Washington State Initiative 1100 and 1105 - YES
Not only should the government not be in the retail business, but it definitely should not have a monopoly on that business and market. This creates artificially high prices and hurts consumers.
Washington State Initiative 1053 - YES
Tax increases should be taken seriously. This initiative forces the state legislature to pass tax increases with a 2/3 majority in the legislature or to receive voter approval before raising taxes.
Washington State Initiative 1098 - NO
Out of principle I am opposed to progressive income taxes because I think they punish success. The government is much more likely to receive higher tax revenues through a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income and all loopholes are removed.
For this initiative specifically, it prohibits the legislature from lowering the income levels for only two years. I wholeheartedly believe that after two years our state government will begin to lower the income thresholds and, over time, all of us will be paying an income tax on top of our existing sales tax.
Washington State Initiative 1107 - YES
The current taxes on some candy and not others, on some bottled water, and on carbonated beverages are unfair because they are inconsistent and because they punish some businesses but not other businesses who make the same product. It also seems to me that these targeted taxes are designed to allow the government to push a politically correct agenda that punishes people for their eating habits and their environmental habits.
Washington State Initiative 1082 - YES
Allowing private industrial insurance companies to compete with state insurance will create competition. Competition drives prices down. This is good for all of us.
NOTE: Please see my 10/15 post on Initiatives 1100 and 1105 for updated recommendation.
4 comments:
Washington state Initiative 1082.
I have found myself hanging on the fence for this Initiative.
I guess part of the reason is I have a high risk injury profession. If i was desk jockey then this would be a mute point.
Voting NO goes against all my principles, I believe in.
Critic's call it a "Government Monopoly". Supporter's call it a "non-profit safety net that would be damaged." I find both sides to be true in each argument.
The Truth is L and I needs a overhaul, and i do feel part of this is in the education to the employers. If your HR department forgets to dot every i or cross every t then it starts a delay, which makes for more costs. Fraud is another issue on the employer's and employees side.
Example of this would a small business who does not want to lay someone off, so they might let them file a claim.
Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreider says " 1082 would not change the levels of benefits required to be paid out under Washington Law."
So how would these Insurance Company's be able to maintain a profit with out raising its rates? One question that comes to my mind is a deny in claims. Could you image being injured and no income. Then your employer picked Insurance company denys your claim.
Your next steep, is to find an attorney and go to court to prove your case. How long would this take, 6 months possible a year? Could you live with out any income for that long? I have seen this exact situation happen to someone. It took them over one year, and they did win, twice in court.
My experience with Insurance companies has never been positive. They never want to pay full value, and if you don't go through their list of contractors, then payments are much less.
Competition is good and would drive pricing down, but for how long. Do you think your employer would share its saving with you? Would your employer pick a company that would be beneficial to its employee's, or its bottom line?
This Initiative needs more work. Its to vague, and we still don't know or have any out come of what this will bring.
Craig:
Good points and interesting to hear your perspective.
Though I can understand your point of view, I believe that anytime there is a monopoly, especially when the state has that monopoly, it is bad for consumers.
Under the current system there is no incentive for the state to cut waste and to fight fraud. This results in higher costs for taxpayers.
Thanks for commenting
My employer is self insured, which gives them a choice, so the term monopoly could be over used.
I would also like to point out 95% of the L&I budget comes from payroll taxes. Remember, the only way to get paid is to have contributed.
One big supporter of this Initiative is the Building Association.
Who does safety inspections and regulation enforcement for building sites and equipment? L&I does. How will the enforcement branch of L&I be funded?
Better yet who would be better at enforcing work place safety, L&I or a company that has a bottom line and share holders to consider?
Does L&I need a Overhaul, YES.
Like I said my employer is self insured so the passage of this will not affect me. I have witnessed insurance companys in action and they don't care about you.
This Bill is poorly written and I would encourage you to not view this as a Dem, or Republican, but as a employee who could be faced someday with a needed service.
Again you make some good points.
My experience with auto and home insurance claims has always been good, so I don't know a lot about this and I don't have the same negative view of private sector insurance that you understandably have.
What I do know is that government bureaucracies are not good at running this type of enterprise. The inefficiencies of the government, the usual financial mismanagement of government, and the lack of competition means that we are paying much more for coverage than what the private sector would charge.
I think that opening up the current system to competition is the best option. Like with other insurance such as auto and home, the state's proper role is to act as an impartial arbitrator in disputes between consumers and insurance companies.
Post a Comment