# Washington bill to help police officers injured in line of duty



## Steve (Jan 17, 2010)

I've written about Crusher on my blog in the past.  He's the guy that made me seriously question whether I was right for BJJ.  When I began training in 2006, he was a brown belt, Coach Foster's first student to reach that rank (and until recently, his only student).    Crusher is a former power lifter... think world's strongest man.  He was built like that, just thick and strong.

In the first month or so of training, I paired up with Crusher in sparring.  Coach said to him, "He's new, so teach him some stuff."  So, he promptly rolled me into mount (yes, he pulled mount on me...  how demoralizing!), let me work for a bit, then reversed me and passed my guard.  Remembering that he's supposed to be teaching me "some stuff" he says as an afterthought, "Okay.  Right here... you're losing." 

Crusher's real name is Jason McKissack, and until about a year ago, he was a police officer on the Seattle PD.  As he tried to break up a fight, he was jumped by the group, including both parties in the fight.  Here's a link to the original article:  

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008009370_webcop20m.html

The brain damage he sustained has left his balance completely out of whack.  Well, now, because he's no longer able to serve on the PD, they're cutting his benefits including his medical.  

Here's the link to a video of the story and to the article itself that ran a few days ago locally.

We've had 6 officers killed in the line of duty within the last few months and that's a tragedy and one that's been discussed here at length.  But what really pisses me off about this situation is that Jason says in the article that his family would be better off if he had died.  That just sucks.

There's a house bill being proposed that would insure that officers injured in the line of duty and unable to return to duty would keep their medical benefits.  HB1679 would protect first responders by ensuring catastrophic medical care.   Take a look.  If you're in WA, consider letting your State Rep know that it's important to you.  As things stand right now, I believe we're morally obliged to take care of our first responders.  It's the right thing to do, and this bill does that.  

Now, all of that aside, besides the personal interest I have in this story, this also brings up other topical points I'm curious about.  What do you guys think?  First, if we had single payer health care in America, Jason and his family would not be in danger of losing their medical care because he lost his job.

While our first responders should be well taken care of, I believe that no one should have to make choices between medical treatment and paying a bill.  While we can't guarantee that a disabling condition won't lead to financial trouble, we do have it within our power to provide medical care for everyone.  

Second, regardless of your stance on health care, what do you think about the reality that, as it stands, in the case of a medical emergency it's often better for the family if the person dies than if they live but suffer from a permanent, disabling condition.  The loss of employment, loss of income and often the loss of medical insurance coupled with enormous personal debt and medical debt wreaks havoc on a family.  Divorce is very common, bankruptcy also commonplace and homelessness for the disabled individual is a real possibility.  Is this an issue for you?  Important?  Do you guys believe the chips fall where they may...  just bad luck?  What would happen to you and your families if you were in a car accident or something, could no longer work, lose your medical coverage and wrack up six digit medical bills?


----------



## Steve (Jan 18, 2010)

I really don't know what to make of the lack of response to this.


----------



## Tames D (Jan 18, 2010)

I'm kinda curious why the Washinton Bill only wants to help police officers injured in the line of duty. I'm a big supporter of LEO, but why not include the plumber, electrician, janitor and everyone else that gets injured in the line of duty? Just like them, the LEO'S chose their profession, knowing the risks and the limited benefits. If i'm misreading this I apologize.


----------



## Carol (Jan 18, 2010)

Pretty heavy topic for the Locker Room.  Political discussion is better suited for the study.  Maybe ask a mod to move the thread?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 18, 2010)

I'm all for continuous benis for military, law enforcement, fire and medical injured while performing their jobs. Take the platinum plans from the career politicians and give them to the real public servants.


Carols right, better fit for Study than LR.


----------



## Tames D (Jan 18, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Take the platinum plans from the career politicians and give them to the real public servants.quote]
> 
> Now, that would be a cold day in hell.


----------



## Steve (Jan 19, 2010)

Tames D said:


> I'm kinda curious why the Washinton Bill only wants to help police officers injured in the line of duty. I'm a big supporter of LEO, but why not include the plumber, electrician, janitor and everyone else that gets injured in the line of duty? Just like them, the LEO'S chose their profession, knowing the risks and the limited benefits. If i'm misreading this I apologize.


I'm in complete agreement that everyone needs health coverage.  I also believe very strongly that everyone's life is of value.  I took some heat for that position in another thread, suggesting that we should memorialize and come together for everyone as we did for the slain officers.

But, this particular bill addresses first responders injured in the line of duty and unable to return to the force due to the severity of their injuries.  Again, I agree with you completely.  EVERYONE should have health coverage.  But in that vein, I'm behind any bill that increases coverage, even if it is specific.  Does that make sense?


----------



## Steve (Jan 19, 2010)

Carol said:


> Pretty heavy topic for the Locker Room. Political discussion is better suited for the study. Maybe ask a mod to move the thread?


I hate the study. It seems like whenever something hits the study, everyone puts on their team jerseys and warpaint.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 19, 2010)

Well, we'll leave it here if you want, but this isn't really a serious, on topic area.


----------



## Steve (Jan 19, 2010)

It's no problem, Bob.  Move it to wherever it belongs.


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2010)

I would really like to try one more time and if it continues to get stonewalled, then I guess I'll let it go.  

Where are the cops on MT?  What do the LEOs here have to say?  You all have opinions on all things cop related... except this one, I guess.  

What's your position on this?  I'm really puzzled that you guys are so silent on this, where one of your own is falling through the healthcare cracks.  As I said before, I don't know what to make of the silence.  Is it that you don't care?  Too bad for him?  Or is there something going on I don't understand?  I'd like to know.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 21, 2010)

[sarcasm] yup thats it. We don't care. Too bad for him. [/sarcasm]

OR, perhaps most of us LEO's are too savvy to get drawn into a debate over nationalized health care. Which this story, apparently intended to elicit our participation, is obviously designed to do.

I'm not playing.

PS-The root of this story is that *Washington State* appears to be ****ed up. Most states including mine provide for an early retirement due to a duty related injury. Probably not at the full pay he/she would have received at a "normal" retirement age, but with all the benes of a normal retirement.


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> [sarcasm] yup thats it. We don't care. Too bad for him. [/sarcasm]
> 
> OR, perhaps most of us LEO's are too savvy to get drawn into a debate over nationalized health care. Which this story, apparently intended to elicit our participation, is obviously designed to do.
> 
> ...


LOL.  Really?  You guys are just too savvy?   This is a real situation that actually, you know, in real life, affects one of your own.  Two thirds of the post is specifically about the situation as it stands and outlines a house bill that is currently working its way slowly through the State legislature.  A similar bill was rejected a few years back.   

Honestly, I expected that, at the very least, you guys would say, "Damn.  I hope he's okay and that this all works out."   But whatever.  It's always a pissing match.  I intentionally posted this outside the study to avoid any of the jersey wearing that goes on there.  I do genuinely appreciate your letting me know.

FWIW, while I am interested in the topic of nationalized health care (aka single payer), the questions I asked have more to do with disability than with healthcare.  Related topics, sure, but not the same.  And ultimately, there's way more to this story than either a discussion about healthcare or about disability.   As I said before, as it stands, in the case of a medical emergency it's often better for the family if the person dies than if they live but suffer from a permanent, disabling condition.   What would happen to you and your families if you were in a car accident or something, could no longer work, lose your medical coverage and wrack up six digit medical bills?   Are you prepared?  

I know that many of the people here talk about how we should all prepare for the unexpected.  With this in mind, how many here carry supplemental disability insurance?  I do, as does my wife.  Do you?  If not, are you guys prepared in some other way?  Should "society" be prepared to take over?  Social SEcurity disability?


----------



## Carol (Jan 21, 2010)

First of all Steve, I am very sorry for your friend.  :asian:

The health care system we currently have covers situations like this.  If a person becomes legally disabled and loses their health care coverage, they can get health insurance through Medicaid providing they meet their state's eligibility requirements for citizenship or legal permanent residency, disability severity, etc.  I'm no expert in this area but given the scope of his injuries it sounds to me like he is severely disabled.  Typically cops have to be U.S. Citizens, so he likely has that issue covered as well.  He is likely eligible for Medicare too.

What am I missing?


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2010)

Carol, thank you for the response.

Medicaid is really only for people who are very poor.  Medicaid is a "needs based" program, meaning that there are strict income and resource limits under which a person must fall so that they can be considered "categorically needy."  I could go into a lot more depth, but in a nutshell, even a moderate amount of income (thinking "working poor") can disqualify a family from eligibility for Medicaid. 

Medicare is only for people who qualify for Social Security retirement or disability.  Period.  For disability recipients, there is a waiting period, so, even if the person does qualify for disability, which is not a given, it will be months before medical benefits can start.  

Some States have supplemental health care to bridge the gap between Medicaid and income levels such that a person _should_ be able to afford private insurance coverage, although many States are cutting back or eliminating this supplemental coverage due to budget cuts.  Washington _had_ a supplemental health insurance program that was gutted a few years back.


----------



## Carol (Jan 21, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Carol, thank you for the response.
> 
> Medicaid is really only for people who are very poor.  Medicaid is a "needs based" program, meaning that there are strict income and resource limits under which a person must fall so that they can be considered "categorically needy."  I could go into a lot more depth, but in a nutshell, even a moderate amount of income (thinking "working poor") can disqualify a family from eligibility for Medicaid.



Actually I wasn't thinking working poor.  You had mentioned loss of job and loss of income, that sounds worse than working poor, that sounds indigent.



> Medicare is only for people who qualify for Social Security retirement or disability.  Period.  For disability recipients, there is a waiting period, so, even if the person does qualify for disability, which is not a given, it will be months before medical benefits can start.


This doesn't exactly raise my trust in the government's ability to run a health care system.



> Some States have supplemental health care to bridge the gap between Medicaid and income levels such that a person _should_ be able to afford private insurance coverage, although many States are cutting back or eliminating this supplemental coverage due to budget cuts.  Washington _had_ a supplemental health insurance program that was gutted a few years back.


OK, that gets in to an area that I am not familiar with.  I will say that, although I am largely not a fan of unions, I think they do have their place in some applications, and one of those applications IMO is police and fire.  

Something seems horribly broken to me when a first responder such as him has to go through that after falling in the line of duty.  I hope something can be worked out not just for Crusher but for all his counterparts, be it the proposed House Bill or some other solution.  Even the libertarian in me would go for that


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2010)

Carol said:


> First of all Steve, I am very sorry for your friend. :asian:
> 
> The health care system we currently have covers situations like this. If a person becomes legally disabled and loses their health care coverage, they can get health insurance through Medicaid providing they meet their state's eligibility requirements for citizenship or legal permanent residency, disability severity, etc. I'm no expert in this area but given the scope of his injuries it sounds to me like he is severely disabled. Typically cops have to be U.S. Citizens, so he likely has that issue covered as well. He is likely eligible for Medicare too.
> 
> What am I missing?


Carol, something else in your post occurred to me.  There is a common perception that the safety net we have in America is tighter than it is.  Your views are very, very common.  

I have said before (and still vehemently believe) that the current health care bill is a joke.  But, there is a real need for REAL reform whatever that might actually look like (I have my opinions and others have theirs).  

Either way, there ARE millions of people who don't have or have access to health care.  They make too much money for welfare (which, is exactly what Medicaid is), don't qualify for Social Security Disability because they can technically do something that earns them over 12K per year and don't live in a State that offers supplemental care for that middle ground. 

Add to this that, as some States continue to support these supplemental programs, such as Mass, and others eliminate them, we're seeing what amounts to a healthcare migration, where people with a need are moving to those places that can fulfill that need.  In other words, people who NEED health care are moving to States that can provide it.  The result is an increasing demand for taxpayer money in those States and a gaping disparity from State to State.

It was a situation very similar to this that resulted in the creation of SSI back in the early '70's, where the federal government picked up responsibility for providing a "last resort" payment to the poorest blind, disabled and aged people.


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2010)

Carol said:


> Actually I wasn't thinking working poor. You had mentioned loss of job and loss of income, that sounds worse than working poor, that sounds indigent.


Does it really need to come to that?  Indigence is what, I believe, we should work to avoid.  If a person and his family must be reduced to poverty before stepping in... that's pretty bad.]





> This doesn't exactly raise my trust in the government's ability to run a health care system.


Not sure what you mean.  The program has rules.   If it covered everyone, it would be nationalized healthcare... and you've seen how that goes down.   


> OK, that gets in to an area that I am not familiar with. I will say that, although I am largely not a fan of unions, I think they do have their place in some applications, and one of those applications IMO is police and fire.
> 
> Something seems horribly broken to me when a first responder such as him has to go through that after falling in the line of duty. I hope something can be worked out not just for Crusher but for all his counterparts, be it the proposed House Bill or some other solution. Even the libertarian in me would go for that


 That's really what the bill is proposing... that continued health care be provided from the Officer's retirement fund.  The funding for the healthcare would not be on the taxpayers at all.


----------



## Carol (Jan 21, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Carol, something else in your post occurred to me.  There is a common perception that the safety net we have in America is tighter than it is.  Your views are very, very common.
> 
> I have said before (and still vehemently believe) that the current health care bill is a joke.  But, there is a real need for REAL reform whatever that might actually look like (I have my opinions and others have theirs).



For reasons I'd rather not post details in a public space I am very much aware...acutely aware....personally aware of how thin the safety net is.  I have experienced it, so has my now-deceased father, my 76 year old mother, and my sister who has a family farm with her husband where they raise 6 children, four of whom are adoptees.  My mom and I, literally, had a conversation that went along the lines of...well, what if my company falls apart? (It might).  Do I move in to her home in NC where I have a place to stay?  Or do I move back to Mass. for the health insurance?   

Believe me, I'm not Pollyanna about this at all, and I agree with you fully that something needs to be done.  I'm just not seeing the solution on the Senate floor right now, and (my bad) I thought you were taking this in the direction of government will save us all.    But, since you see the issues with the plan as well, that's just one more thing we agree on.


----------



## Steve (Jan 22, 2010)

We do agree on many things, although for whatever reason, we tend to have to dig a little to figure that out. 

I'm very interested in the topic of disability insurance...  maybe I'll start a new thread on that specifically.  But I'm still pretty let down that there was no support for this bill voiced here.  I'm genuinely baffled by the lack of support by at least the LEOs here.  In light of the dozens of similar threads on this board, I just don't get it.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 25, 2010)

I have not been on as often as I once was and when I return it's overhwelming how much I need to catch up on. Since this affects people I care about, I'll be doing a little more research before I give an opinion, Steve. 

Thanks for putting this out there. Like you, I'm a little confounded and surprised I haven't heard about this from my friends.


----------

