The defeat of I-2124 is a huge victory for millions of Washingtonians.

"It's not just for older people. It's for all of us."

In truth, it’s an attempt to privatize social services by ending long-term care benefits for nearly 4 million workers.

Lisa Michaud lives on Beacon Hill and is the owner of Two Big Blondes in Seattle’s Central District.

“This isn’t just conjecture about what might happen.”

Hey, if you can afford $12,000 out of pocket each month, more power to you.

Washington voters deserve honesty above all else.

I’m voting “no” on I-2124. I hope the voters of Washington will do the same.

I wish this program had been there for my mother when she needed it.

Vote no on I-2124 to help ensure that WA Cares can continue to evolve and serve the state’s needs.

Washington’s long-term care benefit is a safety net, like Social Security or Medicare.

Cathy MacCaul from the Washington AARP explains why she is voting “No” on I-2124.

How the WA Observer mischaracterized, got facts wrong, and revealed negative bias about I-2124 in their recent article.

We're launching a new ad, and we've picked up the endorsements of more than 150 organizations.

Put simply, Initiative 2124 is a step backward for Washington — a big one.

"I-2124 would make the long-term care program unsustainable, denying many needed funds later in life."

A care crisis is squeezing working families, pushing parents out of much-needed jobs.

In No on I-2124's first campaign ad, Washingtonians share how I-2124 will hurt women.

Sam Hatzenbeler shares her story.

Jason Erskine writes about the deceptiveness of Initiative 2124.