Who should decide whether people have long-term medical care insurance — individuals or the state? Should the state act in the long-term interest of individuals by taxing workers to insure they have long-term care or should individuals have the right to opt out of such programs?
This is the key question in Washington State Initiative 2124. which will be on the ballot on Nov. 5 and is asking voters whether they want to repeal the 2019 WA Cares Act.
Under the WA Cares Act, all employees are taxed 58 cents of every $100 they earn up to a $36,500 maximum.
If the initiative passes, and you are employed, you can choose to opt out of paying the tax.
Right now, according to state Republicans, if you earn $50,000 a year it will cost you $290 per year or $24.17 a month. If you earn $125,000 per year, the cost to you will be $725 a year or $60.42 a month. The more you make, the more your taxes go into the program.
31st District Republican Rep. Drew Stokesbary spoke against the 2019 law in 2022, arguing that over time, tax rates would have to rise to maintain solvency of the system. Additional Republican arguments against the mandatory long term health law are that the amount put aside is too small to really matter when compared to the high cost of long-term healthcare, and that some people may never be able to receive the full benefit.
However, proponents of the 2019 law say that if the wealthy are able to opt out, then there will be significantly less money in the pot for less wealthy people, “causing the whole program to go into a death spiral because of a lack of funding.” (washingtonstatestandard.com)
A law was passed this year that if someone left the state after they had worked a certain number of years, they could receive their benefits. “This is why WA Cares [the 2019 law that created the program] proponents say that if I-2124 passes, it would effectively be a repeal. Supporters of keeping WA Cares intact include SEIU 775, whose members include thousands of long-term care workers, AARP, and the Washington State Budget and Policy Center.”
According to washcities.org, a non-partisan state organization, 4.81 million Washingtonian workers are currently enrolled in the Washington Cares Fund.
If I-2124 passes, the Employment Security Department provides estimated impacts for scenarios where 25% to 75% of current participants opt out of the WA Cares Fund. There would be $803 million with 25% opting out and $268 million with 75% opting out by 2030. “Around 70% of people are expected to need long-term care at some point in their lives, and many don’t have adequate resources to cover such expenses” (wacities.org).
About thirty years ago I considered enrolling in a private long-term care plan, but decided not to because of ballooning payments as time went on and rates rose. There was no guarantee that I would get a return on my investment.
After I retired about 18 years ago, I chose to teach in community colleges as an adjunct. This part-time job enabled me to add another pension that I felt would compensate for not having a long-term health care plan. We have also worked hard and paid off our mortgage and our debts, set up and followed a consistent exercise program, maintained a healthy diet, and gotten adequate and consistent sleep. I continue to work part time into my mid-seventies, which keeps our options open.
Life is a gamble. No one knows what the future holds for each of us. Should you vote for or against I-2124? Vote no to keep long-term health care mandatory for all workers. Vote yes to opt out. Should you be concerned for your own self-interest or be concerned for the public good? That depends on your values.
Only you can answer that question. We’ll find out where the voters of Washington state stand on these very difficult questions after the general election. I hope they will choose wisely.
