Like Washington, D.C., in Washington State the executive branch (Governor) and both houses of the legislature are firmly in Democrat hands. The similarity does not end there. Take health care reform as an example. House Republicans have proposed "10 Solutions for a Healthier Washington" and introduced eight implementing bills in the 2009 regular session of the Washington State House of Representatives but no action was taken other than refer them to committee. The same bills were carried forward to the 2010 special session and remain in the Health and Wellness Committee, chaired by Representative Eileen Cody (D-34th District), where they still have not received a public hearing. A minority party may have good ideas but the public will never be able to consider them if they are buried in committee.
The history and status of the below listed House Bills may be tracked on the Washington State House of Representatives web site.
HB 1865 - Exempts health plans offered to small employers from certain statutory requirements.
HB 1866 - Establishes parameters for carriers to design health plans for adults between the ages of nineteen and thirty-four.
HB 1867 - Abolishes the certificate of need process established in chapter 70.38 RCW.Directs the code reviser, by November 15, 2009, to recommend to the legislature appropriate legislation that effectuates the purposes of the act by removing references to the certificate of need process in sections of the Revised Code of Washington not repealed by the act.
HB 1868 - Modifies provisions regarding access to health insurance for small employers and their employees.
HB 1870 - Authorizes employees, as defined in RCW 41.05.011, to receive the monthly value of their health care benefit in a pretax account for the purchase of a core benefit plan from a private vendor.
HB 1871 - Regulates health insurance coverage provided by out-of-state health carriers.
HB 1872 - Provides tax incentives for the purchase of health care plans by a person conducting business as a sole proprietorship and small employers.
HB 2169 - Authorizes the Washington basic health plan administrator to provide an enrollee a stipend sufficient to provide the same level of subsidy as would have otherwise been available through the basic health plan for enrollees who wish to purchase coverage through the individual health insurance market, including a high deductible health plan in conjunction with a health savings account.
yes, they may. but this minority party doesn't. in fact, most of their 'solutions' are really impediments, as they're intended to be. and that's why things get shelved in committee.
if the Rs were serious about solution 10, they'd be for the legalization of marijuana - unfortunately hypocrisy is fairly rampant amongst the right these days.
Posted by: mike on January 29, 2010 05:54 PMYou guys won, right?
As you know one of the bullet points from the WA House Republicans proposed "10 Solutions for a Healthier Washington" page says:
"According to 2008 U.S. Census Data, here are demographics of uninsured people:
* 25 percent are eligible for a government program;"
Question to you, which of the proposed bills attempts to address the reduction of government tax and spending by removing these programs and the government tax and spending which result from them?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on January 29, 2010 07:02 PMHB 1865: Assume the issue here is mandatory requirements making health costs cost restrictive for small businesses, otherwise don't need. Question, then why not address the root problem, instead of making two classes of workers (e.g., either the mandatory requirements are necessary or not, and if necessary then all workers should have the protection, not just those who work for big businesses)? Also, to address the cost issue with regards to small businesses, one needs to address insurance pool (e.g., small business don't get the cost break due to small pools of employees). Again, the issue is not to exempt small business, but to increase their pool buying capabilities.
HB1866 - Anytime you take the low risk pool out of the other pools, all you do is increase the costs for the other pools. Are Republican's really proposing to increase insurance costs for older workers by allowing younger workers to opt-out of the insurance pools? If so, then state so. Don't hide the facts.
HB1868 - Does the bill address the underlying insurance cost drivers, like small buying pools? If not, then bill won't do anything to address the root cause.
HB1870 - Sounds good, but I believe needs action on the Federal level to make work (e.g., Tax code changes to treat pay direct to workers as exempt, like employers paying for insurance -- or raise taxes by ending employer portion as tax exempt -- I though Republicans were against raising taxes).
HB1871 - I am not sold on across state lines insurance, but as it has been documented the current approved plans at national level include this provision provided minimum standards are met (something Republicans miss when shooting down the passed bills).
HB1872 -- I believe the current national bills (e.g, House and Senate approved bills) already include tax incentives for small businesses. If so, then the Republicans should be calling out this as something to pass. I haven't heard this at the national level Republicans as a talking point. On the state level, are they talking B&O tax incentives? State Business don't pay state income taxes, do they? I thought all they paid was B&O taxes, Sales Tax, etc. The state can't address the national income tax on business, but could possibly address in B&O tax. I doubt sales tax would be a proper vehicle. This one should be looked into.
HB2169 -- I don't get. If they have the money to give a stipend, they have the ability to add them to the State Basic Plan. The issue with he State Basic Plan is lack of funding, which is why uninsured individuals who qualify for the State Basic Plan can't get on it (e.g., quotas on enrollments). I don't see how giving a stipend addresses the root problem with is lack of funds. As far as I can tell they wouldn't have the funds for a stipend either, or are Republicans proposing to increase state funding in this area?
Posted by: tc on February 1, 2010 10:56 AM