Would you classify as "insurance" a low-cost health plan that covered routine preventative care and generic drugs but not hospital stays or surgeries?

That's what some low-wage workers who work for large companies are likely to face, thanks to differing disincentives for large and small businesses under Obamacare. You can put this one in the ever-fattening file of unintentional consequences of the president's signature health care law, a further reminder that "unintentional" and "unanticipatable" are not the same thing.

The Wall Street Journal explains:

Employers are increasingly recognizing they may be able to avoid certain penalties under the federal health law by offering very limited plans that can lack key benefits such as hospital coverage.

Benefits advisers and insurance brokers--bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits--are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn't cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

This isn't surprising. With any system of incentives and disincentives, people will try to maximize the incentives and minimize the disincentives. But the issue points to the larger questions of what Obamacare's real goals are and whether it's going to achieve those goals.

What started as people noodling over how to lower health care costs morphed into a bill trying to cover as many as people as possible and a fight over who was going to pay for it. But "coverage" doesn't equal "health care," as some people who are newly eligible for Medicaid may soon learn.

Health insurance is different from other types of insurance, and people's expectations of what it is and what it should pay for are far different, too. From Michael Barone's latest column:

The problem here is that Obamacare's architects seem to misunderstand the concept of insurance.

People buy insurance to pay for low-probability, high-cost and undesirable events. It doesn't make sense to hold onto enough cash to replace your house if it burns when you can buy an insurance policy that will cover that unlikely disaster.

But Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has a different idea of what insurance is.

In response to an American Society of Actuaries report that health insurance premiums would rise 32 percent under Obamacare, she said, "Some of these folks have very high catastrophic plans that don't pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus."

Her idea apparently is that insurance should pay for just about every health care procedure.

A system where routine health care needs were handled out of pocket and larger needs--contracting cancer, proverbial "getting hit by a bus" scenarios--were covered by insurance would be a rational system, one that could actually lower costs. These plans allowed under Obamacare that some will now face are really the opposite of "insurance" and head in the wrong direction.

Megan McArdle, quoted in Barone's column, summed it up best: "Coverage of routine, predictable services is not insurance at all; it's a spectacularly inefficient prepayment plan."

Ever-increasing revenues that are just never "enough."

Special sessions that happen with such regularity, there is nothing special about them.

A state government that is behind the times and spends boatloads of taxpayer dollars for the privilege (symbolized by a monument called the Jefferson Street Data Center).

A Legislature that can't promote reform in state government unless its financial backers acquiesce.

It's reasonable to ask, who is accountable for the great Olympia malaise? Ballotpedia has some nice new graphs and charts to remind us. Not only have the Democrats run Olympia as a permanent political class for decades, Washington is one of just four states that have had one-party control of its governorships for the last two decades.

So next time you wonder why "they" can't seem to get it together, remember to ask yourself who "they" are.

Gov. Jay Inslee used a veto yesterday to send a clear message to legislators about the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project: this bridge, this design, this year, and no other options will be considered.

While signing the state transportation budget, Inslee vetoed $81 million in funding for the state's CRC planning office. Those funds were inserted by the Senate Majority Coalition to keep the planning office open while taking more of a wait-and-see approach on the entire project. The Columbian reports:

When lawmakers added $81 million for the CRC in the transportation budget, several legislators said the expense would help keep the lights on at the CRC's offices.

During the bill-writing process, state Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, successfully added language to the transportation budget to withhold most of the $81 million until the U.S. Coast Guard approves a crucial permit for the CRC. That language, which was wiped out by Inslee's veto, would have required CRC planners to put that money toward a bridge redesign if the Coast Guard rejected the CRC's permit application.

The $3.4 billion project, which would replace the current Interstate 5 link between Vancouver and Portland, has been mired in controversy for years. Much of it revolves around the inclusion of light rail, a must-have for Oregon but a prospect that is less popular with residents on the Washington side of the bridge. Many in Clark County object to the high proposed tolls to cross the bridge, and to their tax dollars going to help operate Portland's Tri-Met light rail system. The Coast Guard must approve the bridge's height to protect river freight mobility.

Gov. Inslee has said repeatedly that a CRC project that does not include light rail will not be built, but the Senate majority has remained skeptical. By making his veto, Inslee is putting pressure on lawmakers to pass a 10-cent hike in the gas tax to raise an additional $8.4 billion for transportation projects. The current package would also give local governments more flexibility to raise taxes and fees to fund mass transit.

Erik Smith at the Washington State Wire summed up the issue well:

Inslee's veto Monday puts the state in a do-or-die position: If lawmakers don't pass the transportation-tax increase this year, providing $450 million for the project, the $3.4 billion bridge project could fizzle for lack of funds. Inslee's point is that the bridge project would fizzle anyway. If lawmakers don't say yes to a transportation tax this year, he says the state likely will lose $800 million in federal funding.

"The reality is starting to come home, and I think this veto may sharpen legislators' minds about the current state of reality," the governor said. "We have to have a reality-based plan across the Columbia River, and if this veto helps them awaken to the reality, that would be great."

Inslee told the Senate in a letter regarding his veto, "If the Coast Guard permit is not issued, there is no need for the waste of $81 million since no other option is viable." The question remains, if one of the many "what-ifs" in the project does occur - if the Coast Guard requires a taller bridge, if that meant light rail wasn't feasible and Oregon balked, if the Legislature didn't appropriate the required $450 million this year, if the transportation package instead went to the ballot and was rejected by voters - would Inslee still say that "no other option is viable"? With his veto, Inslee has increased the likelihood that if the project does fail, he's going to own some of that failure.

The Snohomish County Council is moving forward with appointing a successor to scandal-scarred County Executive Reardon, despite the fact that Reardon has yet to formally resign.

KIRO Radio's Tim Haeck has the story.:

The council voted unanimously Monday to consider Reardon's speech in February, in which he declared he would step down, as his formal resignation.

"We were advised that the statutes don't really say 'written' resignation, they say 'tender' resignation and he did that verbally and we finally decided it was time to move the process along," said county council vice-chairman Dave Somers.

Reardon plans to resign May 31. Under state law, the council will choose a new Executive from a list of three names submitted by the Snohomish County Democratic Party. The party's precinct committee officers will meet to select the three finalists. Former Democratic state legislator and current Sheriff John Lovick is the acknowledged favorite to succeed Reardon.

What's notable about the council's new legal theory regarding "tendered resignations" is that they waited until after the candidate filing period to pass before announcing it, thereby avoiding a special election this fall. Had the council moved forward with their idea before the candidate filing period, the citizens of Snohomish County could have voted for their new county executive this fall. Instead, the replacement Executive chosen by the council will serve until the results of the November 2014 election are certified.

It's unlikely their legal theory was cooked up over the weekend. Most likely this option had been considered for some time. Now the council gets the best of both worlds - they get to move forward with replacing Reardon, with whom they have had less-than-cordial relations during his three terms, and they avoid a pesky special election this fall in which the voters would have their say. Apparently the political class will do anything to avoid that.