When President Obama brings his gun proposals to Hartford, Connecticut today, using the state’s recently enacted restrictions as a backdrop to push for federal firearms limits, Mr. Obama should also use the occasion to ask Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy about his State’s troubled efforts on another Presidential priority — Obamacare.

Governor Malloy took to CNN this weekend in an unusually snarky interview, to thumb his nose at the legal gun industry, much of which is headquartered in his state. No doubt, he’s hoping that his legislative win on a state gun bill, and his turn in the national stage, will help stem some of his declining poll numbers back home.

But there’s another American industry that’s also headquartered in Connecticut: the nation’s insurers. If Governor Malloy is counting on the gun legislation to boost his standing in progressive circles, his stumbling on Obamacare could erase any new margins.

Eleven accident and health insurers are headquartered in the state, including the giant Aetna Inc (NYSE:AET). If Obamacare fails in Connecticut it will capture national notice — and at the worst time for a Governor standing for re-election in 2014.

Mr. Malloy was one of the first among the nation’s Governors – Democrat or Republican — to set about establishing a state based exchange under Obamacare. He set up a cabinet level department to spearhead the task. Connecticut spent more than $100 million in federal money alone erecting the initial architecture.

Governor Malloy’s early enthusiasm for Obamacare has produced some early results for his state. None of them are encouraging.

It’s now becoming clear that the options that Connecticut consumers will have access to in the new exchanges promise to be among the most expensive nationwide. At the same time, the price for health coverage in the remaining private insurance market (mostly for small businesses) is set to spike this fall

Almost everyone in Connecticut is going to have to pay more for health insurance starting next year, even while the woes help feed Malloy’s political ambitions. Governor Malloy’s early embrace of Obamacare, like the gun legislation, elevated his standing in national liberal circles. It hasn’t turned out as well for Connecticut residents.

In the “Constitution State,” unless you work for a large, self-insured company, there is simply no way out of the looming healthcare problems.

For one thing, the plans that Connecticut will offer in its new exchange could be among the nations costliest according to a draft proposal released in January.

Take these examples: Co-pays for a doctor visit will run consumers between $40 to $45 (against a current Connecticut average of $23.79) according to one estimate released by the State. Plan deductibles will be up to $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for families (against a 2011 State average of $1,331 and $2,500 respectively).

For those who buy insurance outside the exchanges — in the small group market (mostly small businesses) — rates starting this fall are estimated to rise between 20 and 25 percent according to a report from independent analysts. Connecticut’s aggressive embrace of the Obamacare regulations and the State’s long list of insurance mandates is at least partly to blame for putting Connecticut ahead of other states in the looming premium hikes.

Price hikes will be especially steep for those under the age of 30.

That’s because the current Connecticut rules let insurers charge six times more for the oldest people than for the youngest, who are typically healthier. The new Obamacare rules let companies charge just three times more for older, and often sicker clients. Younger workers will be forced to subsidize the older beneficiaries.

Connecticut took some of its own decisions that will add to the costs of the new coverage. The board that governs the Connecticut exchanges voted to forgo competitive bidding for insurers that will offer health plans under Obamacare.

The same board also weakened provisions meant to ensure that there are enough providers in the networks that these plans offer. It nixed a monitoring study (one being used in other states) that’s designed to make sure that providers listed on an insurers’ network are really available to provide care to beneficiaries.

The Connecticut Governor’s office didn’t return a request for comment.

Governor Malloy should hope that Mr. Obama brings more than a pat on the back when the President travels to Hartford today to help spike the football over Malloy’s gun win. Perhaps a federal job of some kind. With his national media tour in full swing, maybe that’s what Governor Malloy is angling for.

Because once Connecticut residents learn that they can’t escape the Governor’s fumbles on Obamacare; the Governor may hope he can escape Connecticut.

I believe it was Khross who first stated that the goal of the ACA was to make private insurance so expensive that we would need to move to a single-payer system?

Give the conspiracy theories a rest. it is a badly written Law , but not a malicious one. The goal of it all is socialized health care affordable to all. It is not going to work out that way, and it has way too many dark alleys in its design, but that is the goal. Remember what the path to hell is lined with.

It's not really a conspiracy theory.

What you are describing is a conspiracy. Since you don't have proof of this, it's only a theory.

I don't have proof of what? That the people want a single payer system? That they don't think it can be done in one step? Or that they think PPACA is one step in that road?

These are all 100% verifiable and were common discussions at the time the bill was "passed."

It is, therefore, not a very large leap to believe that they would have crafted something that drives people to governmental programs as an "intermediate step" towards their idealized single payer system.

= conspiracy theory.

So, to be clear, you believe that all speculation as to intent regarding any given topic is "conspiracy theory?"

Or are you selective to this particular topic, regarding speculation as to intent?

A theory as to whether a conspiracy exists is a conspiracy theory.

No, that's called speculation about intent. Many things in our society rely on it, like, say, the entire court system.

You are proposing that a group of like-minded people got together and set up a series of actions to bring about a specific result. That's a conspiracy.

con·spir·a·cy
[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA

noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Your proposal is conjecture, speculation, untested. It's a theory.

Prosecutors in the court system frequently propose theories as to why an individual would have performed an action. If that theory happens to be related to a group of individuals plotting activities to bring about a specific result, they would be proposing conspiracy theories.

It's really not rocket science to conclude that extending insurance (either for free or heavily subsidized) to 50 million people who couldn't afford it before is going to raise prices for everyone else. "Affordable care" could easily refer to the people who couldn't afford health insurance at all before. You're not going to show a conspiracy to eliminate private healthcare without being a mind reader.

It's really not rocket science to conclude that extending insurance (either for free or heavily subsidized) to 50 million people who couldn't afford it before is going to raise prices for everyone else. "Affordable care" could easily refer to the people who couldn't afford health insurance at all before. You're not going to show a conspiracy to eliminate private healthcare without being a mind reader.

No, it's a group working towards a common goal. Like a union, or political party, or a club, or a company, or partnership, or marriage, or anything where people get together to do something in common. Conspiracy would imply certain things, like, oh, I dunno, what the English language says it implies:



Please point to where I've stated that what they want is either illegal or "evil."

Also known as hypothesis, deductive reasoning, and logical inference. Again, common every single day in society. But yes, also a "theory."

Arathain:

Stop trolling this thread. Seriously. DFK! and I actually read that bill; DFK! because it's a professional requirement; me because I wanted to read it. There's no conspiracy theory, inasmuch as there's no conspiracy. Barring the fact that John Roberts changed the definition of a direct tax in his decision, the bill itself became a conspiracy of the criminal sort the moment the Solicitor General copped to it being a tax; because, amusingly, at that point they had intentionally and willfully attempted to mislead and defraud the American public by calling it a "fee".

Arathain:

Have you read the bill? The effects we are seeing in the media were known quantities as soon as the bill was signed. This wasn't "good intentions" -- these effects were known quantities. That said, the non-compliance fee is now a direct tax that required our Chief Justice to change 200+ years of juridical standing on what constitutes a direct tax in the United States. Never mind that at no point prior to arguments before the Supreme Court itself, did the bill's authors, the White House, the expert witnesses and industry testimony used to get it through Congress, etc., ever argue it was anything but a fee. Indeed, in point of fact, Anthony Kennedy damn near held the Solicitor General in contempt for persisting in calling it a fee until Kennedy curbed the Solicitor on the definition of taxes and fees in our legal system.

So, it really doesn't matter how you want to shout people down in this thread, because your definition of conspiracy has already been satisfied: our Congress and President needed the Chief Justice to change a constitutional definition -- direct tax -- and the actual selling point -- "non-compliance fee". It was sold to Americans, if you want to believe the media, as a market solution with a fee penalty for non-compliance. They didn't get it past John Roberts with a "fee". They didn't get it past the 4 no-voting Justices as a "tax"; and Kennedy's dissenting opinion is so scathing it's not even funny.

You're trying to diminish a legitimate opinion, but the facts are abundantly clear.

1. Obama argued it was a fee.
2. Congress argued it was a fee.
3. That fee became a tax in front of the Supreme Court; not before. In fact, less than a day before the arguments were heard, the White House was still calling it a fee.
4. It's a tax, per the admission of the Solicitor General and thus the Executive Branch (aka president).

Those four facts make it a conspiracy by the definition you proffered in this thread.

So stop trolling.

If you want to discuss the reality that it's to push us toward a single payer system, then do so,

but stop trolling.