Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Why the Elway Poll Shows the Home Healthcare Initiative With 77 Percent Approval

Posted by on Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Seventy seven percent is a lot of percents.
  • Seventy seven percent is a lot of percents.
I got leaked a copy of the Elway Poll that's going around today, so let's go through its findings.

First stop: Initiative 1163, backed by the Service Employees International Union. It would mandate background checks for long-term care workers, and according to Elway's survey of 407 Washington voters, 77 percent of respondents favor the idea.

One easy theory as to why this initiative is doing so much better than the other two initiatives headed for the ballot this fall: It appeals to older voters, who a) vote and b) represent a larger and larger share of the electorate as Baby Boomers age.

The numbers behind the topline Elway findings back up this theory. "Support went up with age," the poll's own analysis says, with the percentage of "definite" yes votes jumping from 33 percent for those under 35 years old to 50 percent for those over 65 years old.

You might say: Duh.

But this is a "duh" dynamic that opponents of I-1163 will have a hard time overcoming. People who feel themselves to be nearing the end of their lives—not to mention their kids—have a natural reason to support background checks on those who get called in when "long-term care" becomes necessary.

 

Comments (7) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
leek 1
Having just read The Help (yeah yeah, I know), I immediately thought that this was about segregated toilets.
Posted by leek on August 24, 2011 at 3:04 PM · Report this
2
Another theory:

I-1163 is a replay of another initiative, I-1029, that passed by the largest margin in state history - 72.53 percent.

Meanwhile, the Costco initiative is a replay of an initiative that lost and the Eyman initiative is... well, an Eyman initiative.
Posted by SuperSteve on August 24, 2011 at 3:29 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 3
Or maybe, despite what the old shiny retirees posting on the Suburban Times and Seattle PI say, Washington is actually pro-union.

Which it is.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on August 24, 2011 at 3:31 PM · Report this
Foghorn Leghorn 4
Ok Stranger: what exactly are the No Camp saying on this one? What's the downside or other insidious effect of this? No one sponsors something like this unless they're going to make money. I'm just curious.
Posted by Foghorn Leghorn on August 24, 2011 at 4:59 PM · Report this
5
It's not only old people and their families who are in favor of this, it's the families of people with disabilities. They're cared for in their homes by the same workers.
Posted by sarah70 on August 24, 2011 at 11:00 PM · Report this
6
Why would people oppose 1163? Well, because the state ALREADY REQUIRES BACKGROUND CHECKS on all long term care workers. And because mandatory training is ALREADY REQUIRED IN STATE LAW for long term care workers.

Why would people oppose 1163? Well, because there is no funding source -- and this thing costs ANOTHER $30 million, ON TOP OF THE PREVIOUS $50 million for I-1029.

Why would people oppose 1163? Well, because the state legislature CUT MORE THAN $500 million last winter/spring from direct services for people with disabilities and seniors, including dental, hearing and vision care, and prescription drugs. That's in addition to the tens of thousands of hours cut from in-home care -- for the people who help seniors and the disabled with their daily living and care nees.

Why would people oppose 1163? Well, perhaps because they will see that this is just another in a long line of self-serving special interest initiatives that benefit only one party, while pretending to be something altogether different.
Posted by Not a Dupe on August 25, 2011 at 10:18 AM · Report this
7
I think this one has high support because, obviously: nobody wants a sex offender taking care of Grandma. And if you are Grandma, you want it even less. It seems like an obvious, common-sense measure to protect vulnerable people.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on August 25, 2011 at 11:54 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy