The Two Votes Against $35 Insulin: Joel McEntire and Jim Walsh

 

Let's Talk About That $35 Insulin Vote

There is a lot of political posturing these days about how certain lawmakers are supposedly fighting for working families, lowering costs, and making life more affordable. Those are nice words. They also tend to sound a little different once you actually look at the voting record.

In 2023, Washington lawmakers considered SSB 5729, legislation that extended Washington's existing protection limiting out-of-pocket costs for covered insulin to $35 for a 30-day supply. The Senate passed the bill unanimously, 47-0. It then went to the House, where it passed 95-2.

Those two votes against the bill came from Representatives Joel McEntire and Jim Walsh.

Not 20 Republicans. Not a handful of legislators who thought there was something wrong with the bill. Two. McEntire and Walsh were the only House members who voted no.

What Was Actually Being Voted On?

Let's be precise, because this is where people can play games with wording if you let them.

SSB 5729 did not originally create Washington's $35 insulin cap. The state had already established the cost-sharing protection. The 2023 legislation removed the expiration date so that the protection would continue for qualifying health plans.

Under the law, covered insulin is subject to a maximum out-of-pocket cost of $35 for a 30-day supply, with the statutory provisions and exceptions applying. The legislation also kept those costs from being applied toward a plan's deductible.

So when someone says McEntire and Walsh voted against $35 insulin, the more technically precise description is that they voted against legislation extending the state's $35 insulin cost-sharing protection.

That distinction is important. It also doesn't exactly rescue the vote.

Two Votes in a Sea of Yes Votes

The Senate vote was 47-0. Every senator who voted supported the legislation.

The House vote was 95-2.

McEntire and Walsh were the two "no" votes.

That is what makes this particularly interesting. This was not some controversial bill that barely squeaked through the Legislature. It wasn't a situation where lawmakers were evenly divided over whether people should have protection from high insulin costs.

The overwhelming majority of the Legislature voted yes.

McEntire and Walsh voted no.

That is the record.

This Is About More Than a Talking Point

Insulin is not a luxury item. People who depend on it don't get to decide they are going to skip it this month because the price went up. It is a medication people need to stay alive.

That makes the rhetoric about affordability worth examining against the actual votes.

It is easy to say you support working families. It is easy to talk about lowering the cost of living. It is easy to tell voters that you are fighting for people who are struggling to pay their bills.

The harder part is explaining why, when the Legislature was voting to continue a $35 limit on out-of-pocket insulin costs, you were one of only two House members who voted against it.

Don't Let the Bill Number Confuse the Issue

There is another little wrinkle here that is worth pointing out because apparently one bill number wasn't enough.

The 2025-26 SB 5729 is a completely different bill about streamlining housing permitting. It has nothing to do with insulin.

The insulin legislation was SSB 5729 from 2023.

Same number. Different legislative biennium. Completely different subject.

So if someone tries to "fact check" the claim by pulling up the current SB 5729 and pointing out that it is a housing bill, they are looking at the wrong bill.

That is not exactly a sophisticated rebuttal. It is just looking at the wrong legislative session.

What We Don't Need to Do

There is no need to claim that McEntire or Walsh hate insulin users. There is no need to guess about their motives or pretend we know what was going through their heads when they voted.

Their reasons are one thing. Their votes are another.

They voted no.

The Senate voted 47-0. The House voted 95-2. McEntire and Walsh were the two House members on the opposing side.

People can decide for themselves whether they think that was the right vote. That is how this whole democracy experiment is supposed to work.

What we don't need is political gymnastics to pretend the vote didn't happen.

The Bottom Line

If someone wants to talk about how much they care about affordability, I am perfectly happy to look at the voting record.

In this case, the record is unusually simple.

Washington lawmakers voted to continue the state's $35-per-30-day-supply insulin cost-sharing protection. The Senate passed it unanimously. The House passed it 95-2.

Joel McEntire voted no.

Jim Walsh voted no.

That doesn't tell us everything about either legislator. It does tell us exactly how they voted on this particular piece of legislation.

People can argue about why.

They can't argue about what they did.

The roll call is right there.