Yes, you can stop in at boutique healthcare offices for under a $100 per visit, but what happens when you need that prescription filled?
City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen is pushing for Seattle to join nine other Washington cities–Tacoma, Shoreline, Sammamish, Puyallup, Auburn, Marysville, Burien, Airway Heights, and Union Gap– in participating in the National League of Cities Prescription Discount Card program. In other cities, the average discount has worked out to about 23 percent off the regular retail price for medication. “I expect that this program can begin in Seattle by early April,” said Rasmussen.
The program is run by CVS Caremark, which has a relationship with tens of thousands of pharmacies across the U.S., including Walgreens and the in-store pharmacies of Safeway and QFC. (Walgreens offers its own Prescription Savings Club, which comes with an annual fee of $20 per individual, or $35 for the family. If you don’t realize enough savings to cover the fee, the difference is refunded.)
The NLC’s program is free, and would cost the City of Seattle nothing, save distribution of the cards to those who wanted it. It also applies to pet prescriptions.
You don’t need to be uninsured to benefit from the NLC program, as it may provide discounts on prescription drugs not covered by your insurance: “There is no enrollment form, no membership fee, and no restrictions or limits on the frequency of use.”
For a growing number of people, though, programs like these are the new face of uninsured healthcare. From 2008 to 2010, the number of uninsured people in Washington state grew by 180,000, says insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler. By the end of 2011, Washington state was estimated to have a million uninsured, or almost 15 percent of its total population. Uncompensated medical care–where medical bills simply weren’t paid or were written off as charity–exceeded $1 billion.
What would you do if, during the time you were chair of the Seattle City Council’s public safety committee, the Seattle Police Department were the subject of an eight-month-long Department of Justice inquiry that found* the “Seattle Police Department (SPD) has engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force that violates the Constitution and federal law”?
That’s the awkward position the Council’s Tim Burgess finds himself in. As he departs as chair, handing the Lewis Carroll-like compendium of public safety, civil rights, and technology over to Bruce Harrell, Burgess offers a policy essay (pdf) that is remarkable in its deft retargeting of what the city’s public safety concerns actually are. (Harrell’s first fire-fighting call? Dealing with the aftermath of the suicide of a police officer arrested in a drug evidence sting.)
But first, it’s not true that the public safety committee fiddled while South Seattle and Belltown burned–Burgess went on record often during his tenure pushing for greater openness from the police department to civilian oversight. Here he is in September 2010:
What I’ve come to realize is that police agencies that enjoy the most trust and confidence of their communities are those that are proactively transparent. . . they are the police agencies who on their own reach out to the community and invite dialogue, scrutiny and review. They don’t wait for others to impose these conditions; they lead the way themselves.
As this matrix of policy recommendations for the SPD (pdf) makes clear, the Council had begun pushing for a flurry of “fixes” by late February of last year. It’s possible to be critical of those efforts without considering them to have been offered in bad faith; they don’t represent denial of a systemic problem so much as an inability to do much about it. Being chair of a Council committee is something less than a kingship, so you’re going to see more suasion than edict, especially when it comes to suggested changes that raise the hackles of an intransigent Seattle Police Officers Guild. Here, as elsewhere, you’ll see more “plastic-bag banning” than substantive reform.
While the Department of Justice did qualify its findings by saying that “SPD has already begun to implement a number of remedial measures,” for Burgess, remedial is clearly not the endgame. Throughout his public safety tenure he has argued for what could be called “evidence-based” policing. In his policy paper, he upends the question of whether the SPD is a Brute Squad variant, and asks instead whether “cops and robbers” law enforcement inevitably produces a frayed trust between the police and the people they try to sort into law-abiding and law-breaking camps.
In Burgess’s view, the primary goal is crime prevention–that is what gives people trust in their police. A crime, once it’s occurred, has already damaged that trust. The citizen feels let down by police before they’ve even started investigating. Dante once called for a “new sweet style” that rigorously demonstrated the power of divine love; Burgess has in mind a new law enforcement philosophy that just as rigorously demonstrates the power of the idea of order:
This new philosophy should focus on the policing of those micro-places where crime is concentrated and anchored; focus significant resources on persistent, high frequency offenders; introduce science-driven and evidence-based strategies to prevent crime, especially street crime and disorder; enhance increase crime tracking, data mining and analysis capabilities; restore the value placed on the generalist first-responder police officer; change how officers are selected, trained, managed and supervised to ensure the values and foundational principles of Constitutional policing and restorative justice are practiced; and, implement a problem-oriented policing model throughout the Police Department that views members of the community as valued and strategic partners in preventing crime.
Data-mining detectives couldn’t sound more Seattle, but Burgess is careful to give credit where credit is due: “Other cities, in particular New York City, have proven false the widely held belief that a certain level of crime is normal and should be tolerated in large metropolitan cities.” (That’s not to say that the NYPD has subsequently driven out scandal from its ranks.) Because public order is a kind of unifying security blanket, Burgess calls into question the division of crime into major and minor categories, at least when it comes to the public being served. Very few people who have been robbed say to themselves, “I still feel secure alone at night because I wasn’t killed.”
Conversely, argues Burgess, high frequency offenders don’t feel a pressing need to pigeonhole themselves as major/minor criminals:
Last summer, police officers in the Belltown neighborhood compiled the criminal histories of high frequency offenders they regularly encounter. They found 54 individuals with a combined total of over 2,700 lifetime arrests, an average of 50 per person. These individuals had 877 convictions for felonies and misdemeanors, an average of 16.2 per person, for everything from murder, rape and robbery to burglary, child molestation, drugs and theft.
You don’t need a cultural revolution to get “real police” on board with ending catch-and-release for people with arm’s-length rap sheets, but the concept of policing “micro-places” is a little trickier. As Burgess is at pains to point out, it’s not about a police car parked at a problem corner, but about an analysis of the network of factors that make that corner hospitable to criminal traffic. (Why Third Avenue instead of Second or Fourth?) It’s a dynamic inquiry, rather than a tautological person-centered (“Third attracts scumbags”) one. That’s all well and good, but it may require a dynamic kind of police leadership, as Burgess admits: “We should change how we select, train, motivate, supervise, reward and promote our police officers.”
Publicola wonders if this “parting shot at the SPD” isn’t a bit of policy-rattling in advance of a mayoral run. But taken at face value, it represents the culmination of Burgess’s thinking on the subject, at far greater depth than is necessary for mayoral aspiration. (In fact, it’s as likely in its detailed thoughtfulness to hinder as help–a mayor’s concern is his police chief’s public safety policy, not his own.) It may be reflexive to filter public service gestures in terms of political cui bonos, but in this case we’d be robbing ourselves of obviously substantive policy work if we did.
Is Seattle interested in reinventing policework? Or are we more interested in talking around it?
*Per the DOJ:
Based on a randomized, stratified and statistically valid sample of SPD’s use of force reports from Jan. 1, 2009, to April 4, 2011, factual findings include:
When SPD officers use force, they do so in an unconstitutional manner nearly 20 percent of the time;
SPD officers too quickly resort to the use of impact weapons, such as batons and flashlights. When SPD officers use batons, 57 percent of the time it is either unnecessary or excessive;
SPD officers escalate situations, and use unnecessary or excessive force, when arresting individuals for minor offenses. This trend is pronounced in encounters with persons with mental illnesses or those under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This is problematic because SPD estimates that 70 percent of use of force encounters involve these populations.
The Justice Department also found that a number of long-standing and entrenched deficiencies have caused or contributed to these patterns or practices of unlawful or troubling conduct, including the following:
Deficiencies in oversight, policies and training with regard to when and how to (1) use force, (2) report uses of force and (3) use many impact weapons (such as batons and flashlights);
Failure of supervisors to provide oversight of the use of force by individual officers, including appropriate investigation and review of uses of force (notably, among the approximately 1,230 use of force reports from January 2009 to April 2011, only five were referred for “further review” at any level within SPD);
Ineffective systems of complaint investigation and adjudication;
An ineffective early intervention system and disciplinary system;
Inadequate policies and training with regard to pedestrian stops and biased policing; and
A failure to collect adequate data to assess biased policing allegations.
“It’s time, it’s the right thing to do, and I will introduce a bill to do it,” lame duck Washington state Governor Gregoire said yesterday, announcing her intention to bring legislation permitting same-sex marriages in our state. “I say that as a wife, a mother, a student of the law, and above all as a Washingtonian with a lifelong commitment to equality and freedom. Some say domestic partnerships are the same as marriage. That’s a version of the discriminatory ‘separate but equal’ argument.”
If the bill passes the Legislature, Washington would be seventh in allowing gay marriage, after Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, in addition to the District of Columbia.
Reactions were predictable. Publicola quotes State Representative Matt Shea (R-4, Spokane Valley), whom they call the “lead social conservative in Olympia’s GOP caucus,” saying: “I am surprised same-sex marriage is a primary focus of the Democrats when the Legislature still has a 1.5 billion dollar budget shortfall to address as we enter the short 60-day, 2012 legislative session.”
Quite right! Let’s take a look at Shea’s work in that regard, courtesy of Publicola’s bullshit-detecting skills:
For his part, Shea is sponsoring bills: requiring parental notification for abortion; undoing the federal mandate on health care; exempting firearms from federal regulations; restricting the use of unmarked law enforcement cars on private property; and sending a message to President Obama demanding that he honor the 10th Amendment (states’ rights).
Oh, the sweet, sweet irony.
Meanwhile, The SunBreak inbox filled up with Seattle-side support for the Governor’s bill. On this point, at least, Mayor McGinn and the City Council agree. “I look forward to the moment when Seattle can join cities like Boston, New York and Washington D.C. in celebrating marriage equality,” said McGinn.
The Council’s Tom Rasmussen said, “The City of Seattle is on record supporting marriage for same sex couples and we will work with the Governor for passage this year,” while Sally Clark added, “We have work before us in this legislative session and beyond, but Gov. Gregoire’s is a critical voice in recognizing that all people are created equal and should be treated as such by their government.”
“The Governor,” reports the Seattle Times, “rejected the notion that she’s free to back same-sex marriage now because she’s not running for re-election.” There is some evidence that, as she suggests, Washington has been warming to the idea. The Times also quotes state senator Ed Murray, joking about the relative strength of ideological convictions: “I can get Republican votes for marriage, but I can’t get a Republican vote for a tax increase. Suddenly, gay marriage becomes easier than raising taxes. I never thought I’d say that.”
I know some of you will think this question is prompted by the news that the Seattle City Council has unanimously passed a plastic bag ban that, if the Mayor approves it, will go into effect July 2012. Seattlepi.com reports that the bill forbids plastic bags “not just in grocery stores, but in department stores, clothing stores, convenience stores, home-improvement stores, food trucks and farmers markets.” Paper bags you can still get for a nickel, for free if they’re the small lunch-sack size.
Actually, I’m on record as saying I support a plastic bag ban, if grudgingly. I don’t have the data to argue the point persuasively, in any event. I’m told only 13 percent of plastic bags are recycled, but it seems to me that that is likely because so many people use plastic bags for secondary purposes. “Seems to me” is not, however, good enough for The SunBreak readership, I know. If the bags are noxious, better to get rid of them.
Still: “I’m sure there’s a German word for taking small steps on large issues and then congratulating yourself for being a leader,” wrote David Meinert on this issue, earlier. “That would be a perfect word to use in local politics.” Compost and goats, yes. Head taxes to fight downtown traffic congestion, no.
Anyone who has spent more than a few years in Seattle will shake their heads knowingly at this. Our City Councils traditionally get bogged down in minutiae, roll over to more puissant political forces, and in general hopscotch their way from hot-button issue to hot-button issue. I used to think that things might be improved if the council positions weren’t citywide, but represented districts–at least the residents of the Central District or Greenwood could have their say.
But on the other hand, if you step back, you might wonder why we think our nine Council members are suited for the job at all. When you review the committees that the City Council breaks up into, the problem comes into clearer focus. (My favorite is Energy, Technology, and Civil Rights. When I am elected to the Council I hope to run the committee on 30-Hour-Weeks, Sailboats, and Microbrews.) If we were hiring someone to run Seattle Public Utilities, would we choose Mike O’Brien? Is Richard Conlin the best Seattle can offer for SR 520 repair and replacement? In what way had Sally Clark distinguished herself as an architect or city planner before she chaired the Built Environment committee?
I don’t mean to knock the jobs that the council members have performed, but the results, I think, are amateurish (for good and bad–sometimes you get lucky, and they pursue their duties with a zeal and diligence that you couldn’t pay for, but it is also clear that sometimes a committee is chaired by someone who needed to chair a committee). It’s a little like running a city via jury selection, and the Council gets out of its depth, ironically, the more complicated and important a project is (cf: the waterfront design discussion).
It might be worth asking what the Council has proven itself good at, or what its purpose is, really. Are they nine mini-mayors, occasionally transforming via unanimity into Megamayor on pressing issues like plastic bag bans (leaving the DOJ report on Seattle’s overly aggressive police department and the Seattle Public Schools rudderlessness aside)? Or are they a deliberative voice for neighborhoods, checking the centralization of downtown administrative powers? (Or is that the battle of the ’70s, and less relevant today?)
When you look for the chronically congested processes in Seattle, again and again you come to see a gang of “regular people” elected to positions of oversight they are only occasionally qualified for: the City Council, yes, but also the Port Commissioners and the Seattle School Board. All have a history of sending up fiery reformers who discover belatedly that it’s not as easy as it looks–the problem is structural, not in the people we’ve chosen, necessarily.
Watch the City Council: With everything else that Seattle faces, they insist on pulling on the levers of social behaviors because those are the levers available to them. It’s not the right tool for the job, often, but that’s what regular people do when they don’t know what else to do.
A tent city packs up for a move at St. Joseph's on Capitol Hill (Photo: MvB)
Word power! Bête noire is a French expression meaning, literally, “black beast”–it’s a beast of burden, and it carries your most virulent detestation. For example, for the Seattle City Council, plastic bags are their bête noire. Back in 2008, in the depths of the recession, the Council looked around and decided that a $0.20 fee on plastic grocery bags was what was called for.
A year later, Seattle voters disagreed. (Now to some minds, right-thinking voters can dismiss this result, because it was “purchased” by Big Plastic. As with Costco’s funding of advertisements for I-1183, the results of the election are purely a matter of money, with Seattle’s avaricious voters swiveling to wherever the gravy train sets up. Well, you know, money in politics! What next?)
So it was fairly soon afterward that the Council started making noises about banning plastic bags outright. Last week I got a robo-poll call testing the waters on a plastic bag ban, and this week the Seattle Times reveals how the bag-ban conversation is percolating:
Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin said Bellingham’s ordinance seems to enjoy more widespread support in part because it is less complicated than the one passed by the Seattle City Council. In addition to banning plastic bags, it charges a 5-cent fee for paper bags that goes to stores to reimburse them for the costs.
Don’t get me wrong–I think that is exactly the right strategy. If plastic bags present the irremediable harm to the environment we are told, then a ban (not a sin tax) is what’s called for. It is simpler, and it is a straightforward demand for responsible behavior.
On the other hand, is this the best use of the Council’s time just now? Even if you want to weigh just environmental concerns? Times commenter Meinert (I’ll assume this is Dave Meinert) would argue no:
That said, this is not the biggest environmental or general issue in front of the Council. Transit and storm water and contaminated runoff are more serious problems. Add to that the open crack dealing and rising crime on downtown streets. And of course we have a horrible business climate, and need some solutions to health insurance (many of which could be handled locally). Much harder, less sexy issues for politicians to try to handle.
Should we ban plastic bags? Yes. Is this the most important issue in front of the City Council? No way. […] I’m sure there’s a German word for taking small steps on large issues and then congratulating yourself for being a leader. That would be a perfect word to use in local politics.
This Council, under Conlin’s leadership, consistently fails to communicate a sense of priority. I have had occasion to bang on about the city’s decaying infrastructure and the Council’s blind eye to the scope of the problem, but it’s also true of the Council’s response to homelessness.
But at least you can feel proud of the Council’s green credentials, if that’s the way your sympathies lie? Not if you take into account the Council’s support for the two largest public works projects in the area (the new, larger 520 bridge and downtown tunnel).
In both instances, the Council–with the beleaguered exception of Mike O’Brien–has decided not to push for replacing some car capacity with transit capacity. Conlin went so far as to argue that the tunnel was “the green alternative,” although only the I-5/Surface/Transit option helped lower greenhouse gas emissions, per WSDOT’s SDEIS study.
The only mitigating circumstance is that the state has made it clear it doesn’t care what Seattle thinks about these projects–we are going to get more cars come hell or high water:
Just as the federal government released its annual index of greenhouse gases, showing a steady increase over the past 21 years, the International Energy Agency warned that we are on the path to 11-degree warming if we don’t curb emissions now.
Do you see what I mean? One of the benefits of a bag ban, of course, is that it saves on the petroleum used to make them. In this case, with the Council amenable to spending billions of dollars to increase or conserve single-vehicle-occupancy capacity, it’s a bit like ordering milkshakes for every meal, but foregoing the whipped cream on top–just once, at lunch–because you’re on a diet.
The intersection of road maintenance and transit: a bus turnaround turns pavement to a gravel road (Photo: MvB)
With Prop 1 going down to defeat, 60 percent of voters against, a lot of political diviners were rummaging through entrails trying to figure out why Seattle had turned its back on a forward-thinking transit initiative. “Here’s the proposed breakdown,” said KING 5, listing out how the Prop 1 money would be spent:
roughly half the money, about $100 million, is for mass transit.
$59 million for fixing streets and potholes.
$23 million for pedestrians and bikes.
Publicola weighed in: too regressive, plus McGinn’s negatives. Seattlepi.com: pushback to McGinn’s extremist clique. Seattle Times: like we’ve been saying all along, McGinn is the Antichrist. Seattle Transit Blog had three takes: a) all of the above, b) weak messaging, c) no sexy win. McGinn: MOAR STREETCARS!
I don’t know what people were thinking, really, and I doubt anyone else does, either. It is true that both the city and the King County Council had already increased car tab fees to $40, so this latest $60 increase would have created $100 tabs.
But on the face of it, I’m happy enough that people said no, even it it does put a temporary stick in the spokes of new transit. Seattle’s political leadership has developed an unsettling fondness for an “Or the puppy gets it!” strategy when it comes to extorting money from taxpayers. Again and again, basic infrastructure is neglected until a crisis is reached, at which point a huge bill is presented.
That’s not responsible governance. But even worse, the huge bill isn’t the end of it. I’ve written before about Seattle’s Bridging the Gap levy, a $365-million, deferred-maintance catch-up that after four years has left us…with a $578-million backlog of road repair. Actually, you may want to sit down, because that’s just deferred arterial maintenance. Add in bridges and regular streets, and the bill becomes billions.
In that context, Prop 1’s $59 million doesn’t seem terribly proportionate, does it?
But our government is perfectly happy to look the other way on this. The cost of doing something about it is so massive that it’s become crazy to talk about doing something about it. Instead, you get Prop 1’s finger in the 17th Street Canal levee, as it were. Fixed!
Then win or lose, the conversation turns to strategy and messaging, and the looming, titanic failure of our city infrastructure goes undiscussed. Basic infrastructure is what city government is for–yet the City of Seattle consistently has tried to wriggle out of having to pay for maintenance out of its operating budget (it’s not just roads–it’s the same with parks, with the Seattle Center), preferring instead to use the ballot box as an ATM.
Nothing about ongoing maintenance requires this. These are line items, foreseeable expenses. I don’t doubt that the task of budgeting is an unenviable one, but everything else this city provides rests upon its infrastructure. A mayor and a city council that don’t realize that are worse than useless–they’re damaging to the future.
I don’t blame this mayor or this city council for the situation we find ourselves in, but the spending problem here is not going to be solved with Propositions.
UPDATE: Here is the City Council’s press release on their budgeting efforts. Just at a glance, what percentage of this deals with Seattle’s ailing infrastructure? Do you see any recognition that the city’s foundation is crumbling?
Seattle City Councilmembers present 2012 budget balancing package
Final budget vote scheduled for November 21
Seattle – Today the Seattle City Council presented their proposed changes to the 2012 budget with a balanced package of cuts that preserve essential services. The Council focused on maintaining funding for public safety, health services and food programs, and housing for the most vulnerable.
“Operating the leanest government possible while maintaining critical services was our overarching goal. We believe we have reached that goal,” stated Councilmember and Budget Committee Chair Jean Godden. “There is no doubt that we will feel the impacts of state budget decisions whatever they may be.”
Council utilized community feedback as a key indicator of programs and services to be preserved. For example, the Council will undo a merger of the Office of Housing and Office of Economic Development proposed by the Mayor, based on input from Community stakeholders. In their review of the Mayor’s proposal, the Council was able to identify staffing efficiencies that could be implemented that will result in ongoing savings of more than $400,000 each year while maintaining the two separate offices.
“We are reinventing government to be as efficient and effective as it can be,” said Council President Richard Conlin, Chair of the Regional Development and Sustainability Committee. “However, we cannot sustain this budget if the state cuts human services and public safety programs and leaves cities with the responsibility of picking up the pieces.”
Councilmember Mike O’Brien, Chair of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee added, “This budget presented us with many challenges and difficult choices, but I believe we reaffirmed the City’s commitment to Seattle’s neighborhoods. From the Safe Parking Pilot Program in Ballard to keeping community centers open to preserving support for our beloved p-patches, Council stands by our neighborhoods and their priorities.” Working with community partners, such as faith-based organizations and local food providers, Council was able to maximize opportunities through joint investments to fund these programs.
Throughout the budget review process this year, Councilmembers heard a steady request for additional funding to address a reported surge in the need for shelter and housing for homeless families with children in Seattle. Providers have reported increasing numbers of families seeking such assistance due to the economy and decreased support from other levels of government.
To meet this demand, Councilmembers agreed to a funding package that expands capacity along the spectrum of services, from shelter or temporary housing to permanent housing for homeless families with children. The intent is to review actual use of the money by the end of the second quarter of 2012 to evaluate whether the demand for family-focused support materialized at the level expected. The additional funding totaled $435,000 and will serve at least 47 families.
“The Council adopted Resolution 31292 in May which stated the intent to better meet the long-term housing and immediate survival needs of those without shelter or housing. In the Council’s budget proposal, we increased funds for shelter and housing services for homeless families with children by $435,000. This is a significant step toward the goal that no family be unsheltered by the end of 2012,” stated Councilmember Nick Licata, Chair of the Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee.
To address neighborhood challenges, the Council designated $376,000 to a Precinct Liaison Program within the City Attorney’s Office. The precinct liaison attorneys will work closely with police officers and the Seattle Police Department leadership to address a variety of community and neighborhood problems, including nuisance properties, nightlife issues, graffiti abatement, alcohol impact areas, and crime hot spots.
“We focused on how we address public safety challenges in a time of very limited resources,” said Councilmember Tim Burgess, Chair of the Public Safety and Education Committee. “We beefed up early interventions to prevent crime by expanding the Nurse Family Partnership program to reach more low-income, first-time mothers. We joined with City Attorney Pete Holmes to reengineer the precinct liaison program to address chronic crime hot spots. We directed the Police Department to update the Neighborhood Policing Plan to match current officer staffing levels.”
“We funded a body-mounted camera pilot project for our police officers to enhance public safety and accountability, created a new office to assist the successful integration of immigrants and refugees into our City and provided additional help in the community for uninsured residents to receive medical and dental care,” said Councilmember Bruce Harrell, Chair of the Energy, Technology and Civil Rights Committee. “These actions help to ensure that our City continues down the path of achieving our social justice goals.”
Council is also responding to the growing concern regarding quality of life issues, such as improving health care accessibility for the uninsured, safety along Third Avenue and other pedestrian and transportation improvements.
“The City Council is committed to improving safety of transit riders and pedestrians in downtown Seattle. Since light rail began operations, the number of pedestrians and transit riders using Third Avenue has significantly increased. Through the Council’s Third Avenue Initiative, the City will develop a plan that may include more regular cleaning, improved lighting and development of a pilot ‘hot spot’ policing initiative for certain blocks along the Third Avenue Transit Corridor,” stated Councilmember Tom Rasmussen Chair of the Transportation Committee.
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, Chair of the Parks and Seattle Center Committee stated, “I am very pleased with City’s effort to balance this budget. We have made cuts while addressing the needs of our neighborhoods, as well as caring for neighbors in need.”
“I’d like to thank Councilmember Godden and my fellow colleagues for crafting a budget that invests in what matters,” said Councilmember Sally J. Clark, Chair of the Committee on the Built Environment. “Budget challenges only get tougher from here, but I’m hopeful we can partner with our friends in Olympia to minimize the impact to Seattle residents.”
Yes, you can stop in at boutique healthcare offices for under a $100 per visit, but what happens when you need that prescription filled?
