Elizabeth Hovde of the Washington Policy Center provides an update on the recent Universal Health Care Commission meeting
Elizabeth Hovde
Washington Policy Center
A large part of the Dec. 14 meeting of the Universal Health Care Commission (UHCC) was process again. Time was spent organizing the commission and its subcommittees around what it plans to focus on first, second and third as it paves a path to a taxpayer-financed, government-run system of health care.
That couldn’t have pleased the handful of people who showed up to give public comment that the UHCC was moving too slowly bringing them the new system and that they needed cheaper health care now. One public commenter pressuring the state commission said, “This is important. I’d like to see the commission acting like it’s important.”
Public commenters told the commission to follow an Oregon task force’s lead, to adopt ideas pushed by Whole Washington, a group that has sought to change the state’s system of health care via initiative, and Sen. Bob Hasegawa showed up to push his Senate Joint Memorial that would ask the federal government for “universal” health care or get it to allow the state to go it alone. Read Washington Policy Center’s caution against that misguided legislation last year. The commission should withhold its support and lawmakers should ignore SJM 8006 this coming legislative session. A fast track to a weaker, less-accessible, tax-heavy health care system is not what we need.
Commissioners reminded that moving to a taxpayer-financed, government-run system for all would take time, needed to be done biennium by biennium, and that a lot of the commission’s hoped–for progress had to do with political will, still-needed waivers and provider finessing. When discussing transitional plans, they talked about consolidating government-provided insurance plans, growth in those plans and the state increasing its Medicaid rolls.
Having more people not paying their way for health care is not something that should be congratulated or sought. In many cases, it will mean more people in Washington state are financially struggling. It also means taxpayers are taking on others’ health care bills. Safety nets are important and generously provided by taxpayers, but safety nets they should remain.
The impact of government-run, taxpayer-financed health care on cost-containment is not good. The impact on access and quality is worrisome.
The UHCC and the public need to acknowledge that health care costs money. Regulations make it more expensive. A third-party-payer system is harming us. And we need more people paying for health care, not fewer.
Health care also needs to be prioritized by state residents. It is one of our greatest needs, after all. Cost transparency can help make better-informed consumers. Competition and innovation can bring more cost-containment, access and quality. The commission isn’t focused on those things, however. At lawmakers’ direction, it is working on government-run health care instead, despite the harsh consequences that can be seen in other countries.
Elizabeth Hovde is a policy analyst and the director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights at the Washington Policy Center. She is a Clark County resident.
Also read:
- Opinion: The income tax proposal has arrived
Ryan Frost of the Washington Policy Center argues that a proposed Washington income tax creates a new revenue stream rather than delivering tax reform or relief. - Opinion: ‘If they want light rail, they should be the ones who pay for it’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that supporters of light rail tied to the I-5 Bridge replacement should bear the local cost of operating and maintaining the system through a narrowly drawn sub-district. - POLL: If a sub-district is created, what area should it include?
Clark County residents are asked where a potential C-TRAN sub-district should be drawn if voters are asked to fund light rail operations and maintenance costs. - Opinion: IBR falsely blaming inflation
Joe Cortright argues that inflation explains only a small portion of the IBR project’s cost increases and that rising consultant and staff expenses are the primary drivers. - Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $141 million bribe can be better spent on sandwich steel-concrete tubes
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel using sandwich steel-concrete tubes would be a more cost-effective alternative to the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program design.
