Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, December 19, 2011

More than 1 Million Washingtonians Have No Health Insurance; McKenna Fights to Force that Number Higher

Posted by on Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 5:21 PM

uninsured.jpg
  • WA State Office of the Insurance Commissioner

Yet another story I failed to comment on last week was the report issued by WA state insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler, revealing that our state has surpassed a new health care milestone: More than one million uninsured Washingtonians. Since the office first started tracking the number in 2004, the ranks of the uninsured have swelled from 12 percent of the state population to 14.5 percent, and the cost of uncompensated care (charity care and unpaid bills) has more than doubled, from $500 million annually to nearly $1.2 billion.

And in case you think we're talking about a bunch of deadbeats and ne're-do-wells, the report reveals that nearly half of Washington's uninsured—about 470,000 people—are currently employed either full- or part-time.

This is a grim milestone for the state," said Kreidler, "and we believe the situation will remain bleak for two more years." And what's supposed to happen in two years to reverse this trend?

In 2014, major provisions of federal health care reform, known as the Affordable Care Act, take effect. The act will expand Medicaid coverage to nearly 355,000 more Washingtonians, and an additional 460,000 will be eligible for subsidies to help put affordable health insurance within reach.

These changes will dramatically reduce the number of uninsured in Washington, cutting uncompensated care costs, and sparing hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians from the anxiety of living one serious diagnosis away from medical bankruptcy. Once the ACA is implemented, we estimate that the percentage of Washingtonians without health coverage will drop from a high of about 15 percent in 2013 to about 6 percent.

That is, assuming the ACA is implemented. Despite the obvious benefits and cost-savings the ACA would bring to Washington state, attorney general Rob McKenna is expending taxpayer dollars fighting to have the US Supreme Court toss it out. Which seems like an odd way to campaign for governor, but there you have it.

And of course, adding irony to insult, the counties with by far the highest rate of uninsured people—the counties whose citizens would benefit most from full implementation of the ACA—are the mostly rural, mostly Republican Eastern Washington counties that will provide McKenna the bulk of his electoral margin.

Go figure.

 

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Simac 1
Of course, health insurance and health care are actually not ++affordable++ yet, even though having it will (soon) be required. If you get a catastrophic policy, for instance, your premium might be as little as $150 per month on the individual market in Washington State ($90 per child), but if you get seriously sick you would have to meet a $5000 to $7500 annual deductible with an out-of-pocket limit at between $5500 and $7000, depending on the policy. That's a lot of money. People will thus still be going bankrupt because they sick under the health care reform.

Note also that when families get family policies, the deductible and out-of-pocket limit is multiplied accordingly on the individual market. Let's say everyone is healthy except dad, who is seriously ill: dad would then actually need to meet a $15,000 to $21,000 deductible and would have a $22,000 to $28,000 out-of-pocket limit. You would be perfectly rational to argue against carrying policy at all if you're faced with numbers like that. Bankruptcy looks the same whether you have health insurance or not.

It's great that everyone will have to buy into the system, which is the only way that an ++insurance++ system can work, but until there are also premium cost control and rational out-of-pocket limits and some mechanism for pooling the payout risk for insurers, health insurance will continue to be out of range low-income families and in fact for many, many lower-middle-income families.
Posted by Simac on December 19, 2011 at 5:52 PM
Teslick 2
the mostly rural, mostly Republican Eastern Washington counties that will provide McKenna the bulk of his electoral margin.
Baloney. If McKenna wins, it will be because he gets *significant* support from the Seattle metro area. Look at the results (and margins) of I-1125, and tell me how anyone can win a statewide race by carrying just Eastern Washington.
Posted by Teslick on December 19, 2011 at 6:06 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 3
Of course the next best thing to having everyone with health insurance...is to have no one with health insurance.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://yrihf.com on December 19, 2011 at 7:30 PM
MarkyMark 4
The red and orange counties have quite significant populations percentage-wise of Latino agricultural workers and their families.
Posted by MarkyMark on December 19, 2011 at 7:48 PM
zombie eyes 5
." And what's supposed to happen in two years to reverse this trend?

Gigantic illuminated Yesus Christus, Goldy. Every one (but you, apparently) knows that Santa Claus-Easter bunny-chupecabra-Alex Jones/obama is gonna wave a magic wand and everyone will be fully insured.

@1, superb recap of how the obama sold our shit down the river. And that bitch still flaunts his "health care reform" as an accomplishment.

Posted by zombie eyes on December 19, 2011 at 8:57 PM
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 6
A lot of those Washingtonians wouldn't need as much health insurance if they didn't have to worry about GOLDY driving around Washington yapping on his PHONE about to KILL somebody.

Although it would be a lot easier to insure ever one of those motherfuckers in a single payer system than it would be to get incorrigible PHONE ADDICTS like GOLDY to kick the HABIT. Never trust a junkie.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on December 19, 2011 at 9:48 PM
7
As bad as things are with our current healthcare "system", Obama's reforms have already done some good around the margins, and will likely make things better in two years if they aren't blasted by the courts.

As is often the case, we're going to have a choice between something that's going to make a bad thing slightly better and the Republicans, who are going to make thing much worse if they can.

I'd love to vote in a single payer system, but I'm obviously not going to have that option.
Posted by SLCamper on December 19, 2011 at 11:03 PM
8
As others have pointed out, making insurance mandatory will not help people, not when they are forced to cut things like education, food and housing to pay for the government mandate. And even then, with insurance companies able to set their own rates, the mandatory coverage will be pretty much useless in an actual medical crisis.

Isn't there an allowance in the federal law for states to create their own health care system as an alternative? I really think that a single payer system would be cost effective for both the state and the people.
Posted by TechBear on December 20, 2011 at 6:17 AM
9
People need to stop having so many effing children.
Posted by john cocktosin2 on December 20, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

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