HUSKY's flaws growing obvious (Creeping Socialism)

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | December 7, 2007 | Editorial

[Graybeard58]

In 1998, then-Gov. John G. Rowland boosted his re-election prospects by creating the Healthcare for UninSured Kids and Youth program. HUSKY was intended to provide no more than 90,000 impoverished children with the same access to medical care as state employees. But the issue was never about access, but who pays; ultimately, this "conservative Republican" chose the government solution.

At HUSKY's inception, 6.7 percent of Connecticut's children were uninsured. Today, HUSKY enrollment is a robust 323,000, even though the services it provides have never come close to matching the political rhetoric. And despite the infusion of hundreds of millions in state and federal taxes, a decline in child poverty from 11.7 percent to 10.2 percent and Gov. M. Jodi Rell's $1 million so-far successful campaign to increase the number of HUSKY clients, the program's effect on the rate of uninsured children, now 6 percent, is barely detectable. How can this be? Certainly, the 42 percent inflation-adjusted run-up in health-insurance premiums encouraged some businesses to eliminate health coverage, which forced some of their employees to resort to HUSKY. But government incrementalism is chiefly to blame. A program originally intended to serve poor children now takes all comers, including homeowners who can afford private health insurance for their children but choose instead to spend their money on trinkets and frivolities.

So in addition to 228,000 kids — about a quarter of the state total — HUSKY today serves 95,000 adults, more than the maximum number of children Gov. Rowland envisioned enrolling. And the program's fee structure perversely discourages a family of four, for example, from making a penny more than $61,950 lest their HUSKY premiums more than triple to $1,900 a year.

Now Gov. Rell is pitching her Charter Oak Health Plan again, which she estimates would cover at least 32,800 more adults by 2011. However, the special interests already are screaming it's not enough, and Democrats are planning to use her plan as the floor for a more ambitious expansion of government-funded health care.

HUSKY has failed the state in three ways: by creating the illusion the state can provide free or reduced-cost health care on a par with the private sector; by reinforcing the belief that if people can't get or don't want to pay for something, the government will buy it for them; and by moving the state closer to socialized medicine, a place to which most people will regret venturing soon after their arrival.

[Graybeard58]

Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.

If you want on or off this list, let me know.

[griswold3]

How can this be? Certainly, the 42 percent inflation-adjusted run-up in health-insurance premiums encouraged some businesses to eliminate health coverage, which forced some of their employees to resort to HUSKY.

It’s called ‘crowd out’! Insurance companies are making huge profits on government programs. They don’t have to compete for available dollars because of the ‘government handouts’. They still ration though.

[#1CTYankee]

"And the program's fee structure perversely discourages a family of four, for example, from making a penny more than $61,950 lest their HUSKY premiums more than triple to $1,900 a year."

So a family of four gets coverage for about $450.00 a year if they make less than $61,950?

Between the wife and I we fall well short of that amount, my health insurance at work costs me $3,400 a year with a $4,000 deductable.

I will continue to pay for it and yes, I live in Connecticut.

Am I stupid or what!!!

[Graybeard58]

Am I stupid or what!!!

No, you are in the minority at election time, just as I am at election time in Illinois.

I would like to see a ranking of the states from the most socialist states to the most conservative ones. Yours and mine would be right near the top on the socialist side.

For those who would suggest that we move. Things are never that simple. Jobs, property, family ties etc.

[traviskicks]

This is the shame of government plans, they destory the private market. Thanks for continuing the fight against socialism.

[#1CTYankee]

"I would like to see a ranking of the states from the most socialist states to the most conservative ones. Yours and mine would be right near the top on the socialist side."

"For those who would suggest that we move. Things are never that simple. Jobs, property, family ties etc."

Illinois is that liberal? I always think of the Northeast, Kalifornia, Washington and New York.

As far as moving I find it difficult to fathom, all of our ancestors (Short of coming from England) were born, raised and died here.
It seems wrong to me to be forced out by a bunch of nanny state socialists, why can't I live where I have the mountains, the beach, the change of seasons?

Until I can no longer afford to pay the bills I will not leave this land I love so very much.

[ought-six]

“Illinois is that liberal?”

Chicago and Springfield are definitely liberal. And such hell holes as Madison and St. Clair Counties are downright communist (they firmly believe that government is everything, and that government can never be too big or too intrusive). It is no coincidence that Madison and St. Clair Counties are listed as judicial hell holes, as the major means of earning money there is through filing lawsuits.