A key issue is that the plan would require relatively high deductibles, some high co-pays, and other cost-sharing by consumers. As a result, people with serious health problems could spend more than $2,000 a year on medical bills - on top of the premiums they would pay.
"It doesn't appear to be providing any sort of universal health care coverage," said Beverly Brakeman, director of the labor and community coalition called Citizens for Economic Opportunity. She's glad Rell is "belatedly entering the debate," but she says not everyone can afford $250 monthly premiums.
Michael Starkowski, deputy commissioner of the state Department of Social Services, said the state is striving to keep premiums "reasonable" while protecting benefits, in hopes of attracting enough healthy consumers to make the program viable.
If only sick people bought the Charter Oak policies, claims would be higher than expected and premiums wouldn't be as affordable, he said.
The other out-of-pocket costs for buyers, such as a $1,000 annual per-person deductible, would help keep the premiums down, state officials say.
But the plan is expensive and "as it's presented, doesn't get us where we need to go because there's no investment by the state," said Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, adding he's glad Rell is talking about health care.
Also, the $1,000 deductible and high co-pays "are not going to encourage people to seek medical treatment unless they're experiencing severe problems," Williams said.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Trust me, as we approach 2007, this proposal will be torn apart from every angle. I can't tell you how many emails I've received on this subject from readers and activists and I'll start to roll out the objections to Rell's proposal later in the week.
This whole archiving and cataloguing my database thing is insane and is consuming most of my time right now and since it's the holiday, I'm putting a semi-hold on any reporting right now.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
