....Because Reality Never Crosses State Lines.....

Unswayed by the financial carnage wrought by the Massachuseets
universal health care/ mandatory health insurnace plan in 2006, the
NY Times reports that essentially similar proposals are being
considered in Connecticut....with the *endorsement* of the
Connecticut State Medical Society .....and by those who are smugly
assured that reality doesn't cross state lines...

If you are a CT physician, and disagree with the below proposal,
contact the CT State Medical Society to voice your oppositon

http://www.csms.org/

Consider drafting an electronic letter that can be circulated state-
wide to CT physicians and to the media to voice your collective
opposition to the medical society's proposal.

Hartford Hears Health Care Proposal

"In a sign of the growing public clamor for a solution to the state's
ailing health care system, more than 1,000 residents packed a
downtown meeting space here Tuesday night as a new universal program
that promises to cover 98 percent of Connecticut residents by 2014
was unveiled.

The plan, presented in the lobby of Union Station in downtown, would
create an extensive health insurance purchasing pool that would
include state employees, retirees, people covered by state assistance
and the public.

It would provide all residents access to their choice of health
coverage and care regardless of their employment status, age, or pre-
existing conditions, according to the Universal Health Care
Foundation of Connecticut, which presented the proposal after two
years of planning.

The proposal is one of several that state legislators will examine
during this session as they work to develop a statewide health care
plan.

The idea for the proposal took root in 1997 when a coalition of labor
organizations and advocacy groups sued the for-profit Anthem
Insurance Company over its merger with the nonprofit Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Connecticut. In 2006, the group, by then calling itself the
Universal Health Care Foundation, began a statewide campaign for
universal health care.

Proponents have touted the foundation's proposal as a model that
could be used nationally and that would fit in with the new
administration's plan to provide better and cheaper access to health
care.

During Tuesday night's gathering, the speeches were at times drowned
out by the crowd's chants of "Yes, we can!" and "health care now!"
The program has the support of some major Democratic leaders,
including Donald E. Williams Jr., the Senate president pro tem and
Christopher G. Donovan, speaker of the House.

"I am here on behalf of the more than 7,000 Connecticut physicians
who know first hand that our health care system needs change," said
Dr. Michael M. Deren, chairman of the Connecticut State Medical
Society, which advised the foundation on its proposal. "We believe
today's proposals match many of the concerns expressed by physicians
across the state. And we urge our lawmakers to embrace these concepts
and make them reality."

Juan Figueroa, president of the foundation, said: "This is in essence
a public plan designed to compete in the private market place. You
are using the purchase power of the state to create a pool."

The plan could save individuals and employers $1.7 billion by 2014,
the foundation said. The state would need to spend an additional $950
million in 2014 when the program becomes fully operational.

According to the proposal, enrollees in the program would be charged
premiums on a sliding scale based on their ability to pay. The
insurance pool would be open to individuals, small businesses,
nonprofit organizations and municipalities as an alternative. Or
residents could choose to stay with their existing plans.

Full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/nyregion/connecticut/18healthct.html
?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

-------------------------------------------------------------------

An excerpt from an excellent article on Massachusett's failed
experiment in universal health care:

Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for
America

..."In April 2006, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation
to require that all of its residents purchase health insurance. This
mandatory insurance was the centerpiece of a "universal" health care
law hailed by analysts as an "innovative bipartisan plan...

The Massachusetts plan consisted of the following major elements: The
state would establish a quasi-governmental authority known as the
Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector (or "Connector") to serve as
a clearinghouse through which individuals would be able to purchase
state-approved insurance plans.

Every resident would be required to purchase a health insurance plan,
either from a private insurer or though the Connector, with stiff
financial penalties for those who failed to comply.

Residents who could not afford insurance would have their expenses
subsidized by the state in part or in full, depending on their
income..

In theory, the plan would lower individual patients' insurance costs
by enlarging the pool of insured patients. In particular, younger,
healthier patients (who often choose not to purchase insurance) would
be required to do so, thus paying a portion of the health costs of
the larger population....

...Yet two years after its inception, the Massachusetts plan has
failed to achieve either of its goals. The plan did not lower health
care costs, nor did it achieve universal coverage.

Thus, given the growing popularity of mandatory health insurance,
Americans would do well to take a close look at the results of the
Massachusetts plan-and, more importantly, at the reasons for those
results. Let us look first at the results.

The Results in Massachusetts

Although advocates of the Massachusetts plan claimed that it would
lower health care costs and achieve universal coverage, it has done
neither. Instead, the plan has increased costs for individuals and
the state, reduced revenues for doctors and hospitals, and left
Massachusetts officials in the awkward position of having to admit
that their "universal coverage is not likely to be universal any time
soon."

Costs have risen for individuals because, under this plan, as under
any mandatory insurance scheme, the government must define what
constitutes an acceptable insurance policy.

As a result, special interest groups have been given both the
incentive and the means to lobby politicians to include their pet
benefits as part of the government-approved plan.

Consequently, the state government requires all patients to
purchase "benefits" that are useless to many of them-benefits they
would never voluntarily choose to purchase in a free market.

For example, Massachusetts currently requires insurance plans to
include forty-three mandatory benefits... These mandated benefits
have raised the costs of health insurance in Massachusetts by 23 to
56 percent.

Costs to the state government have skyrocketed and are projected to
run hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.

Because the mandated insurance is so expensive, the government has
had to subsidize the costs of the premiums not only for lower-income
residents, but also for residents with incomes as high as $60,000 for
a family of four-which is three times the Federal Poverty Level.

The state had expected a "significant drop in spending . . . for the
uninsured" but has since acknowledged that this "is not going to
happen to any large extent in 2009. Instead, overall costs to the
state have risen by more than $400 million, 85 percent more than
originally projected.

Because of its own rising costs, the state government has cut
payments to doctors and hospitals...

full article:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-
insurance.asp