- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 13, 2013 at 5:15 am #782546
hooper1961MemberFrom the State Constitution
ARTICLE IX
EDUCATION
SECTION 1 PREAMBLE. It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.
January 13, 2013 at 6:01 am #782547
hooper1961Memberand further I see no where in the State Constitution any requirement for the State to pay for Health Care. The pertinent section of the Constitution.
ARTICLE XX
PUBLIC HEALTH AND VITAL STATISTICS
SECTION 1 BOARD OF HEALTH AND BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS. There shall be established by law a state board of health and a bureau of vital statistics in connection therewith, with such powers as the legislature may direct.
SECTION 2 REGULATIONS CONCERNING MEDICINE, SURGERY AND PHARMACY. The legislature shall enact laws to regulate the practice of medicine and surgery, and the sale of drugs and medicines.
January 13, 2013 at 6:05 am #782548
hooper1961Memberso JanS it is written in the State Constitution that Education is the paramount duty of the State. No where in the State constitution did I see the State being required to pay for Health Care.
Thus it is not only my opinion; it is written into the State Constitution
January 13, 2013 at 6:52 am #782549
JoBParticipantHoop..
Has it occurred to you yet that we could choose healthcare over a new stadium?
Or that publicly funding the treatment of drug resistant epidemic illnesses might be in the public good?
Apparantly not because you are a one note rave.
Maybe just maybe you should find a new source of reading material
January 13, 2013 at 5:51 pm #782550
hooper1961Memberi do not support taxpayer $ for the stadium and never have; thus why do you keep bringing this up?
in today’s (Sunday 01/12/2013) Seattle Times an article identifying the State is under court order to properly fund schools.
(Note: a correction) in 2000 the State spent $5.7 billion on medical costs (I see that the State spent money under DSHS; thus I have to admit to the need for a correction) and in 2012 it has ballooned to $10.2 billion. This is a growth rate of 1.8 versus the statewide population and inflation adjustment of 1.6
Thus Health Care spending is about $1.1 billion higher than it should be based on State population growth and CPI adjustment of 1.6. And is faster than general government growth (1.7) by $0.5 billion.
The fact still remains far too much State resource (about 1 in seven $’s; 14%) is being spent on Health Care. I fully agree that the delivery/payment is flawed. But so is the expectation that someone who does not purchase insurance should be entitled to the full array of medical technology. Basic services make sense (preventative care, shots, immunizations). High priced cancer medications NO, procedures that on average extend a persons life a few months NO, people who fail to follow doctor’s orders (one warning) then NO.
Education funding is the paramount duty of the State and by my math (this portion is correct) the State needs to find $2.5 billion dollars to fund education at the same level it did in 2000.
I suggest that health care spending be capped at 10% thus $7.4 billion, the 2012 biennium proposes to spend $10.2 billion on this item. Thus freeing up $2.8 billion.
The State Constitution (backed by a court order) mandates the State fund education. My proposal provides the required money. I still have not heard a viable alternative proposal by anyone.
January 14, 2013 at 6:04 am #782551
hooper1961Memberwhat is the alternative? the State Constitution identifies Education as the paramount duty of the State. The State is failing its paramount duty to pay for items not required by the Constitution.
January 14, 2013 at 1:45 pm #782552
redblackParticipantwhat’s the alternative? i’m sure i could come up with more than one workable solution if i bothered to give a crap. how about local income taxes? how about different ways to fund schools?
there are all kinds of things in the state budget that aren’t in the constitution. want to axe them all?
see that forest? it’s full of trees.
January 14, 2013 at 4:01 pm #782553
hooper1961Memberincome taxes have been resoundingly rejected by the voters
January 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm #782554
WorldCitizenParticipantRegardless of them being rejected by the voters in the past, state income taxes would solve the problem. Even California voted to raise their taxes and now have a balanced budget.
January 14, 2013 at 5:24 pm #782555
JoBParticipantthat little tax no-one wanted to levy on millionaires would have solved the problem.
god forbid we should tax the rich to pay for care for the poor
January 14, 2013 at 6:29 pm #782556
hooper1961Memberjob – the people of this State know once pandora’s box is opened even a little watch out.
worldcitizen – the legislature can submit a ballot measure to the people of washington to increase revenue and let us vote on it.
January 14, 2013 at 9:51 pm #782557
JoBParticipantso hoop..
you looked through the entire state budget and couldn’t find anything recourse for funding education than cutting healthcare for sick people?
i thought not.
January 14, 2013 at 10:16 pm #782558
miwsParticipantJanuary 15, 2013 at 3:19 am #782559
hooper1961MemberJoB – the State could have employees pick up 25% of their health care costs that is more in line with the private sector.
I’m open to hearing other options; that are viable. I am sure there are some tax loop holes that can be closed.
Education has been short changed by the tune of $2.5 billion since the 2000 biennium.
January 15, 2013 at 3:23 am #782560
redblackParticipanthey, the hoop.
you ever bother to ask the private health care industry WHY health care costs taxpayers so much?
i didn’t think so.
January 15, 2013 at 3:42 am #782561
hooper1961Memberthere are a myriad of factors that raise the costs.
too many doctors conducting every test in fear of lawsuit raises costs. fee for service instead of payment based on outcome are also factors.
cost shifting to compensate for people that don’t pay their bill (in all other industries these people are not provided services)
another factor is that too many people (you would call them the lucky ones with generous health care insurance) are insulated from the true cost of the services and thus many end up over using them. co-pays and making patients cost share to some degree could make patients smarter in their usage. this is why high deductible plans are more cost effective insurance, they reduce over use of services!
January 15, 2013 at 3:54 am #782562
redblackParticipantJanuary 15, 2013 at 6:03 am #782563
hooper1961MemberJoB – NO I do not work for an insurance company. But I believe high deductible plans with co-pays make sense to make the consumers aware of costs.
I also understand the cost of fear of lawsuit causes the system that foists more tests and procedures than necessary.
I also see doctor’s and clinics getting expensive equipment and then need to use it to pay for the darn thing regardless of the actual need for the equipment. Essentially duplicate equipment with the clinic down the street. The fee per test payment systems greatly adds to the cost.
January 15, 2013 at 7:31 am #782564
HMC RichParticipantHoop Dude. Keep it up. You got ’em on the ropes. It is incumbent upon them to provide alternatives. You have shown what the state demands.
Their emotional responses do not stand up to your line of thought. It would be nice if they said they didn’t know, and that maybe there is an imbalance.
World Citizen, if you want a state income tax start a referendum. But, at least you proposed a solution.
From my point of view, it shows me what little regard the Baby Boom generation has for other generations. Our kids are our future, but you keep stealing from them. (hey, I kind of liked that last diatribe, well not really a diatribe. How about a somewhat negative opinion.)
And of course the Preamble for Washington State sums it all up. PREAMBLE. We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.
Why do I feel the Supreme Ruler of the Universe would run screaming from the Health Care vs School funding Debate?!
I do have a bone to pick with the state’s funding of our schools. They run very lean (too much so) at my son’s school and other schools in the area.
Besides the teachers (I am including Librarian, part-time counselor, and music instructor), there are very few other staff people.
I might be missing a few but I was questioning some of the staff.
One office employee
One Janitor
Four or six Special Ed aids
One lunch person.
The school depends on parent volunteers for monitoring lunches and recesses, and for a lot more than I know.
These employees don’t make bank. So where is the money going, and how is it divided up? I have yet to look into that, but give me time.
Keep it up Hooper.
January 15, 2013 at 4:56 pm #782565
hooper1961MemberHMC RICH – and you did not mention the College students being squeezed by sky rocketing tuition. These students our the future yet many end up starting $10 of thousands and some more than $100K in debt.
I have not heard an alternative from redblack or JoB. WorldCitizen identified an income tax; this idea has been soundly rejected by the voters.
The State Constitution clearly identifies Education as the Paramount Duty of the State
January 15, 2013 at 5:07 pm #782566
JoBParticipanthoop..
you left out one little component in your explanation of high costs.. profit.
profit for the health care center, profit for the administration of the health care center, profit for the billing center for the health care center, profit for the company that processes the insurance paperwork for the health care center, and profit for the insurance company .. and that’s in a fairly simple transaction.
could it be that the administrative overhead is siphoning off health care dollars?
January 15, 2013 at 8:11 pm #782567
hooper1961MemberJoB – yes there is administrative costs and profit in insurance premiums. And I would not disagree that some insurance CEO get paid too much.
However you still are avoiding the issue that the State Constitution identifies Education as it’s paramount duty and the courts have told the State to properly fund education accordingly. By my math $2.5 billion is needed and I have identified a portion of the State budget that saw increased funding beyond that of general State spending that is not a State Constitutional requirement that could be cut to properly fund education immediately.
I still have not heard a doable/viable alternative from anyone.
January 15, 2013 at 11:07 pm #782568
WorldCitizenParticipantYou have from me. Have the legislature implement a state income tax. Cutting your way to a balanced budget is not usually the best answer. Especially when it comes at the expense of the public’s health.
Just because the state’s current revenue stream is insufficient to keep up with healthcare expenditures doesn’t mean we should not fund the healthcare system to keep it from becoming unviable.
January 15, 2013 at 11:22 pm #782569
hooper1961MemberWorldCitizen – citizens of washington resoundingly rejected this option. Thus something will need to be cut to fund Education that is required as a part of the State Constitution. Please identify what you would cut?
January 15, 2013 at 11:50 pm #782570
WorldCitizenParticipantWhere does it say spending on education has to keep pace with general state revenue expenditure increases?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.