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

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.

AFY!!thesheepdog!!!

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?

Pg. 13:
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?

Why ciz for all of the animosity for those who bled for our freedom?

AFY!!thesheepdog!!!

“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!!!

Mercenary he was not!

AFY!!thesheepdog!!!