State of Washington Archives: on Health Care


Christine Gregoire: 10-year goal: Save $26B and increase quality of care

In the past decade our health care costs doubled to more than $5 billion. Every dollar we spend on health care means we have one fewer dollar to educate our children.

I am proposing we partner with the Center of Innovation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide real health care reform as a state. We should set a goal: Keep inflation at 4 percent over the next 10 years. We can save $26 billion while increasing the quality of care.

Source: 2011 Washington State of the State Address Jan 11, 2011

Barbara Mikulski: Oppose a prescription plan that subsidies the drug companies

You better believe I voted against that Bush prescription drug plan. It helped insurance companies, and gave great subsidies to the drug companies. I wanted to have a prescription drug benefit that would help seniors.
Source: MD Senate Debate, in Washington Post Oct 19, 2004

Dick Gephardt: AdWatch: Criticizes Dean for 11-year-old outdated stances

AD VIDEO: Dean speaking wordlessly, punctuated by ominous sound effects; Gephardt surrounded by supporters.

AD AUDIO: NARRATOR: Did you know Howard Dean called Medicare “one of the worst federal programs ever”? Did you know he supported the Republican plan to cut Medicare by $270 billion? And did you know Howard Dean supported cutting Social Security retirement benefits to balance the budget?

GEPHARDT: I will be a president who will fight to protect Medicare and Social Security.

ANALYSIS: What the ad obscures is that the Dean quotes are at least nine years old and do not reflect the positions he holds today. When Dean called Medicare “one of the worst federal programs” in 1993, he was referring to the way the government ran it. Dean was quoted by a Vermont newspaper in 1995 as saying he could support GOP efforts to “reduce the Medicare growth rate,” but the $270 billion figure was not mentioned. Dean did say in 1995 “we need to increase the retirement age”, but has since changed his stance.

Source: Ad-Watch of Iowa market, Washington Post, p. A08 Jan 16, 2004

Wesley Clark: Supports universal health coverage

Clark said he supports universal health coverage that includes preventive care.
Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A5 Sep 19, 2003

Anthony Kennedy: States cannot ban cigarette ads near schools

The Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a major victory over state efforts to restrict tobacco advertising, striking down Massachusetts regulations that would have banned such advertising near playgrounds and schools. Massachusetts had argued that the rules were necessary to prevent tobacco makers from inducing children to try a highly addictive and hazardous substance. But the court, dividing 5 to 4, agreed with the industry that the state could not adopt restrictions on top of those imposed by federal law. In addition, the court said, the rules infringed on freedom of speech.

The court’s decision effectively prevents state and local governments from unilaterally adding regulations on cigarette advertising, as many have attempted to do in recent years. Justice O’Connor wrote-with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concurring-that federal law “places limits on policy choices available to the States.” The cases are Lorillard v. Reilly, 00-596, and Altadis USA v. Reilly, 00-597.

Source: Charles Lane, Washington Post, p. A1 Jun 29, 2001

Antonin Scalia: States cannot ban cigarette ads near schools

The Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a major victory over state efforts to restrict tobacco advertising, striking down Massachusetts regulations that would have banned such advertising near playgrounds and schools. Massachusetts had argued that the rules were necessary to prevent tobacco makers from inducing children to try a highly addictive and hazardous substance. But the court, dividing 5 to 4, agreed with the industry that the state could not adopt restrictions on top of those imposed by federal law. In addition, the court said, the rules infringed on freedom of speech.

The court’s decision effectively prevents state and local governments from unilaterally adding regulations on cigarette advertising, as many have attempted to do in recent years. Justice O’Connor wrote-with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concurring-that federal law “places limits on policy choices available to the States.” The cases are Lorillard v. Reilly, 00-596, and Altadis USA v. Reilly, 00-597.

Source: Charles Lane, Washington Post, p. A1 Jun 29, 2001

Clarence Thomas: States cannot ban cigarette ads near schools

The Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a major victory over state efforts to restrict tobacco advertising, striking down Massachusetts regulations that would have banned such advertising near playgrounds and schools. Massachusetts had argued that the rules were necessary to prevent tobacco makers from inducing children to try a highly addictive and hazardous substance. But the court, dividing 5 to 4, agreed with the industry that the state could not adopt restrictions on top of those imposed by federal law. In addition, the court said, the rules infringed on freedom of speech.

The court’s decision effectively prevents state and local governments from unilaterally adding regulations on cigarette advertising, as many have attempted to do in recent years. Justice O’Connor wrote-with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concurring-that federal law “places limits on policy choices available to the States.” The cases are Lorillard v. Reilly, 00-596, and Altadis USA v. Reilly, 00-597.

Source: Charles Lane, Washington Post, p. A1 Jun 29, 2001

David Souter: Allow states to restrict cigarette ads beyond federal rules

The Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a major victory over state efforts to restrict tobacco advertising, striking down Massachusetts regulations that would have banned such advertising near playgrounds and schools. Massachusetts had argued that the rules were necessary to prevent tobacco makers from inducing children to try a highly addictive and hazardous substance. But the court, dividing 5 to 4, agreed with the industry that the state could not adopt restrictions on top of those imposed by federal law. In addition, the court said, the rules infringed on freedom of speech.

The court’s decision effectively prevents state and local governments from unilaterally adding regulations on cigarette advertising, as many have attempted to do in recent years. Justice O’Connor wrote-with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concurring-that federal law “places limits on policy choices available to the States.” The cases are Lorillard v. Reilly, 00-596, and Altadis USA v. Reilly, 00-597.

Source: Charles Lane, Washington Post, p. A1 Jun 29, 2001

John Paul Stevens: Allow states to restrict cigarette ads beyond federal rules

The Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a major victory over state efforts to restrict tobacco advertising, striking down Massachusetts regulations that would have banned such advertising near playgrounds and schools. Massachusetts had argued that the rules were necessary to prevent tobacco makers from inducing children to try a highly addictive and hazardous substance. But the court, dividing 5 to 4, agreed with the industry that the state could not adopt restrictions on top of those imposed by federal law. In addition, the court said, the rules infringed on freedom of speech.

The court’s decision effectively prevents state and local governments from unilaterally adding regulations on cigarette advertising, as many have attempted to do in recent years. Justice O’Connor wrote-with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concurring-that federal law “places limits on policy choices available to the States.” The cases are Lorillard v. Reilly, 00-596, and Altadis USA v. Reilly, 00-597.

Source: Charles Lane, Washington Post, p. A1 Jun 29, 2001

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Allow states to restrict cigarette ads beyond federal rules

The Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a major victory over state efforts to restrict tobacco advertising, striking down Massachusetts regulations that would have banned such advertising near playgrounds and schools. Massachusetts had argued that the rules were necessary to prevent tobacco makers from inducing children to try a highly addictive and hazardous substance. But the court, dividing 5 to 4, agreed with the industry that the state could not adopt restrictions on top of those imposed by federal law. In addition, the court said, the rules infringed on freedom of speech.

The court’s decision effectively prevents state and local governments from unilaterally adding regulations on cigarette advertising, as many have attempted to do in recent years. Justice O’Connor wrote-with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concurring-that federal law “places limits on policy choices available to the States.” The cases are Lorillard v. Reilly, 00-596, and Altadis USA v. Reilly, 00-597.

Source: Charles Lane, Washington Post, p. A1 Jun 29, 2001

Sandra Day O`Connor: States cannot ban cigarette ads near schools

The Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a major victory over state efforts to restrict tobacco advertising, striking down Massachusetts regulations that would have banned such advertising near playgrounds and schools. Massachusetts had argued that the rules were necessary to prevent tobacco makers from inducing children to try a highly addictive and hazardous substance. But the court, dividing 5 to 4, agreed with the industry that the state could not adopt restrictions on top of those imposed by federal law. In addition, the court said, the rules infringed on freedom of speech.

The court’s decision effectively prevents state and local governments from unilaterally adding regulations on cigarette advertising, as many have attempted to do in recent years. Justice O’Connor wrote-with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concurring-that federal law “places limits on policy choices available to the States.” The cases are Lorillard v. Reilly, 00-596, and Altadis USA v. Reilly, 00-597.

Source: Charles Lane, Washington Post, p. A1 Jun 29, 2001

Stephen Breyer: Allow states to restrict cigarette ads beyond federal rules

The Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a major victory over state efforts to restrict tobacco advertising, striking down Massachusetts regulations that would have banned such advertising near playgrounds and schools. Massachusetts had argued that the rules were necessary to prevent tobacco makers from inducing children to try a highly addictive and hazardous substance. But the court, dividing 5 to 4, agreed with the industry that the state could not adopt restrictions on top of those imposed by federal law. In addition, the court said, the rules infringed on freedom of speech.

The court’s decision effectively prevents state and local governments from unilaterally adding regulations on cigarette advertising, as many have attempted to do in recent years. Justice O’Connor wrote-with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concurring-that federal law “places limits on policy choices available to the States.” The cases are Lorillard v. Reilly, 00-596, and Altadis USA v. Reilly, 00-597.

Source: Charles Lane, Washington Post, p. A1 Jun 29, 2001

William Rehnquist: States cannot ban cigarette ads near schools

The Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a major victory over state efforts to restrict tobacco advertising, striking down Massachusetts regulations that would have banned such advertising near playgrounds and schools. Massachusetts had argued that the rules were necessary to prevent tobacco makers from inducing children to try a highly addictive and hazardous substance. But the court, dividing 5 to 4, agreed with the industry that the state could not adopt restrictions on top of those imposed by federal law. In addition, the court said, the rules infringed on freedom of speech.

The court’s decision effectively prevents state and local governments from unilaterally adding regulations on cigarette advertising, as many have attempted to do in recent years. Justice O’Connor wrote-with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concurring-that federal law “places limits on policy choices available to the States.” The cases are Lorillard v. Reilly, 00-596, and Altadis USA v. Reilly, 00-597.

Source: Charles Lane, Washington Post, p. A1 Jun 29, 2001

George W. Bush: Senior Rx: “Immediate Helping Hand” now; more later

President Bush proposes to help low-income senior citizens obtain prescription drugs, but will include a message that he would consider broader Medicare changes that might speed up a prescription-drug benefit for all seniors. “We understand that there are many on the Hill who believe it should be done as part of comprehensive Medicare reform, and we will be open-minded on that,” a White House official said. The change is a new instance of Bush’s willingness to alter details of his programs to achieve his broad goals in a Congress where Republicans hold tissue-thin control.

Bush’s prescription drug plan, called “Immediate Helping Hand,” would provide $48 billion to states over four years so they could cover the full cost of drugs for the poorest senior citizens, and part of the cost for those who are slightly better off. As part of his broader plan for Medicare, Bush favors eventually paying at least 25% of the premium costs for prescription drug coverage for all seniors.

Source: Mike Allen, Washington Post, Page A12 Jan 29, 2001

Ezola Foster: Portable and private affordable Medicare solutions

Q: What is the Buchanan/Foster plan for seniors on Medicare?

A: We want to protect seniors who are already on Medicare as well as getting Social Security. We want to take a look at that entire system and we will decide the best means to helping the people in most need whether they are seniors or young families. There is a way to help people without causing dependency. We support portable and private affordable solutions. We would guarantee benefits already promised to seniors and we would stop the raid on the trust fund and we would encourage employees to devote part of their earnings to Social Security alone. We would work with Congress to secure the system while allowing workers to transition to individual retirement accounts.

Source: Interview on “Free Media”, Washington Post Aug 29, 2000

Al Gore: Base drug plan on people, not power

Gore took on drugmakers today, charging that they and their friends in the Republican Party are feigning concern over America’s retirees but are not actually interested in reducing drug costs. “The question is whether you’re for the people or whether you’re for the power,” Gore said. “The pharmaceutical companies are supporting my opponent. I have taken on the pharmaceutical companies for 25 years.”

The timing of Gore’s speech was not accidental. Last week, on party lines, the House passed a Republican bill that encourages insurance companies to offer prescription drug coverage to senior citizens. Gore and other Democrats prefer expanding the government-run Medicare program to include a drug benefit.

Gore’s proposal, first announced during the primaries, would pay half of prescription costs up to $5,000 and provide full coverage for seniors with annual incomes below $11,000. The Gore plan would cost $255 billion over 10 years, compared with $80 billion for the House version.

Source: Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, p. A6 Jul 4, 2000

Al Gore: Use Medicare surplus to pay federal debt, not to cut taxes

Gore wants to ensure, as the federal government takes in more money than is needed to fund Medicare, that the excess funds are used only to pay down the overall federal debt. He said his proposal to put all of the revenue from the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax into a separate account would prevent Congress from using the money as “a piggybank for other purposes,” such as tax cuts and spending programs. “The temptation has always been to treat Medicare the way Social Security used to be treated - as the source of money for spending or tax cuts,” he said. “And now that we have succeeded in taking Social Security off budget and using it to pay down the debt, we need to do the same thing with Medicare and put it in a lock box.”
Source: Dan Balz & Ceci Connolly, Washington Post Jun 7, 2000

Al Gore: Require insurance coverage of experimental cancer trials

Gore said yesterday he wanted to add a provision to the proposed “patients’ bill of rights” that would require insurance companies to cover experimental “clinical trials” in cancer treatment. “If somebody has cancer and they’re covered by insurance, and there is a clinical trial going on that the doctors believe is appropriate for the patient, it ought to be covered,” Gore said.

While health plans have been increasingly willing to cover the cost to beneficiaries of clinical trials, they have resisted efforts to make coverage a requirement because of the potentially great costs.

Gore also said he wanted to set aside funds to make specific information about cancer care more quickly available to doctors and hospitals. That information would come from the National Institutes of Health and the Library of Medicine. Federal funding for NIH research has increased enormously in recent years and has wide bipartisan support.

Source: Mark Kaufman of the Washington Post, in Boston Globe, p. A7 May 29, 2000

Al Gore: Mental health care & disabled care for all who need it

I promise you this: I’m going to make sure that Tipper wins her battle to bring high quality mental health care to every American family that needs it. I will fight for policies that honor the decency of your caring for an aging or disabled family member -- Tipper and I have learned first-hand, from caring for our own parents, how hard it can sometimes be. I’m going to make sure that Social Security and Medicare are never threatened, never weakened, never taken away.
Source: Women for Gore speech, Washington DC Jun 1, 1999

George W. Bush: Supports subsidized Medicare menu with means testing

On Medicare, Bush said he was attracted to the plan drafted by Sen. John Breaux (D-La.). Bush said. “[I find attractive] the idea of having a basket of opportunity with premiums subsidized at the federal level, based on means testing.” Bush also said, “The Breaux plan didn’t cut benefits.” But then he acknowledged that the plan did recommend raising the age of eligibility for Medicare.
Source: Dan Balz, The Washington Post Apr 25, 1999

Hillary Clinton: Medicare is biased against nursing home alternatives

The problem for Americans in the Medicare program is there is no support for alternatives to nursing home care. We want to provide long-term care options, so that families will not be forced to put their family members in nursing homes.

Providing a home health aide, giving some respite to the full-time caretaker of an Alzheimer’s patient, that is all much cheaper than putting the person in a nursing home. Let’s enable older people to live with dignity.

Source: Unique Voice, p.161: Speech at Washington University Mar 15, 1994

  • The above quotations are from State of Washington Politicians: Archives.
  • Click here for definitions & background information on Health Care.
  • Click here for other issues (main summary page).
2016 Presidential contenders on Health Care:
  Democrats:
Secy.Hillary Clinton(NY)
V.P.Joe Biden(DE)
Gov.Andrew Cuomo(NY)
Mayor Rahm Emanuel(IL)
Gov.Martin O`Malley(MD)

Republicans:
Amb.John Bolton(MD)
Gov.Jeb Bush(FL)
Dr.Ben Carson(MD)
Gov.Chris Christie(NJ)
Sen.Ted Cruz(TX)
Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR)
Gov.Jon Huntsman(UT)
Gov.Bobby Jindal(LA)
Rep.Peter King(NY)
Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
Sen.Rand Paul(KY)
Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
Sen.Rob Portman(OH)
Secy.Condi Rice(CA)
Sen.Marco Rubio(FL)
Rep.Paul Ryan(WI)
Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
2016 Third Party Candidates:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg(I-NYC)
Gov.Gary Johnson(L-NM)
Donald Trump(NY)
Gov.Jesse Ventura(I-MN)
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Mar 29, 2014