Thursday, January 26, 2006

Malloy Proposes "Universal Access" to Health Care for Children

Plan Would Cost $35 Million, According to Campaign

Every Child Matters proposal (.pdf from Malloy campaign site)

Press release from Malloy campaign.

Dan Malloy, in what his campaign is calling the "first major policy proposal in the 2006 race for governor," has proposed extending the HUSKY program to all families and making insurance for children under HUSKY more affordable.

The Malloy plan achieves universal access for children under the age of 18 first by expanding on a statewide basis the Every Child Matters HUSKY outreach program that was first launched in Stamford in July 2001. This nationally recognized and award-winning program has successfully enrolled 2,254 HUSKY eligible children in Stamford by simply and effectively tapping into relationships public schools have with students and their families. In addition to the public school outreach, the Malloy plan will expand the scope to include pre-schools, neo-natal, family planning and daycare centers to enroll eligible children even before they reach kindergarten.

Second, the plan calls for a more affordable cost-sharing structure that is far more accessible to lower and middle income families than is currently the case. Malloy's Every Child Matters program works by taking advantage of the economies of scale realized by the HUSKY plan to leverage coverage for every child in the State.

Under the Malloy plan, a family of three making $50,000 would pay $75 per month for coverage for two children. Under the current plan it would cost that same family $442 per month. And the Malloy plan would eliminate co-pays for well-child check-ups or preventative care.

This program is expected to cost up to $35 million, of which the State could apply for and receive federal reimbursement of approximately 38% of the costs. The net cost of the program to the State would be approximately $21.4 million, or about 25% of what the State currently pays for medical care for its incarcerated population. (

Add this plan to the "Things it's Hard to be Against" file.

I don't have time to give this a thorough once-over, right now, but the cost (if accurate) isn't too terrible and the benefits seem obvious. I'd be interested to hear what people with more knowledge about health care than myself have to say.


Anonymous said...

I'm with GC right now, in that I'm waiting to hear what people in the know might have to say. At first glance though this sounds great. If nothing else, I applaud him for taking a strong stance and proposing something solid, and being the first (of all 3 candidates really) to do so.

Franks said...

The problem with HUSKY, has benn in finding providers, if Malloy's approach solves this aspect and lowers the costs, it should be adopted now.

Anonymous said...

The problem - well, one of the problems - with HUSKY is that the problems with HUSKY have been grotesquely exaggerated by the people who make their living by being "advocates" for "the poor."

Malloy cites the oft-repeated figure (generated by Connecticut Voices for Children) of 71,000 uninsured children in the state.

Yet the Office of Health Care Access says a much more accurate number is more like 20,000.

If your paycheck - albeit from a well-intentioned non-profit, but your paycheck nonetheless - depends on the public's (read: state government's) perception of just how dire a situation may be, which figure are you going to use?

stomv said...

I've been amazed that more states haven't pushed expanded health care coverage for minors. It's such an easy win.

All kids need doctors, both poor and rich. They can't mitigate risk by controling their diet, their kids. Want a productive workforce? You need two things -- educated and healthy people. The best way is to start with educated and healthy kids, and you can't educate a kid who's too sick to be in school.

Simplistic? You bet. Still, I suspect that it pays off for the state in the long run.

HUSKY fan said...

The important and effective part of Malloy’s plan would be the outreach component. Most uninsured kids are already eligible for HUSKY, but many parents don’t know about it or (incorrectly) don’t think their family would be eligible. Community-level outreach is the best way to reach these families, and Stamford does have a model program. Rowland and the legislature ended all state funding for HUSKY outreach a few years ago and the state does virtually nothing to educate families.

His proposals on premiums and co-pays would make HUSKY more affordable for moderate- and middle-income families. That’s a good thing and could have a modest impact, though most uninsured kids fall below the income levels that would be affected by his changes.

There are other changes that would have a substantial impact on enrollment in HUSKY, like reversing new paperwork requirements and eligibility rules instituted by legislative changes. These rule changes were specifically intended to increase the “hassle” factor for families and discourage them from getting and keeping HUSKY. But these technical changes don’t translate well into news releases.

The 71,000 uninsured estimate comes from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Dave Mooney said...

With the Amman endorsement, could we see this introduced in 2006?

All Your Base Are Belong To Us said...

This is a slam-dunk for Malloy. Disregarding the race between him and DeStefano, I think this will give him a huge boost with those not affiliated with either party. I wonder if Rell will even comment on the idea.

Anonymous said...

What if a family is making $50,100? Then the are really screwed! Thanks Dan for leaving me out!!!

Anonymous said...


The estimate from the Census Bureau also came with a list of caveats the length of your arm: "a) small sample size produces relatively large confidence intervals, especially for subpopulations; b) respondents may be confused about time periods (12 months of the calendar year v. part year v. point-in-time); c) respondents may be confused about type of coverage (Medicaid v. Title XIX v. HUSKY A v. health plan name); d) methods tend to produce an underestimate of Medicaid participation; e) methods may change from year to year."

OHCA's survey was conducted by UConn's polling institute and had a survey margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point. said... has Lieberman against Alito vote confirming rumors on CLP yesterday...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:39,

I actually just looked through DM's proposal, which is on his website, and his plan would provide coverage for children whose families make up to nearly $110,000 -- of course they'd have to pay a bit more in copays than your family would at $50,100. There's a chart in with his press release. You should check it out.

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight. Dan Malloy is taking his case to the middle class by offering the state's poor (those who don't vote) health insurance. It just doesn't make sense. Offer real tax relief to the middle class & then you might have an issue. said...

i'm a jack hole. I didn't look at the other thred where you guys were talking about "Joe to vote no" hours ago.

Genghis Conn said...

Up to $110,000/family is poor?

This proposal is aimed squarely at middle class families who have trouble with rising health care costs, anonymous.

DeanFan84 said...

to the anonymous jerks--

What does is matter if the number of uninsured kids is 20,000, or 71,000? Is it somehow okay if it's the lower number? I don't think so!

Having even one kid in CT without healthcare is an utter disgrace. To think that a parent might be slow to take a sick child to the doctor because of a lack of coverage is not just sad, but scary.

Hats off to Dan Malloy for working hard to get every last child into the healthcare system. And shame on all the anonymice who think that 20,000 uninsured kids is just a number.

Anonymous said...

Hard to imagine the first proposal from a democrat candidate would cost taxpayers more money.

I guess $15 billion a year isn’t enough.

Genghis Conn said...

Huh. I guess people can be against it.

Anyway, here's the DeStefano campaign's response to the Malloy health care plan:

Statement by Mayor John DeStefano on Proposed Health Care Plan

“The governor has failed to provide leadership on healthcare, but I believe reforming healthcare requires a comprehensive approach that covers not only every child, but addresses making healthcare more affordable for Connecticut’s employers and over 300,000 Connecticut men and women, many working full or part-time, who lack coverage.

Health care access and costs for working adults are driving jobs out of our state every day and bankrupting middle-class families. Universal healthcare for children is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the course of the campaign, we will outline our health care plan, which is prevention-based, portable and focused on making health care more affordable and more accessible for adults and children alike, alleviating the incredible pressures on employers and families.”

...I have no idea why they felt they had to respond.

Anonymous said...

Molloy says his plan will cover 71,000 kids and cost only $35M. Do the math, which means he can get coverage for $493/kid. That's some kind of health care deal!

If you don't think he's already cooking the books ....

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:14,

At least Malloy's doing something -- trying to address a very serious problem with a substantive proposal -- rather than spending his time running around courting the unions. What's more important, helping uninsured children or making friends with the UAW?

superD said...

You need to go back and re-read the posting on the Malloy website. Of the 71,000 who don't have health care insurance, 36,000 qualify, right now for coverage. The funding exists in the State budget. As I understand it, the $35 million is the incremental cost of covering the approx. 35,000 children who currently don't qualify. That's why this is so tragic -- there are 36,000 children who already qualify for coverage under HUSKY, the State has set-aside funding to pay for their coverage, yet they remain uninsured -- either because they don't know they're eligible or don't understand how it works. 36,000 children could be insured today if the State made the effort to reach out and enroll them. That is a crime.

Anonymous said...

The parent who doesn’t sign up their kid because of ignorance is a crime.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:38,

Ignorance? Most don't know about it because of a language barrier, you ass.

"Durrrr... not speaking English means yur dumb LOL"

Anonymous said...

According to the State's own Department of Health Care Access, 2/3 of the uninsured children are Hispanic. I would hazard to guess that language may be an issue. That's why Malloy's program in Stamford makes sense -- its easly to implement -- every child entering school has to register for K. Information can be shared there, and all along the way through school.

The State should be ashamed of itself -- they know these people are out there, they budget to provide care and that's where it stops? I agree with several of the others who have posted on this issue -- it has to be fixed, its good to see a candidate propose a plan to do just that.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:20

Even if the money for the eligibles is already there (which I'm not sure is true, since they haven't turned any money back), that only makes the math about $990/kid. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any insurance plan that costs that little.

HUSKY fan said...

On income limits – technically, there are no income limits for HUSKY now, so it is available for all residents. However, families currently pay high premiums when they get over about $50,000 or so (for a family of 3). There are very few families who sign up at that level. So Malloy’s plan would reduce premiums for middle-income families and make it easier for them to sign on. Malloy’s plan also has no upper limit, but also would charge fairly high premiums at around $100K.

On the cost of the program – I can’t speak to Malloy’s estimates, but the feds cover 50% to 65% of the cost of the program (they cover more of the cost for middle-income families). (I noticed he referred to a 38% reimbursement - don't know where that came from, unless it takes into account reduced premium and co-pay revenues.)

So it’s a very good deal for the state. Kids also cost less to insure than any other population (eg, elderly, disabled, parents). Plus they get access to preventive care and check-ups, reducing later health care costs.

Anonymous said...

If you think this is going to cost $35 million, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale

for gosh sakes, the state is already paying close to a billion a year on meds.

Perhaps the guy who says 51% is a huge mandate did the math on this one

Anonymous said...

Malloy didn’t mention this (curiously), but Rell has been no friend to HUSKY and uninsured kids. In her budget proposals, she insisted on changes that would increase costs for families, restrict eligibility, and push kids off – the opposite of what Malloy is trying to do. Some of her changes passed and have in fact pushed thousands of kids off the program. Some weren't approved, and some were passed and then repealed when their disastrous impact became clear.

By the way, covering a child under HUSKY costs in the neighborhood of $1,200 per year, and most of that is paid for by the feds.

Eddie said...

It's a great start. A couple of observations:

(1) I really don't mind copays. If they're $10, or even $5, HUSKY won't make any money off them, but it shouldn't kill anybody to come up with $5; if it does, the family has trouble that HUSKY can't fix. Other people may have more knowledge about this than me, or different experiences, but my observation from being in healthcare for a few years is that totally free services have a tendency to be abused. It's not the wasted money I object to so much, but the lines, people who really need the treatment having to wait.

(2) This could go hand in hand with improvements in health education. I know that many of us are jaundiced from health scare stories, but the rate of asthma and allergies seems to be genuinely going up, and helping people recognize them could be a big winner and save us all a lot of money in social health.

(3) Good for Malloy, talking about an important issue and doing it intelligently.

Aldon Hynes said...

I haven’t seen the Statement by Mayor John DeStefano anywhere other than here and I don’t know why someone felt they needed to respond. So, I will respond here, but perhaps be off message from the campaign.

I think Mayor Malloy should be complimented on his plan. It is a great start. Yes, I would like to see the Husky program extended even further. I would like to see Same Sex Marriage available in this state. I would like to see campaign finance reform be more of a reform. Yet every proposal or bill that moves us in these directions is a good thing.

For the person that is concerned that there are only 20,000 uninsured children in Connecticut, I hope you are right. The less uninsured children the better. It means we are doing a better job of taking care of our children and it means that the cost of implementing universal access to health care for children will be less expensive.

Concerning people knowing about the program, I have a few different thoughts. We need to get people to know about it before kindergarten. Yes, information should be made available then. However, information should be made available when the child is born.

Of course, making more information about government services available in Spanish will also be really helpful. That sounds an awful lot like 'Hablamos Español' Initiative that Mayor DeStefano announce last October.

Yes, I hope we see a healthy competition between Mayor Malloy and Mayor DeStefano as to who can come up with the best plans to make Connecticut better. It is part of why I am a big fan of primaries. I sure hope that all Democrats will work together behind whoever wins the nomination and that that candidate will take the best plans from both sides in the primary.

We are at our best when we are working together, even if part of the work is competition to see who can come up with the best plans.

Anonymous said...

There was a great clip of Malloy on Channel 8... you can watch it at

Chris said...

Why is he comparing the cost to how much we spend on prisoners? Are these inderinsured children prisoners? Are they seen as prisoners? Why? Cuz their mostly hispanic or black? I don't understand...

Why didn't the campaign compare the cost to what the lottery takes in (or a fraction thereof)? Or education or ... something!

Odd why he picks prisoners. Is he saying we should be spending less on prisoners?

Jimmy Hoffa said...

Aldon, now there's an issue… same sex marriage...I wonder if Democratic leaders would have the backbone to bring out this issue during the upcoming session? Oh yes, they may talk a good game about equal rights but while both Democratic gubernatorial candidates openly favor same sex marriage, what will the Democratic general assembly leaders do during their election year? No doubts, if presented the bill, Rell would not sign it. Is that not the wedge issue needed to pry away Rell’s 70% Democratic support? The question is, will the Senate and House Demos help out their gubernatorial candidates or will they run for cover the way they did when Bill Curry ran? Maybe Colin remembers what happened. The fact is, no Democrat has a chance with Rell’s approval rating so sky high among Democrats. Here is the issue!

Anonymous said...

"And the Malloy plan would eliminate co-pays for well-child check-ups or preventative care."

Earth to the Democrats. Health Care costs money. If someone can't drop a Lincoln for their child's health, maybe they ought to lose the cell phone or the cable TV

Perhaps we ought to provide free groceries to parents, and eliminate the "co-pay" at Stop & Shop. Or maybe those "co-pays" to landlords and mortgage companies could be addressed

Chris MC said...

chris quoth:
"Why is he comparing the cost to how much we spend on prisoners?

I noticed that too. I don't know the answer, but I'll tell you what it brought to mind for me. Two thirds of the eligible children not currently enrolled today are Latino. What percentage beyond that are African American?

There is an egregious, apalling, insane and, btw, uneconomical neglect - nay, abuse - of lower income people - and significant proportions of that segment of the population are people of color.

The cost to the taxpayer of dealing with that underclass shows up on the state balance sheet when we begin prosecuting them and incarcerating them. And they stay right here, so it is a real overhead we have to cope with.

This isn't just a smart and attractive proposal in an election year. It is also a strategically important tranche in Connecticut's competitiveness, with benefits that will grow over the next ten, twenty years and beyond.

And yet, that is just a piece of why this is such a good idea.

We should all be for it.

Anonymous said...


Charging a parent a co-pay forces him to commit robbery?


Anonymous said...

This is why Malloy gets the nomination. He comes out with an initiative which, looking at this blog, is almost universally applauded. And then DeStefano comes out with a lame response, followed up by his blogmaster saying he wants to see "same-sex marriage." It is that kind of out-of-the-mainstream liberalism which dooms Destefano and makes Malloy electable.

On the policy issue, Malloy's proposal does more than just get kids insured. It also should lower the cost of health care for families overall. That is because many families will likely choose to leave the family plans offered by employers and enroll their kids in Husky. When that happens, the premium co-pays paid by employees will necessarily decrease by coming off the family plan. That will put more money in an employee's pocket on a weekly basis.

Additionally, with fewer kids to insure through employer-sponsored plans, the total costs of those plans should decrease, even for those who don't have kids.

I think Dan has hit one out of the park.

Aldon Hynes said...

Why did Malloy bring up how much we spend on prisoners? I don’t know. But, I’ll take my radical liberal view on this and come up with two comments.

Prisoners have universal access to health care and children don’t. Do we value prisoners higher than children? Perhaps if we want people to get health care, we should encourage them to commit crimes. That isn’t the sort of message that I think any of us should be supporting.

I’m also curious about the correlation between people in prison and those that didn’t have adequate health care when they were young. My guess is that it is fairly high. This brings me back to a flaw with the No Child Left Behind legislation. There are many reasons while children are left behind. It isn’t just the school systems. It is because too many children come to school unready to learn. They are dealing with illness, with hunger, with fear about crime in their neighborhoods, and no matter how good the student and the teacher, these hurdles are leaving our children behind.

By making better health care available to children, we are helping programs like NCLB and, I hope taking a longer term view of what is good for society. This longer term view may not decrease the prison populations immediately, but as more children succeed because the barriers to their success are being removed, fewer of these children will end up in trouble with the law or in prison in the years to come.

Mayor Malloy’s proposal, along with proposals like Mayor DeStefano’s City Youth Initiative and 'Hablamos Español' Initiative are forward looking proposals about how we can help make Connecticut better. They are about making wise investments in our future.

Aldon Hynes said...

Anon(7:31) I’m fairly disappointed in you. If your post is indicative of the reading comprehension of Malloy supporters, then the Malloy campaign is in trouble. People have criticized Malloy’s proposal because it isn’t the ideal. I defend the proposal pointing out that Civil Unions and Campaign Finance Reform weren’t ideal either and you attack me? That is really disappointing.

Then you go back on to the ‘electability’ theme. I’m sorry. Attacking people because they have ideals and attacking people who have been defending your positions even though they are working for the opposition just isn’t good politics. It doesn’t make your candidate more electable.

Please, for the sake of your candidate, and for the sake of our State, lets move away from these destructive attacks and try to find ways to work together to make Connecticut better.

Colin said...

Number crunchers:
interview Malloy last night for this week's Behind the Headlines on Fox 61.
i tried to press him a little on the per-child number, and i understood his response to be that the program will never have 100 percent enrollment, that 60 to 70 percent would be a pretty strong performance. so he doesn't have to make it pay for every eligible kid. no time for a follow-up, alas. television. sheesh.

Chris MC said...

There'll be lots of time for follow-up over the next nine years.

Malloy's answer will no doubt be pounced on by the inveterate naysayers, but it suggests something important about this proposal; it has been thought through.

The fact that he is talking real numbers, not trying to reduce this to a campaign slogan that nobody can really believe: that bit suggests he can - and fully intends to - implement it.

As an aside, it is great to see Colin continuing to press into the specifics and substance of what our candidates and elected officials propose. We can blog all we want, but unless the newspapers and broadcasters do real journalism, nothing good is going to happen.

I wish Colin had a podcast for his radio program, too.

Anonymous said...

I wont cite the vast (and often contradictory) facts, figures and statistics on health care, just point this out: it doesnt matter if it is 71,000, 20,000, 71 or 20, even one child without healthcare is too many. And Republicans here need not respond, health care for all is a bedrock Democratic principle, and anathema to Republicans. Malloy's plan is a good one in my book - doesn't make this the one issue that gets my vote at the Convention or in the primary, but it is a gold star.
Re: Same Sex Marriage, this certainly will not peel off D support for Rell, polls consistently show less than 16% of the population favors same sex marriage, the majority are in the civil union camp.
And IM know there will always be people to assail WHATEVER is done in the GA, as they are on CFR. Bottom line, you cant pleae everyone, but I believe it is a good new system, and at the very least, it is worlds better than what we have now.
Oh, and the Curry comment - he pushed incumbents and their ideas away (cuz Billy knows best), causing them to walk away. But even if they did embrace him as he spit on their records, the campaign itself was a disaster.

ct_guy said...

Regarding the comparison to what we spend on inmates:

One, I've seen Malloy speak twice, and both times he used our penal system as an example of how broken our state is. Something about having about the same number of inmates in 1995 as we did in 1970, but in the last 10 years its tripled (I'm guessing at those numbers but that was the gist). So I think it's an issue for him.

Secondly, even if it weren't, when I read it, it just struck me as way to say "look how much we're spending on our criminals, can you really tell me we can't spend as much or more on our children?

the wandererrrr said...

Malloy should talk to the business leaders in his own city. Pitney Bowes, headquatered in Stamford and a leader in innovative helath programs, just found that if they got rid of co-pays the health and work performance of its employees went up. On the other hand their employees pay a fair share of their premiums out of their paycheck, which is something the stae workers, including the legislators, should be required to do but I'm not counting on it. said...

In addition to being squarely behind the Malloy program, I appalud the philosophy behind it. Democrats can stand for ideas like universal health care as long as there is a practical approach to it. Let's start with kids and get as many of them covered as possible(hopefully all of them) then go from there. It is ok if change is slow as long as we are moving toward a better goal in the future.

To often I think the democratic party fails to get that Americans want to know that we stand for things that CAN be accomplished. Give us realistic goals and show us numbers. We as democrats shouldn't preach that we know best, but rather appeal to practicality and common sense of voters and say, "you voters are rational people, here is a rational solution to a major problem". We keep treating the electorate as stupid, and we are the ones losing elections.

On the flip side, I heard DeStefano arguing on 1080 this morning that what we need is Universal Health Care and we need it now, saying essentially that the Malloy plan fails to do that so it fails. Well show us a plan that works and works now. The Malloy plan is at least a stepping stone and it is, at the moment the only one on the table.

I have not chosen sides, though I had been leaning Malloy. But Destefano really turned me off today . I know you have to draw a distinction, but being against something pragmatic for the sake of being for an ideal that you haven't shown you can achieve is a common failed strategy of Dems across the board. Why not say "the Malloy plan is good, here is how I'd make it better". Let's raise the level of debate so as Aldon says we can create a better Connecticut.

Sorry for the rambling diatribe...

Anonymous said...

Still in the works is Rell’s plan to start charging low-income working parents in HUSKY premiums for their coverage. Low-income parents and kids have never been charged premiums in 40 years. (Moderate/middle income kids are charged premiums.) The projected cost savings can only be achieved by pushing parents who can’t afford the premiums off the program.

When increased premiums went into effect for kids in HUSKY B last year and the year before, thousands started to drop off the program. Then the legislature reversed the increase (twice). They should do the same for parent premiums before they go into effect.

Chris MC said...

Malloy should talk to the business leaders in his own city.

I'll bet he does.

The problem with arguments like these, just to name two that destroy it, is that 1. Underprivileged populations are not self-selecting, whereas a corporation is, which is to say that 2. You can't apply the experience of any individual enterprise globally. You can draw on the lessons, and I am certain Malloy does, but you can't apply microeconomics to macro problems.

Republicans can't - or refuse to - accept this basic precept of economics (this is literally Economics 100). That is why their policies are not only unjust, but fail to achieve their purported ends.

The Malloy policy proposal is no doubt just the first that will illustrate what moderates' commitments look like where the rubber meets the road.

Eddie said...

Aldon said:

"I’m also curious about the correlation between people in prison and those that didn’t have adequate health care when they were young. My guess is that it is fairly high."

I agree, though I think that "guess...fairly high" is about as close as we're going to get at this point. Physical illnesses have behavioral components that can't always be quantified. Environmental and food allergies can be linked to moodswings and explosive behavior, and/or to underachievement and apathy. (Lead poisoning has been strongly linked to both; to put it crudely, it makes you angry and stupid.)

It may be hard for the Mayor to quantify the cost of HUSKY-Plus vs. savings in prison and other warehousing institutions; I don't believe he can come up with numbers that couldn't be knocked down by a thinktank that has an interest in more warehousing. But it's a valid concept.

Chris MC said...

You're right, there is a point at which discussing correlations becomes meaningless. Inadequate health care is but one facet of the plight that the underclass faces in the real world.

Specific policy proposals like this one - that meet real needs in the community - speak to underlying principles much more meaningfully than ivory tower rationalizations for the dysfunction of Republican governance, and Republican psychobabble in general.

Anonymous said...

Chris MC


No co-pays lead to excessive utliization( why not go to the ER for every hang nail).

Benefits in CT out of line with adjoining states draw the poor and sick across the state line.

Then, cost overruns happen, taxes go up, and the healthy and wealthy leave

Chris MC said...

You're right, there is no free lunch. We have a health care delivery system that is broken and has been for too long. The costs for this are being borne disproportionately by the underclass of working poor and, increasingly, the middle class.

Republican policy prescriptions amount to nothing more than free lunch for those that already have plenty.

Managed care is a proven failure. Republican legislation - most notably Nancy Johnson's signature Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 - subsidizes naked profiteering while foisting increasing amounts of risk and cost onto the shoulders of individuals. Hardly a prescription for fiscal responsibility.

Time to grow up and take some responsibility.

CT05 Admin said...

Here's some reality for you:

... farsighted thinkers are already suggesting that the Veterans Health Administration, not President Bush's unrealistic vision of a system in which people go "comparative shopping" for medical care the way they do when buying tile, represents the true future of American health care.
- Paul Krugman, NYT 27 Jan 2006

Start here.

Anonymous said...

so giving people something for free is responsible?

It's like the deficit. The Republicans are to blame and they are cutting too many programs.

Math majors, all of youse guys

Anonymous said...

Krugman still consulting for Enron?

Denise said...

it IS curious that Malloy didn't mention the Rell/Rowland failure to deal with health care, but plaudits to him for putting it on the table. Great issue.
Problems with Husky: Administration has been adept at making signup complicated in order to reduce enrollment. Malloy solution deals with this by expanding to parents. Biggest problem, as franks says here, is finding providers. Reimbursements are very low and don't begin to cover the cost to providers, sometimes as little as 1/3 of the actual cost. So actual cost really is higher if we deal with this.
Most of the unenrolled children are already eligible for the program. Outreach was eliminated in the budget some years ago by Rowland admin - to reduce use. Easy to reinstate that. Glad to see that the Malloy proposal addresses the issue of illegal children - they represent a large number of the uninsured children.
Children and their parents are a bargain medically- they consume almost none of the cost for drugs and only about 1/3 of the total cost of Medicaid. Preventive care saves large amounts later. Now, anybody have a solution to the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and nursing home care for our elderly (soon to be many of us)?? There's the real cost of Medicaid.

Anonymous said...

are the feds going to reimburse a program for free medical care for undocumented aliens?

Me thinks we'll be stuck with the full tab

MikeCT said...

I agree with you on everything, except that children are not "illegal", even if they are undocumented. It would be great if these kids were included in his plan, but I don't see it in his plan summary.

CT05 Admin said...

Denise quoth:

Now, anybody have a solution to the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and nursing home care for our elderly (soon to be many of us)?? There's the real cost of Medicaid.

Yes, but I'll leave the policy prescriptions to the candidates ;-)

My proposed contribution to the skyrocketing cost of pharmaceuticals? Kick Nancy Johnson out of our Congressional seat and shred the debacle boondoggle "Medicare Modernization Act of 2003"

Anonymous said...

So is the Dem complaint that Nancy's program didn;t just hand prescritpion drugs gratis to every senior?

Seems that is the primary complaint.

I suspect that program would cost considerbly more than the Iraq war. As is, if we reduce troop levels the Iraq war will probably end up closing less than Medicare RX

The Romans bought votes with bread and circus. The Empire might never have fallen if they could give away free zoloft

BTW, the state employees family COBRA is about $1300/month. Malloy is going to ensure kids for $1300/year.


CT05 Admin said...

No, the Democratic complaint is nothing of the sort.

Read the postings on and you'll see that, among other things, my complaint is that the program is a blatant give away to the people writing her checks.

In fact, tens of thousands of dollars were donated to her while the legislation was being considered and reported out of the committee she chairs! Talk about greasing the wheels of government...

Illegal? Maybe. Unethical? Probably. Incredible hubris? Definitely.

And speaking of Empires falling, you know what they say about hubris.

Joe Berenguer said...

Hi, Fellow!I like your blog!
I just came across your blog and wanted to
drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with
the information you have posted here.
I have a insurance center
site. It pretty much covers insurance center related subjects.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Best regards!

Chris Moonbeams said...

Hi, I was just wandering the blogosphere and here I am at your blog. I enjoy the style of how this all works.

This is one to watch.


California Health And Medical Insurance

Personal Development said...

The personal development industry has never been bigger! It consists of a myriad of authors basically telling us how to improve our lives. We are constantly being told self help and self improvement has never been easier. New techniques, gadgets and potions adorn the shelves of new age shops and the 1 billion dollar industry, that is personal development, offers many different approaches to help better our lives. They offer ways to increase our bounty and ultimately alter our own reality. A great example of this is how to develop a Prosperity Consciousness. But does this state really exist and if it does will it bring the effortless unlimited wealth promised?
A lot has been written about prosperity and how to attain it. We have been told by many religious traditions and every personal development guru that the Universersal Source (God, Spirit, Cosmic Mind or whatever label you chose to give it) is boundless wealth. We are also told that abundance, wealth and prosperity are our birthright! Why then are so many people ill, broke, frustrated and unfulfilled? Can a person really develop a prosperity consciousness and effortlessly attract wealth? Well as with everything in life there is only one way to find out. Test it for yourself!

Before we can attain and then test the effectiveness of having a prosperity consciousness we need to understand some basic truths. Let's start by explaining three fundamentals of personal development namely; 1. The Universal Source is all wealth, abundance and prosperity; 2. Prosperity is our birthright; 3. You get more of what you focus on.

1. Why are we told that the Universal Source is unlimited wealth? - Because the Universal Source is the consciousness of the Universe - a universe that is still expanding. It is the driving force behind physical reality. It created everything you see, hear, touch and smell as well as all that we are unaware of (microwaves, radiation, air etc.). It has been stated in religious and metaphysical traditions that this intelligence is not only the Source of everything but that it is also the substance of it! It creates the Universe from itself! It is omnipresent (everywhere present). That means that the entire seen and unseen aspects of the universe are a part of this Universal Source. Science reaffirms this theory as it states that nothing is solid and everything is just one mass of pure energy that vibrates at different frequencies and gives the illusion of separateness.
So we can now claim that the Universal Source is unlimited wealth, abundance and prosperity with some belief. For if this Source is the very substance of everything then it is all the wealth, abundance and prosperity that exists at this very moment!
Ok so far? Now lets look at the second point - prosperity is our birthright.

2. If this Universal Intelligence is the source and substance of all things then there can be only one intelligence in the Universe. Jesus said to his disciples "know ye not that you are the temple of the living God?" Buddha attained enlightenment and "oneness". The list of these religious teachings are too numerous to mention but their message remains the same - God (Universal Substance) resides within and around us. It's very substance makes up our physical body and the world around us - "For in him we live, move and have our being" Acts17:28. Therefore, if this Universal Source is at the very core of our being and is the substance from which we take physical form then it stands to reason that we are connected to everyone else and in fact everything else around us - we are a part of all the wealth, abundance and prosperity of the universe. Just as your hand or foot is a part of your body, so every grain of sand, blade of grass, wisp of wind, bar of gold and brick that is laid in a mansion is part of you. The unlimited wealth of the universe is yours for the claiming. It is already yours, always has been and always will be. It is a part of you.
Ok let's go the third point - you get more of what you focus on.

3. "It never rains but it pours", is a saying I have used myself in the past. Have you ever wondered why such a statement appears to be true? Well metaphysics and religion tell us that "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he" or as Job cried out to God "For that which I greatly feared has come upon me". What we focus our conscious attention on increases! Don't believe me? Test it for yourself! If you can muster up the strength to do it then think in negative terms for a week. Judge everything that happens to you in negative terms and think only of a negative outcome and watch what happens in your world!!! This is a relatively easy experiment as we are conditioned to think negatively by the world. A word of warning though - once you prove that your focus determines your reality stop thinking negative thoughts as best you can.
I will not go into the 'hows' of why our focus has such a profound influence on our lives (that would be the subject of a book or perhaps a future article) just prove to yourself that it does. A clue can be found in the teachings of Jesus when he said "The Kingdom of heaven is within".
So now we have the three principles of the prosperity consciousness explained let's put it to work. The attainment of a prosperity consciousness is relatively simple - just think on the first two principles until you fully understand them and integrate them into your consciousness. As you focus on them you will discover that your feelings of lack disappear and you begin to feel a connection with everything around you. It is really just an attitude shift - nothing metaphysical or mystical about it at all. You begin to consciously realize that everything is a part of you. Your focus changes from poverty to wealth.
If it helps make a list of affirmations that correspond to the two principles outlined e.g. "God is the Source and substance of everything", "I am at one with everyone and everything around me", "I am a part of all the wealth, abundance and prosperity of the Universe" etc. Don't just rhyme them off in a parrot like manner, think on them and realize the scientific or spiritual truths behind them.

Will it work? Well I can say now that if you follow the above instructions a real change will happen in you. You will start to see the beauty of the world and the unlimited resources that are available within and around you. Will you attain wealth, abundance and prosperity? Test it for yourself!

Anonymous said...

Pop goes the Housing Bubble? A Florida subdivision -- -- characterizes the area, the problem, and the answer.

Anonymous said...

Enjoyed visiting your site. Got to get back to my own, where we spotlight homes for sale on a website dedicated exclusively to the selling of a home. Not just any old website. But a website highly-ranked in the search engines , with thousands of back links already in place, directing traffic to a seller's exclusive listing.

Anonymous said...

Here's the home buying process into a single weekend. She does it by compressing the real estate marketing budget into a much tighter timeframe than normal .