June 10, 2008

Health care revolt starts in Bristol?

On a steamy evening in Bristol Tuesday, about 50 people rallied in support of universal healthcare.
“The fight starts here. It starts on the local level,” said Mayor Art Ward.
State Rep. Frank Nicastro, a Democrat whose 79th District covers the southern third of Bristol, reminded those in attendance that the American Revolution didn’t start in the nation’s capital.
It began, he said, with a few rebels in Boston “and it grew and grew and grew.”
“We can do the same thing when it comes to health care,” Nicastro said.
Supporters said that 10 percent of Connecticut residents, many of them in Bristol, don’t have health insurance or they have plans that cost them so much they’re afraid to go to the doctor because they still can’t afford it.
More than 500 Bristol residents signed a petition calling for universal health care.
City councilors unanimously backed that call at Tuesday’s meeting. One member of the council, Republican Ken Cockayne, abstained because he sells insurance.
“You can be sure this City Council is behind this resolution wholeheartedly,” Ward said.
Jody Trestman, a city resident facing whopping health care bills each month, said that “a person’s health care should no longer be trumped by a corporation’s bottom line.”
Christopher Wright, the Democrats’ 77th District state House district candidate, said that providing health care for all is a moral issue.
In the richest state in the world’s most wealthy nation, he said, it is “just wrong” that so many people either don’t have insurance or they have inadequate coverage.
“We need to take care of the least of us,” Wright said. “It needs to start here.”
Democrat Jacqui Denski of Plymouth, who is taking on an incumbent Republican in the 78th state House district, said that access to health care is “directly related to income.”
“People are dying because they can’t afford something,” said state Sen. Tom Colapietro, a Bristol Democrat from the 31st District.
“We’re the only country in the world that runs our health care system for a profit,” said Jim Hopkins, who’s been organizing on the issue for a quarter century.
For more information, the organizers’ website is www.healthcare4every1.org.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

"healthcare4every1" (which sponsered this "rally") is a push for national healthcare by the UAW.

This sounds more like the beginnings of the Bolshevik Revolution than the American Revolution. Since the Democrat Party is the palm of the UAW's hand of course all these Democrats are for it.

Steve,
Did you report that this effort is funded by the UAW?

Anonymous said...

The state should not welcome cities or any other person into the state healthcare system if they are not state employee. It's just crazy talk. How in the world would the state pay for it? What would it do to rates for other CT people outside of the state plan? Come on peolple wake up! Should everyone have insurance or some sort of coverage - yes! But what? I am not sure, but it should not be administered by the state for the average joe. The unions are behind this and could less about the average person needing coverage or the tax payer. They are only worried about their pockets and having to deal with one less issue when it comes to contract talks.

Steve Collins said...

No, because I don't know a thing about it. They were outside City Hall tonight and I caught what I could of it.

Anonymous said...

Nicastro and Colapietro are Union retirees and both have generous health care packages along with pensions. If the state went to Universal Coverage would they give up their coverage and pay in to the pool like all of us. Would they be willing to see an income tax rate in the mid teens in this state. How about all the people that work for insurance companies where would they find jobs? In a time of economic crisis people do not need another entitlement program to pay in to! I think insurance companies should not have been allowed to convert to stock companies as it brought in a 3 interest, the investor, when the policy owner and the investor are the same then it is not just about profit.

Anonymous said...

June 10, 2008 9:03 PM:

The UAW (which sponsers this drive) knows it'll never happen. It's just PR crap.

And you're right...but they all probably have guilty consciences.

john reek said...

steve, as usual your anonymous posters, who probably were "too busy/lazy" to come out tonight and get the facts, When there are more people in the pool its cheaper with the same coverage. the coverage is voluntary;
of course the unions are leading the way again there isnt a republican alive who would dare risk a single penny of profit to help anyone-ever

Steve Collins said...

Just Googling a little while the council's in secret session to talk about the Crowley property. I don't see anything obvious that says the UAW is funding this effort. It looks to me like this nonprofit is behind it:
http://www.universalhealthct.org/aboutus.htm

Anonymous said...

Steve, it's called Executive Session, not secret session.

Anonymous said...

Just went to the website and it has the issue, but no facts as to cost and coverage. I think the question is why is coverage so expensive? I bet regulation and mandates have a role. Why is it this country has 50 different set of rules when it comes to health coverage? Is that an effective way of doing things? Maybe we need one set of laws for all 50 states. Just a thought...

Anonymous said...

Steve - this is the folks behind it

http://www.healthcare4every1.org

Unions are all over it!

John Reek - your full of crap. Nobody after one year will be able to afford the policy renewels. Think about the risk for the company that is going to under write the policy for the state. There could be more then one - but belive me it will not be cheap after the claims start coming for a full year. The insurance rate the next year will most likely be doubled and the beat goes on...The unions are like slimy car salesmen - they make it sound real good - but in reality its junk!

Anonymous said...

while the council's in secret session to talk about the Crowley property.

"secret session"....keep taunting the monkeys Steve.

Steve Collins said...

They call it executive session. I call it secret session, which everyone understands and is entirely accurate.

Anonymous said...

Oh, but "executive" is such a BIG word, and those guys like to think they're pretty big.
Secret sounds so... dirty.

Anonymous said...

Steve, you call it what you want. Legally, it's Executive Session. If you ever wondered why few people trust the 4th Estate, this be it.

Anonymous said...

"Executive session" is just a euphemism for a session held behind closed doors, out of the eye of the public, or its eyes, ie. the press, and therefore, to call it a "secret session" is entirely accurate and far more descriptive than that stupid feel-good phrase.

Anonymous said...

Secret Session! Secret Session! Secret Session!

Steve Collins said...

Forgive me. I should always refer to everything by the name the government chooses rather than using simple English words that everyone understands. I'll try to keep that in mind in all my future endeavors.

Anonymous said...

Re; 10:52

That would be appreciated. You use the government mantle when it suits you and not when it doesn't. Consistency is all that we ask.

Anonymous said...

Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it????
-- Charlie Brown to Violet

Anonymous said...

...and the "government" is the very entity that gave the 4th Estate all of the FOI entitlements.

Steve Collins said...

Wow, and I thought that a free press was guaranteed by "we the people" in the Bill of Rights as a check on government power. Now I see it was just another entitlement granted us by a benevolent government.
And the FOI? I always thought it was a hard-won battle for greater sunshine on government activities, a battle fought for years by crusading journalists, lawyers and others to push lawmakers to approve a measure that benefits everybody, not just the press.
But perhaps it's best to just let the government operate secretly. I mean, we can trust the government to always do right, can't we?

Anonymous said...

My goodness, I do think I hit a nerve.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
...and the "government" is the very entity that gave the 4th Estate all of the FOI entitlements.

June 10, 2008 11:02 PM


Ummm... for your information, the Freedom of Information Laws are not "entitlements" that the guv'ment "gave" to the press. Free speech, the First Amendment and FOI laws apply to everyone, not just the press. We just happen to be lucky that there are some reporters out there, and Collins is one of them, willing to use and defend the FOI laws for the benefit of the rest of us, his readers, and the general public.

Anonymous said...

John Reek(s) like a FARC camp in the jungles of Columbia.

Now we know what you're all about comrade. Do you have your Che' shirt on today?

Anonymous said...

I prefer that the government not operate secretly, or even in Executive Session, the point being, the 4th Estate reports what's important to them.

The press disguises their agenda as what they think we should hear, observe and read. Tell us everything, not just what YOU think is important.

Don't despair, even the best of the best do it on a daily basis such as the Times and the W Post.

Anonymous said...

Re: 11:12 blog

Goodness gracious, quit pandering to the Press and to Collins. He and they really don't need it.

The fact is, the courts did legislate from the bench most of the FOI entitlements. The last time I checked, the judicial system is part of the government. Hence, the government did indeed favor the Press with FOI entitlements. You call it tomatoes, I call it tomaaatoes.

Anonymous said...

John Reek...you reak of union brainwashing and walk with communist lean. Go live in Venezuela...you pinko sympathizer, commie rat! LOL

Anonymous said...

The Freedom of Information Act is a law passed by the legislature. It is not something the courts did.

john reek said...

Wow!
Hey steve sorry to take away so many arrows aimed at you. As soon as I pull them outta my back I will give them back to Anonymous to reload.
Ahem, sticks and stones etc
healthcare for everyone should be a right not a privilage, the rich can take care of thier own (republicans) the working class takes care of thier own with a union to make sure those of the Wal Mart mentality dont screw us and who looks out for those under the radar?
Mainly the democrats and the 4th estate
power to the people
incoming!!!

Anonymous said...

Expanding the state pool so that nonprofits, small businesses and municipalities can join it MIGHT cost the state a tiny bit more, but it will do a world of good for everyone else. Even though I'm a Republican, I can see this is a simple issue. Expanding the pool will save money for Connecticut as a whole -- and give more people better health care.
And, yes, I can see where the logic ultimately takes us. I'm OK with that. Everybody should have good health care.

Anonymous said...

John Reek:

The country owes you a living too I assume?

Anonymous said...

Give Steve a break people. He didn't know about this historic vote because no one "leaked" it to him.

As to the vote itself, what a sham! Ceremonial show-biz that has no weight and will never see the light of day in Hartford.

As ot Mr. Reek and his "Democrats are the protectors of the weak and guardians of the downtrodden" argument all I can say is please spare us. Please don't tell us that you honestly believe that Democratic stalwarts such as Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton and the like never ever once passed legislation or voted for bills that would be sure to put more $$ in their pocket or should I say trusts. I think you've been sucking down a little too much union Kool-Aid.

former GOP activist said...

The most interesting article is in this month's National Review in regards to Teddy Kennedy's liberalism. The article in NR states correctly that JFK and RFK were no where near as liberal as Teddy K. And the article correctly states that the reason for Teddy Kennedy's far left liberalism is/was the Chappaquiddick affair.

Anonymous said...

john reek said...
steve, as usual your anonymous posters, who probably were "too busy/lazy" to come out tonight and get the facts, When there are more people in the pool its cheaper with the same coverage
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Maybe somone should remind this reeky guy what happened when the auto insurance coverage was expanded so we could LOWER everyones rates .

Guess what stinky .... everyones rates went UP !!!

Learn from history or be forced to repeat it .

Anonymous said...

And the article correctly states that the reason for Teddy Kennedy's far left liberalism is/was the Chappaquiddick affair.

June 11, 2008 4:31 PM
````````````````````````

And I thought the brain cancer was the explaination .... hmmmm..

Anonymous said...

You try to sound smart by citing National Review, yet it only reveals the ignorance of you and the National Review conservative ideologues. It is no revelation that Teddy is more liberal than JFK or RFK. Suggesting that it was related to Teddy leaving Mary Jo to die in the water is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Anonymous said...

"You try to sound smart by citing National Review"

-Well then you acknowledge that National Review "sounds smart" then huh? Guess what? It is and you are NOT!

Anonymous said...

National Review sucks. Yes, it "sounds smart" but the people writing those articles are dumb ideologues totally out of touch with reality.

Anonymous said...

9:03 ....All the more reason to vote for health care 4 all. These guys don't even need health care and they support helping those who don't . Unlike you who are sympathetic too or even sell insurance. You phonies should need help some day when people can walk around you when you are in need.

Anonymous said...

To the whiner 9:26 it's too bad you guys like to lie so much. You are shooting your mouth off and like always not knowing what your talking about. It isn't even mandatory. If you don't like it don't take it . Also it doesn't cost the state a dime. So once again who's lying and playing politics as usual. You know-it-alls as usual. And if these guys already have a great plan and pension as you say , isn't that what we want 4 all ?

Anonymous said...

There go the pathetic "Naysayers" and hate mongers again. I guess these jerks never learn. Patting theirselves on the back doesn't gain them any more support. People are catching on to these wannabees.

JaaJoe said...

Did you see the Bunk study stating 2/3 of doctors in America want National Health Care. The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in there 2nd question. I found this article, 60% of Physicians Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan, It's worth a read.

Anonymous said...

Oh BTW Steve did you report who pays for the anti working folks stuff? Like the insurance companies or the CBIA or their own special interest? Why not get it all ??

Anonymous said...

June 12, 2008 12:14 AM:

"Totally out of touch with reality"...IS YOU!
Is that why Joe Lieberman praised William F. Buckley so much when he recently passed away?

June 12, 2008 6:02 and 6:19:

No one can tell what you're babbling on about and NO ONE CARES!

Anonymous said...

I am a Republican who believes that access to quality and affordable health care is a God given right.

Come on people, get with it!
Let's catch up to the rest of the world.

Anonymous said...

"Come on people, get with it!
Let's catch up to the rest of the world"

--You mean like China and Cuba(where people camp out in a hay field waiting for surgery) or Zimbabwe where political opponents of the government get "non-elective surgery" (thugs hack off their boby parts)?
Wake up you idiot.

Anonymous said...

Hey 2;22 The idiot calling evrey one else one.I guess you think it's better to die because you can't afford a doctor rather than waiting in line to do so?

Anonymous said...

To 7:05 "Sticks and stones" That is your mentality !

Anonymous said...

Well it won't be Health Care 4 Everyone without $$$$. Yes, people may be able to save some money in the larger pool but they still will have to pay. How much? Single $4000? Married $7000? Family 9000?

What if they don't want to pay or can't? Who will pay when they show up at the Emergency Room? Will people be required to carry health care like Mass? Will employers be required to contribut a fixed amount/% toward these pool rates now that they are eligible for less expensive coverage for their employees?

I think that it is important to find a solution but all these questions need to be discussed.