Senate Joint Resolution 8206 has stirred up quite a debate. This proposal seeks to amend Washington State’s Constitution to declare health care as a fundamental right for every resident. It suggests that the state must “ensure access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate, and affordable health care.”
At first glance, this might seem like a noble goal. However, it raises many questions. What does “affordable” really mean? Is it affordable for someone making $50,000 a year or a household earning $200,000? And what about “access”? Does it mean having a doctor nearby or being able to get an appointment within a reasonable time? These terms are vague, and in law, precision is everything.
When laws are unclear, courts often fill in the gaps. This can lead to unpredictable outcomes. The proposal includes a clause stating that any new obligations should be balanced with other essential public services, but this only opens the door for more lawsuits. Critics worry that this could allow the courts to interfere with budgetary decisions that the legislature typically manages.
Supporters of SJR 8206, such as the group Whole Washington, argue that the resolution aims to ensure health care commitments are upheld. They view it as necessary judicial protection for citizens. However, it’s important to ask whether we want to embroil the courts in health care policy decisions.
There’s historical context that adds depth to this debate. Similar constitutional amendments in Washington have shifted fiscal priorities in the past. For instance, the McCleary decision forced changes in funding education. This led to long-term implications for the state budget. Once vague standards are set in the Constitution, courts could redefine what those standards mean, impacting future budgets and policies.
While some may support the notion of taxpayer-funded health care, the potential legal ramifications of this resolution cannot be ignored. Fortunately for now, SJR 8206 is unlikely to pass. In Washington, constitutional amendments need a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House. Given the short session in 2026 and the contentious nature of this amendment, it appears to be a tough sell.
Previously, lawmakers attempted to pass a different resolution (Senate Joint Memorial 8004) to encourage federal action for a government-run health care system. That too failed to secure the necessary two-thirds support. This suggests that the idea of enshrining health care as a constitutional right is a tall order.
In conclusion, while the goal of providing affordable health care is admirable, SJR 8206 risks placing heavily contested issues in the hands of the courts. The vagueness of its language poses significant challenges for lawmakers and taxpayers alike. It’s worth considering whether such a serious matter should be dealt with in the state Constitution.
Source link
Health care, constitutional amendment, single payer health care, fundamental right, Washington state
