Washington’s Worldwide Health Care Debate: A One-Minute Testimony That Sparked Big Questions
Testifying in olympia is a privilege, but it’s not always easy. Elizabeth New, a representative from the Washington Policy Center, found herself scrambling to condense her thoughts into a mere 60 seconds during a public hearing on Senate Joint Memorial 8004 (SJM 8004), a bill concerning universal health care. “If I had more time, I woudl have written a shorter letter,” she quipped, echoing the words of Blaise Pascal.
The hearing, held by the Senate Committee on Health and Long-Term Care, was a pivotal moment in Washington’s ongoing debate over universal health care. SJM 8004, nearly identical to its predecessor SJM 8006 from 2023, calls on the federal government to enact a national universal health care program. It also seeks permission for washington to implement its own taxpayer-financed system by “reducing barriers or granting appropriate waivers.”
New’s testimony, though brief, was pointed. “Health care costs are escalating due to many factors, and our state is headed in the wrong direction,” she stated. “Continuing to pursue taxpayer-financed health care sets us up for failure. It offers no hope for cost-containment, just a shifting of who pays the ever-increasing costs and how.”
She argued that universal, taxpayer-financed systems often fail to deliver on affordability, access, and quality. “In taxpayer-financed systems, demand always outstrips supply, and then waitlisting and rations begin,” she explained, citing data from the Fraser Institute in Canada, which highlights significant wait times for health care in 2024.
the bill’s fate remains uncertain, but its implications are clear. If passed, SJM 8004 could push Washington toward a bold experiment in state-level universal health care. However, critics like New warn that such a system could exacerbate existing challenges rather than solve them.
| Key Points of SJM 8004 |
|—————————–|
| Requests federal government to enact national universal health care |
| Seeks waivers for Washington to implement its own taxpayer-financed system |
| Similar to SJM 8006,introduced in 2023 |
| Critics argue it could lead to increased wait times and rationing |
As the debate continues,one thing is certain: the conversation around universal health care in Washington is far from over. Whether SJM 8004 moves forward or not, it has already sparked a critical dialogue about the future of health care in the state.
For more insights into Washington’s health care policies, explore the Washington Policy Center’s analysis on universal health care.
The Growing Crisis in Healthcare Wait Times: A Call for Market-Driven Solutions
Table of Contents
Healthcare systems worldwide are under immense strain, with patients facing increasingly long wait times for essential treatments. In Canada, the median wait time between a referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment has risen to 30.0 weeks in 2024, up from 27.7 weeks in 2023. This staggering figure represents a 222% increase from the 9.3-week wait patients experienced in 1993.
Across the Atlantic, the situation in Great britain is equally dire. A Wall Street Journal article highlights that heart attack and stroke victims wait over one hour on average for an ambulance. The Royal Collage of Emergency Medicine estimates that 300 to 500 people die prematurely each week due to delayed care. Additionally, more than one in 10 people are stuck on waiting lists for non-emergency treatments, such as hip replacements.
These alarming statistics underscore a critical issue: trading one flawed system for another is not the solution. Instead, experts argue for reducing government intervention and embracing market-driven solutions that enhance quality and reduce costs.
The Case for Market-Driven healthcare
Sen. Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver, recently emphasized, “We have to keep in mind coverage mandates do increase costs.” This statement highlights the need to eliminate regulations and mandates that inflate expenses. By fostering competition and increasing access,healthcare systems can become more efficient and patient-focused.
Key reforms include:
- Promoting price transparency to empower consumers.
- Advancing telehealth services to improve accessibility.
- Removing Certificate of Need requirements to encourage competition.
Innovative models like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, Health savings Accounts, and direct primary care demonstrate the effectiveness of free-market approaches. These solutions prioritize patient choice and cost efficiency, offering a stark contrast to the inefficiencies of government-heavy systems.
The Role of Informed Consumers
Another critical factor is the need for informed consumers who have a stake in their healthcare decisions. As the article notes, “If someone is paying for your health care, you have no need to care about its cost.” Encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their health and healthcare spending can drive better outcomes and reduce dependency on taxpayer-funded systems.
Key Statistics at a Glance
| Metric | 2024 | 2023 | 1993 |
|——————————–|———-|———-|———-|
| Median Wait Time (Canada) | 30.0 weeks | 27.7 weeks | 9.3 weeks |
| Ambulance Wait time (UK) | >1 hour | N/A | N/A |
| premature Deaths (UK, weekly) | 300-500 | N/A | N/A |
Moving Forward
The current trajectory of healthcare systems is unsustainable. Rather than expanding government control,policymakers should focus on market-driven reforms that prioritize efficiency,accessibility,and patient empowerment. As the article aptly concludes, “More taxpayer dependency does not help us get where we want to go.”
By embracing innovation and fostering competition, we can build a healthcare system that delivers timely, high-quality care for all. The time for change is now.
What are your thoughts on market-driven healthcare solutions? Share your insights in the comments below.
Interview: Elizabeth New on Senate Joint memorial 8004 and the Debate Over worldwide Health Care
Editor: elizabeth, thank you for joining us today. You recently testified on Senate Joint Memorial 8004 (SJM 8004). Can you explain the key objectives of this bill?
Elizabeth New: Certainly. SJM 8004 is a bold legislative proposal that seeks two main objectives. First, it calls on the federal government to enact a national universal health care program. Second, it requests waivers for Washington state to implement its own taxpayer-financed health care system by reducing barriers or granting appropriate waivers. It’s nearly identical to SJM 8006, which was introduced in 2023.
Editor: In your testimony, you expressed concerns about the bill. What are the primary risks you see with taxpayer-financed health care systems?
Elizabeth New: My main concern is that taxpayer-financed systems often fail to deliver on affordability, access, and quality. For example, in systems like Canada’s, demand consistently outstrips supply, leading to important wait times and rationing. Data from the Fraser Institute shows that in 2024, the median wait time between a referral and treatment in Canada is 30 weeks—a 222% increase from 1993.These systems don’t address the root causes of escalating costs; they simply shift who pays them.
editor: You’ve been a vocal advocate for market-driven solutions. How do you think such approaches could address the challenges in Washington’s health care system?
Elizabeth New: Market-driven solutions focus on enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and empowering patients. key reforms include promoting price transparency to help consumers make informed decisions, advancing telehealth services to improve accessibility, and removing Certificate of Need requirements to foster competition. Models like the Surgery Centre of Oklahoma, Health Savings Accounts, and direct primary care demonstrate how these approaches can deliver high-quality care at lower costs.
Editor: Critics argue that relying on the market could leave vulnerable populations underserved. How do you respond to that concern?
Elizabeth New: It’s a valid concern, but it’s crucial to note that market-driven systems can be designed with safeguards for vulnerable populations. As an example, subsidies or targeted assistance programs can ensure that low-income individuals have access to care.Additionally, encouraging informed consumers to take obligation for their health care decisions can reduce dependency on taxpayer-funded systems while improving overall outcomes.
Editor: What do you think is the most critical step policymakers should take to address the state’s health care challenges?
Elizabeth New: Policymakers need to prioritize market-driven reforms that enhance competition and reduce unnecessary regulations. As Sen. Annette Cleveland recently noted, coverage mandates drive up costs. By eliminating these barriers and fostering innovation, we can create a system that is both cost-effective and patient-focused. More government control is not the answer; we need solutions that empower individuals and providers.
Key Takeaways
- SJM 8004 seeks federal action on universal health care and state-level waivers for a taxpayer-financed system.
- Taxpayer-financed systems often lead to increased wait times and rationing, as seen in Canada.
- Market-driven solutions, such as price transparency and telehealth, offer a more efficient and patient-focused approach.
- Policymakers should prioritize reducing regulations and fostering competition to address health care challenges.
What are your thoughts on market-driven health care solutions? Share your insights in the comments below.