February 15, 2007
The ever-expanding nanny state

The Nannycrats want to take care of you, no matter how much money it means they'll have to take from you:

Senate Bill 5093, which offers health care insurance to all children in Washington by 2010, passed in the Senate today despite Republican pleas that the bill is too expensive and will sink the state deeper in promises it can't keep.

"This bill covers families at 300 percent of the federal poverty level," said Sen. Cheryl Pflug, R-Maple Valley and ranking Republican on the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee. "That means a family of four making $62,000 a year would be eligible. That's higher than the median income in 37 of Washington's 39 counties - an enormous and unsustainable entitlement program."

To those who want to take care of us, enormous entitlement is a feature. Unsustainable? feh. They'll just fix that later with even more regulation and confiscation.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 15, 2007 12:46 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Well, they will make sure that Wal-Mart employees can't use it. When it gets too expensive they will cahnge it to only children of union employees can get the benefit.

What a dismal bill...

Posted by: Right said Fred on February 15, 2007 12:52 PM
2. Watch out for a payroll tax. It's coming, but won't help to over come the spending spree.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 15, 2007 12:54 PM
3. Certainly, if taxes go up much more, it will be personally unsustainable for our family. This last year, properties in our neck of the woods were reassessed. The value of our house doubled. A friend, who cleared four acres of undeveloped land, saw her assessment go up 400%! The tax rate went down 2%, but this obviously doesn't do much to offset the adjustment in valuation.

We own a small rental property, and have been not quite breaking even on the cost. However, with taxes on that place going up $600 this year, I doubt whether we will continue be able to keep rent at the current rate. We have also seen our maintenance and insurance expenses go up (though not as dramatically as the taxes). Our renter is barely able to make the rent as it stands, so I don't think she will stay if we raise it. Who says taxing the "rich" (property owners) is good for the poor? We would love to keep the rent as it is, but can't afford to lose money on the place. If we do, we will be forced to sell it, and our renter will still be out on the street!

Posted by: Peggy U on February 15, 2007 01:01 PM
4. Say hello to a state income tax.
I'm sure Ms. Gregoire the H.A.G (Heretofore Attorney General) has had the announcement speech already written since she was twelve years old.

Posted by: Mumblix Grumph on February 15, 2007 01:11 PM
5. #3 Peggy U


You hit it right on the head. Everytime you raise the rent to cover the higher cost, the people on the lower end take the hit. Highter rents means less money for them and a greater chance of them not affording health & dental care.
It's a never ending problem the goverment is creating.

Posted by: Army Medic/vet on February 15, 2007 01:15 PM
6. It starts with the kids (it's for the children!), and then they expand it to the
"poorest" adults and pretty soon it's "single payer" healthcare!

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

-Norman Thomas

Posted by: Palouse on February 15, 2007 01:43 PM
7. I'll buy into this socialist idea when most people stop blowing 110% of their take-home income on "necessary" items like cell phones, video consoles, a cell phone fo every kid, huge plasma tv's, Esclalades with spinner hubcap wheels, etc etc etc.

You're entitled to spend your money any way you want. And I won't monitor it. However, if you do not buy insurance (and other priorities) in favor of a new pair of $150 Nike b-ball star shoes, then I can't feel sorry for you. And--don't make ME pay for YOUR poor choices! Let the poor choosers have their cake & fate. Best lesson for them. The others who are truly needy (by fate) can go to charitiable organizations that I gladly support.

Lastly, NOTHING for ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 15, 2007 02:28 PM
8. Damn, my family and I qualify for this benefit! Well not quite but close. Agree with ya all and jimmie, stop buying things you can't afford. I have two very nice cars, paid for. Zero credit card dept. No cell phones. We don't buy it if we can't afford it. Not saying that's for everybody - but it sure has been working well for us. Just a bit of delayed gratification, makes it so much sweeter.

Posted by: Jeffro on February 15, 2007 02:42 PM
9. Most definitely agree, Jimmie! On the topic of government sponsored healthcare and the exodus of doctors from Washington state, our family has personally been affected twice by this.

My kids had a terrific pediatrician for 12 years. In fact, we were there when he came into the area and hung up his shingle. When our first child was born, his wife (I guess in an effort to promote his business)came to our house to visit and welcome us as customers (he got busy pretty quickly, and she dropped that habit in a hurry!). Because of the high number of low income patients on government insurance, he was not recouping his operating costs. He was required by law to see a certain percentage of high maintenance cases at only partial reimbursement from the government. (This, by the way, is more of a burden for doctors in areas outside of Seattle, where there are not as many providers for special needs patients.) When he realized that his car mechanic was making about the same amount of money without the long hours and loss of family time, he decided to go where the climate would meet his and his family's needs. So, he moved to Tennessee. There is just no replacement for this guy!

A friend of mine has a child who was born with multiple chronic health problems. She was also a patient of this doctor. My friend was devastated at losing this resource after 12 years of ongoing quality care.

I have had to drop my own doctor because she cut back on the types of services she provides. One day I received a letter stating that the clinic she worked at would cease to provide many of the services for which they were not being fully reimbursed, in addition to those services which were deemed too much of an insurance liability (such as ob gyn services). This was a couple of years ago. Fortunately, I am relatively healthy, because I still don't have a replacement. It is difficult to find one, even when you have good insurance, and then you are put on a lengthy waiting list.

Posted by: Peggy U on February 15, 2007 03:03 PM
10. Peggy@9:

You are experiencing the early symptoms of a Canadian-style health care system.

Congratulations.

Posted by: huckleberry on February 15, 2007 03:49 PM
11. This is ridiculous. I strongly object to all this excessive spending! And they'll come after all of us to pay for it. And then they'll come again when THAt isn't enough. No no no no no! This is what happens when you get these kind of dem majorities in Oly. They go nuts and streamroll the rest of the state with their wild spending schemes that can't be sustained. Hey--aren't these lefties the ones who usually say that everything has to be "sustainable"????

Posted by: Michele on February 15, 2007 04:17 PM
12. I remember that these same types of leftists when they got both the house and senate in WA back in '93 went crazy and tried to shove Hillary-care down our throats and force everyone into "managed care." (a joke in itself!). The people kicked them out and the republicans undid all the damage the dems were trying to do to small businesses and people in general. May it happen again.

Posted by: Michele on February 15, 2007 04:21 PM
13. My guess is that it will take a mass exodus of good, honest hard working Washingtonians before they will ever figure out that if you tax people to death they will leave for the greener grass elsewhere.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 15, 2007 05:07 PM
14. I dunno, TrueSoldier. California hasn't figured it out yet.

Posted by: Peggy U on February 15, 2007 05:13 PM
15. Peggy @ 14:

I seem to recall reading about two years ago that the population of California was in an extreme state of flux, not in the raw numbers, but in the demographics. Our own beloved Stefan Sharkansky and his family are typical of the class of people who have fled California, and they are being replaced with, yup, immigrants, and not all of the legal variety. To the extent that the replacements hold jobs and pay state taxes and fees, California's entitlement scheme might be sustainable, but I don't think that will happen.

TrueSoldier is correct. Washington will not wake up until the reds start leaving in droves, and join people like Mindy Cameron in Idaho.

Posted by: huckleberry on February 15, 2007 05:21 PM
16. If the reds move to Idaho, the blues will follow. They already have. They live in such places as Sun Valley and Hailey and Ketchum - where the geography is the most beautiful and they can "protect" it from everyone else. Hollywood celebrities have homes there. The problem is that when you get big enough pockets of them, then they start trying to change things to reflect the environments they came from. Idaho is another place, besides Washington, that people from California gravitate toward.

Posted by: Peggy U on February 15, 2007 05:39 PM
17. And so it goes...

Posted by: huckleberry on February 15, 2007 06:23 PM
18. Michele,
To libs, the spending must be sustainable if it's for military or highway. Dontchaknowgirl?
Anything else is their 'duty' (actually dooty)

Posted by: PC on February 15, 2007 06:51 PM
19. When are the lobotomized masses who elect these Demorats going to realize that they are government control freaks and have a big time mental disorder.

This state will become another version of Europe unless the nanny state effort in Health Care is thwarted. The only way that can happen is to vote out the malevolant clowns who are pushing this legislation in 2008. Elect fiscal conservatives !

Posted by: KS on February 15, 2007 09:14 PM
20. Well I just turned in my notice so quit working cuz I want to start collecting this wonderful family medical coverage benefit paid for by Queen Gregoire.

I also suspect the state will see a massive move of vagrant workers and anyone nationwide who needs medical coverage.

Gotta use up all that surplus, so she can come back for more this year....

Democraps at work...Gulp Gulp Gulp Gulp Gulp

Posted by: GS on February 15, 2007 10:30 PM
21. GS at #20 said, "I also suspect the state will see a massive move of vagrant workers and anyone nationwide who needs medical coverage."

You hit the nail on the head. The Democrats are looking at trying to pad the vote count for them a little more. Tie this move in with HB 1742 making it easier to sweep mistakes under the rug in elections and there you have it a way the Democrats figure they can gain in their majority and work towards their socialist utopia. Just one more reason we need to vote the Queen out in 2008 and at least limit the majority so that a veto of some of these lame brained ideas will stick.

On a side note, I had heard from a Seattle police officer that had transfered from another state that in the state he had come from they have signs posted telling the homeless and illegals about how many more benefits they can get in Washington, California and Oregon if they just move there. I do not know if this is true or just an urban legend, but it would not surprise me at all.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 16, 2007 08:54 AM
22. Yeah, and when they can't extract anymore money from your wallet, they will confiscate your property and turn it over to another private party who can increase their tax base.

Posted by: NW Denizen on February 16, 2007 09:00 AM
23. Just to reinforce, NW Denizen is referring to the SCOTUS Kelo decision, which seems to give municipalities the right to confiscate property to change the tax base to pay for, among many other ill-considered expenditure, public benefits for the urban poor. Just imagine all the good that Mayor Nickels could do by condemning Capital Hill? Might even fund that tunnel...

Posted by: huckleberry on February 16, 2007 10:58 AM
24. TrueSoldier: I don't know if there are actual signs posted, but one thing I found out from our local sheriff is that vagrants are more organized than you might think. They pass along information to each other through some sort of grapevine. They may communicate by leaving "signs" for others. For example, one reason to have up-to-date and capacious jail facilities is that through the grapevine, itinerants learn of places where jails are filled to overflowing. For them, this means they are less likely to be locked up for such things as shop lifting, drug possession and DUI's, since violent offenders would take priority.

Posted by: Peggy U on February 16, 2007 04:29 PM
25. This is just excellent news. I hope to retire very soon now and $62K per year is just over what I figured I'd 'pay' myself. The sticker was how to get health insurance for my family on that kind of income. Well, now I don't have to. Everyone else in the state can just pay it for me and I can buy a nicer car and lots more beer instead. (And I need a bigger plasma for my XBox.)

Posted by: mykela on February 16, 2007 10:21 PM
26. this thread stresses me out...can I sue someone under the ADA boondoggle-lotto-law?

again, ADA = good liberal intentions gone awry. and we all pay for years in property taxes for the legal settlements.

alas, Aesop has been turned on his head. Stupid life choices ACTUALLY PAY OFF in some states like WA!


Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 21, 2007 05:19 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?