasure in a rebel competitor to the hated English.
They didn’t care what type of government we had and probably never expected to be paid back.
Pullin out the Hate card agin?
Just like a 17th century medical journal,
I don’t think you can function well in 2009 working off 17th century political platitudes.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:44 PM
For a look at some other country’s health care systems, the pros and cons of those systems and how they compare to United States Health care system read T.R. Reid’s “The Healing of America”. After reading this book it is hard for me to understand how anyone would not consider trying to improve what we have by trying portions of these systems. They all look better than ours. Most of us know that the main barrier to improving out healthcare system is the private insurance companies, the drug companies and their hold over the politicians. I am hoping those Republicans that are having trouble keeping decent health care coverage would take a chance and read Reid’s book and other books on this health care problem and join those of us that really need an improved health care system.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:59 PM
To call “La Fayette, Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Matier, marquis de” better known to us regular folk as “Lafayette”, he who was wounded at Brandywine, he who could call George Washington friend, he who shared the hardships of Valley Forge anything but a freedom fighter is an insult to history!
Mercenary he was not!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 3:09 PM
The answer is not a Canadain or British anwser but an American answer;
“The right answers lie in the opposite direction. The American direction. Getting health insurance out of both government’s and employers’ hands (like all other insurances), creating unrestricted competition, private and individual ownership, mandating having a minimum level of coverage (just as is done with auto insurance or home insurance if if the consumer borrowed money for the purchase) if we must, and giving equal tax deductibility for all. That way lies self-reliance and responsibility, not dependence on the socialist state.
The worst situations: catastrophic, major medical problems or end of life care wiping out individuals’ or families’ finances and forcing them into bankruptcy; children not getting appropriate health care; people with coverage in place cancelled when they become ill and need coverage must be addressed. But doing so does not warrant a monstrous power grab with the federal government taking control of the entire health care system.”
http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2009/20090701090418.aspx
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Paid to fight for a country or a cause other than your own = mercenary.
Running a debt to pay for that mercenary = American Way even today..
November 24th, 2009 at 3:56 PM
France was the equivalent of our Islamic terrorist to England, and vice versa.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:28 PM
When Lafayette came to this soon to be country, he came to fight for FREEDOM, he was already filthy rich and even used his own money to buy supplies for some of the troops he commanded. As far as I know he never took but gave, I wish I could remember what is inscribed on his statute in the park named after him across from the Whitehouse, but he was a patriot for freedom and should never be referred to as a mercenary.
Why ciz for all of the animosity for those who bled for our freedom?
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 6:35 PM
You’re daft.
I speak accuracy not maliciously.
Study a little on the French and their buddies, The English and educate yerself.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Thanks Mr. Ericksen for a prompt reply.
However, just to be nitpicky, I prefer reading the text of the bills proposed. Which one is that? There are lots of bills concerning health care and/or insurance and/or affordability listed on your website. Is the GOP plan actually all of these bills? Sam does have a few blogs pertaining to ‘the plan’, but they don’t provide information on where to read it myself, only quotes from you or links to videos of you. Even your own website doesn’t provide information on what bill your proposal is (unless it’s all of them listed).
Or are you talking about the federal-level health reform?
There is, however, a link to a powerpoint presentation used in your town hall meeting. It lists 8 bills. Are they all ‘the plan’?
Speaking of that powerpoint…
1) Use of polls as supporting evidence, Pg 4… although all politicians do that. Can be and often are interpreted to mean whatever someone wants to say.
2) Stating “Life expectancy is higher in America than other industrialized nations” is, at best, general enough to be technically correct (minimum there only has to be two other countries considered ‘developed’ that the U.S. has to score higher than for the statement to be true), and at worst completely misleading. I mean it totally goes against established statistics from not only the U.N. (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf, pg 80) but our own government’s intelligence data (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html) that both rank at least 30 countries higher than us. Curious as to what source would reach such a conclusion, I found the original source you cited (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649), but the closest thing I could find to your powerpoint statement was this part:
“Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.”
Somehow, “There are more Americans taking a particular for high cholesterol than Dutch, Swiss, German, British, and Italians” transformed into “Life Expectancy is higher in America”. Not to mention even using a source that states that “Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases” and then backs that up with statistics for only one drug for only one disease, a drug that is only preventative and not treatment, and neglects the fact that there are alternative prevention methods to taking that drug.
Interestingly, the source for your source was a CATO Institute article that contained the WHO’s ranking of national health systems… which put the U.S. behind some 30 other countries just like the UN and CIA does.
3) No citations at all for your numbers on pg 5.
4) The cited source (http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf) for pg. 6 never says that any of the non-citizens surveyed are in the U.S. illegally. You can’t cite a source that doesn’t make any mention of illegal immigrants and say the data explicitly includes illegal immigrants. Non-citizens include legal immigrants, such as those with work visas, student visas, green cards, or any of the many ways to enter the U.S. legally without being a citizen. Why should we concentrate on citizens and ignore legal immigrants because they are not yet citizens, as your slide seems to suggest?
5) The source for pg 6 does not give any data on people without insurance for six moths or less. What is the source for “45% are uninsured for 6 months or less”? Assuming this statement is true, does your plan provide a solution for those between coverages, either because of job loss, quitting, or insurance plan change?
6) Pg 9 does not have any sources… and a blanket statement like, “Major changes offered in federal proposals are cost drivers, not cost reducers” needs sources. As well as “Mandates will increase costs and limit choices in health care”. I imagine you explained how that would happen in your town hall meeting, but it still needs sources and evidence, especially if you have this available out-of-context from your website.
7) Pg. 12 REALLY needs sources. It’s a table with data, but where do the numbers come from?
a) What is working and what is broken? presentation made no mention of it, so far.
b) ‘Truly needy’, but not non-citizens even if they are legal?
c) How do protecting freedoms and limiting government fix what is broken, protect what is not, or
help the truly needy?
November 25th, 2009 at 12:16 AM
that
is supposed to be an 8 with a parenthesis behind it.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:54 AM
If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. – Thomas Jefferson
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 25th, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Poor Tom never heard about imported Chinese toothpaste,
baby formula or dog food.
He never had spinach from the Central Valley,
fake drugs off the internet or a hamburger at Jack-in-the-Box.
Putting Jefferson’s Ideals to work today involves a bit more brainpower than cut and paste.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Oh, Ciz, don’t start ragging on my Jumbo Jacks. They’re the best burger on the street, other than Fatburger. You’re just talking fast food in general right? Please say they’re not putting Melamine in them so I can go back to my denial–horse and dog are at least meat. In fact in Puglia last year there was a Horse meat shop on every corner. I couldn’t bring myself to munch on Mr. Ed, but I was told they kill them young so the meat is tender, which is why ponying up in Puglia has a different meaning.
Also a Mercenary is a mercenary. Hopefully we won’t end up with a Blackwater park.
AFY, you are the master/mattress of old irrelevant quotes and dated ideas, but I love to hear you bark on.
When my son was at BHS I read his history text once. It was one of these Texas textbooks that they use to keep people ignorant while pretending to be educated. The section on the 60’s and the Viet Nam era (yes they were combined) was about 3 paragraphs long and talked of how a bunch of people calling themselves hippies put flowers in their hair and went to San Francisco, smoked dope and avoided the draft. That was about it. Those were the highlights, but a little simplistic don’t you think? Maybe that’s why people from south of the Mason Dixon line are often, uh, er, shall we say–dumb as stumps?
Final Turkey day thought. What out of work cardiologist ( in itself amazing) came up with Terducken. Really? A chicken inside a duck inside a turkey. That is just so wrong. What other combos can you come up with? A pig inside a poke, often bought by Republicans. A total Republican screw up inside a chicken–a Clusterf*@ken. A rabbit inside a pig inside a cow– a Beefporket? Make up your own.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Bikerbob for president!!
November 25th, 2009 at 11:29 AM
The first major e-coli outbreak was through Jack-in-the-Box hamburger.
The idea that a modern Jefferson would ignore the protection of the public is nonsense.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:50 PM
For Representative Ericksen to deride the Basic Health Plan by citing the “perils of a government-run health care monopoly” seems entirely disingenuous and even ludicrous.
The problem is that all too many Washingtonians are falling through the cracks of a health insurance system that mostly features expensive premiums for crappy coverage. The Basic Health Plan was created to provide access to affordable health insurance for low-income Washington residents. The idea is to provide lower cost health insurance for the working poor: To be eligible for the BHP, you have to be earning some money, but not too much money (less than twice the federal poverty guidelines).
Once again, the problem is that there are wide gaps in access to coverage and health care in Washington State. Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed out of reach for so many of our small businesses. Many of our hard working neighbors lack health insurance coverage from their employers and can’t afford the policies that are available from private insurance companies. Many, many state residents need access to affordable health insurance. This fact is plainly evident, given the large numbers of citizens currently seeking Basic Health coverage. Indeed, the State reports that, each and every day, an additional 300 persons are added to the waiting list for Basic Health coverage. Basically speaking, these are people the current system has thrown under the bus.
Unfortunately, Washington State is also facing a budget crisis, which has become so severe that the legislature ordered Basic Health to reduce enrollment by 43 percent. Consequently, Basic Health has stopped processing incoming applications, is attempting to reduce the number of enrollees, and is raising rates for those already enrolled in the system.
Given this situation, what does Representative Ericksen propose? He is pushing a republican plan to “transform the BHP into a premium-subsidy program for legal Washington residents ages 35 to 64,” while “young adults and small businesses will be given an opportunity to purchase core-benefit plans from private health insurance providers.”
What this really amounts to, then, is more of the same: crappy private coverage that is way too expensive. In sum, the republicans only seem to be offering yet more high-deductable plans, with hefty co-pays, that only cover about 80% of the cost of catastrophic care, such as a hospital stay or surgery. Unfortunately, such plans typically feature high out of pocket expenses, often requiring patients to pay $30 to $50 for each office visit, 20% to 40% of the cost of hospital visits, and high co-pays for prescriptions. And, many of these insurance plans force enrollees to use “in-network” doctors and providers that were pre-selected by the insurance company (so much for being able to choose your own doctor). In the private insurance market here in Washington, premiums for such policies typically cost middle-aged, single adults somewhere between $350 and $450 a month. Plans with a $12,000 annual deductable, and which only cover 50% for major medical expenses, are available for around $130 month, but such plans would do little to protect most of us from financial ruin, if faced with a major medical problem.
Furthermore, Representative Ericksen’s “comprehensive” health care plan does nothing to curb abusive insurance industry practices, such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, canceling coverage after you become sick through the practice of rescission, or beleaguering consumers with reams of unintelligible fine-print, contract stipulations, and deceptive legalese.
Moreover, his republican plan does nothing to address the fact that healthcare costs are continuing to spiral out of control at annual rates much higher than inflation. One thing is for sure. People’s pay checks definitely have not been keeping up with the costs of healthcare. And now that large numbers are either unemployed or underemployed, a lot more people will lack health insurance and will be in serious trouble if they get sick.
It’s time for the government to act on behalf of the people, instead of special interests for a change. It’s time for government to take decisive action to protect health insurance consumers from abusive industry practices, while curbing healthcare costs. It’s time for the government to make sure all Washington residents have access to affordable health care! Unfortunately, the republican plan is sorely lacking on all these points. Worse yet, the republican plan seeks to ensure the market position of big insurance companies, by subsidizing bloated premiums at taxpayers’ expense.
Representative Ericksen’s plan to provide subsidies for health insurance premiums is not only too little, too late — It’s a disingenuous dereliction of his duty to serve the best interests of his constituents. Representative Ericksen is simply selling more snake oil, and it’s time for the people to wake up and smell the coffee!
More information about Basic Health can be found here:
http://www.basichealth.hca.wa.gov/about.html
A summary of Representative Ericksen’s plan is available here:
http://www.houserepublicans.wa.gov/News/Ericksen/HRCBHPtransformationplan.doc
Governor Gregoire’s priorities for healthcare are available here:
http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/healthcare/default.asp