Skip to main content

Connecticut’s Socialists On Socialized Insurance


John Larson fulminating
A Hartford Courant statehouse reporter, Daniela Altimari, has had the intestinal fortitude to question Democrats in the U.S. Congressional Delegation concerning an attack upon the insurance industry in Connecticut. The title of her piece, With thousands of jobs at stake, Medicare for All is a complicated issue for Democrats in Hartford, the ‘Insurance Capital of the World’ is a bit cumbersome, but it frames the issue perfectly.

First up at bat is Rep. John Larson, the congressman for life in Connecticut’s 1st District, an impregnable Democrat fortress. Larson says he does not believe that Medicare For All should eliminate the insurance company product. And he is quoted in the piece: “Hey, Medicare for All, that’s a laudable goal. It’s something people can wrap their arms around. But like anything else, there’s a lot of detail that goes with that.” One of the details that goes with that is the certain destruction of insurance as we know it in Connecticut, once regarded as the insurance capital of the world.

“Larson,” Altimari remarks, “is among the Connecticut Democrats who reject any health care overhaul that eliminates private insurance companies from the marketplace. Millions of Americans get their insurance through the private market, and, he said, ‘they’re very reluctant to give that up.’”

Democrat presidential primary contestant U.S. Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren is quoted on the obscene profits of a very competitive insurance industry: “These insurance companies do not have a God-given right to make $23 billion in profits and suck it out of our health care system. The basic profit model of an insurance company is taking as much money as you can in premiums and pay out as little as possible in health care coverage. That is not working for Americans across this country.”

Larson was not asked whether he could name one company in the United States, small or large, that was not similarly interested in turning a profit. And Warren, a quasi-socialist foe of all "God-given" rights --  has not been asked by any of the numerous presidential primary contestants sharing a stage with her whether her distaste for profits might extend to all of the corporate contributors to her campaign, or whether she is willing to extend her quasi-socialist principle – that a central government should determine the profit line of a company – equitably to all businesses in the United States?

The most dramatic application of her principle may be seen today in Venezuela, once the most prosperous of Latin American countries, now reduced under the hammer blows of state planning to a smoking ruin. The ruination of Venezuela began with the governmental seizure of the nation’s once profitable oil industry under the withering hand of Hugo Chavez and his successor, former bus driver Nicholas Maduro.   

Of course, we know that a nationalized insurance industry financed through tax dollars will quickly replace private industries doomed to compete for product dollars.

Speaking for timid Connecticut insurance company CEOs, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a trade group, “submitted at a congressional hearing this spring on Medicare for All,” according to Altimari, the following position statement: “These proposals will mean higher taxes on all Americans, higher total premiums and costs for the hundreds of millions of people enrolled in private coverage, longer wait times, and lower quality of care. To put it simply, patients would pay more to wait longer for worse care. ... We should improve what we already have, rather than starting from scratch or moving in a completely different direction.”

No believer in half measures, U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal is all in on the total destruction in his state of an industry that uses part of its obscene profits to employ “17,000 people directly and support another 31,000 indirectly, according to a recent study by the Connecticut Economic Resource Center.”

Blumenthal is a co-sponsor of socialist Bernie Sanders’ plan. “He noted, in a recent interview," Altimari remarks, that the bill is just one of several health care reforms he’s endorsed. “’My goal is universal health insurance,’ Blumenthal said recently. ‘And that’s why I’ve endorsed a variety of different solutions. Any one of them will be tremendous progress toward that goal. I am not in favor of abolishing or eliminating private insurance for its own sake (emphasis mine).’”

For whose sake, other than his own, is Blumenthal willing to push forward a plan that would – everyone, even Sanders, is convinced – snuff out the insurance industry both in Connecticut and in the nation at large? Universal health care insurance would do to the nation's private insurance industry what the nationalization of the oil industry has done to the energy industry in Venezuela, and once nationalized under the Blumenthal/Sanders plan, the rubblized insurance industry cannot be reconstituted. Once shot at the socialist execution wall, the prisoner is dead forever.

Larson and other members of Connecticut’s all-Democrat U.S. Congressional Delegation hope against hope that the much reduced insurance industry in Connecticut – and its 48,000 impacted workers – will survive as boutique industry providing a more expensive product to gold plated people who can afford it.
    
“Our insurance industry” Larson says in the Altimari piece, “has done a very good job of providing the wraparounds. They would sell the programs that people with means and ability could purchase for expanded coverage.” Among the "people of means"  who will likely be able to afford boutique coverage are legislators who are loathed to commit to the universal health care plans they fully intend to impose on  everyone but themselves.   

Good luck with that.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p