CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

The Truth Behind The Obamacare Headlines

by | Jul 24, 2013 4:30am () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Health Care, Audio Evidence

In anticipation of the release of Connecticut’s health insurance rates offered through Obamacare next week, the head of Connecticut’s Insurance Exchange called for a little more truth in reporting about the Affordable Care Act.

Last week, a front page story in the New York Times declared rates for individuals in New York state would decrease 50 percent under Obamacare.

But that’s not the full story.

Access Health CT CEO Kevin Counihan said New York has no pre-existing condition restrictions and doesn’t set rates based on demographic data, such as age or gender. As a result, sicker individuals tend to purchase it. Counihan said those “higher utilizers” increase premiums. This leads healthier individuals to opt out of the individual marketplace, forgoing health insurance, and sending the plan into an actuarial “death spiral” of high rates.

As a result, New York’s population of nearly 20 million includes only about 17,000 in the individual market where average premiums were about $1,000 per month. In Connecticut, with its population of 3.5 million, there are about 175,000 who currently buy their insurance in the individual market. The average monthly premium is roughly $540 for an individual.

Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said Monday that rates offered in the exchange will continue to vary on a state-by-state basis depending upon which health insurance companies agree to participate and just how much competition there will be in the marketplace.

She said at the moment New York is a voluntary market so people can wait until they’re sick to purchase insurance, which keeps rates high in that state. Under Obamacare, all individuals not covered by their employers will be mandated to purchase coverage or pay a penalty equal to 1 percent of their annual income and not less than $95.

“The thing to remember is hardly anybody buying through the exchanges will pay the sticker price,” Pollitz said.

Anyone who makes under 400 percent of the federal poverty level — which is $94,200 for a family of four — will receive a subsidy from the federal government for purchasing insurance on the exchange.

Christine Stuart photo In his presentation to insurance executives Tuesday, Counihan didn’t only single out New York for telling half-truths about what will happen to rates under Obamacare. He also pointed to California, where he worked briefly before coming to Connecticut.

California announced in May that their rates were going down 28 percent under Obamacare, but they were comparing the individual market to the existing small group market.

“If you know anything about underwriting you know that in that state they’re underwritten very differently,” Counihan said. “To me it’s a little bit of apples and oranges.”

In this Forbes article, Forbes’ Avik Roy explains that in California a non-smoking, 25-year-old male will pay 100 to 123 percent more on monthly premiums in the exchange than he currently pays in the individual market. That number increases as the age of the individual increases and only those under the age of 30 can buy catastrophic plans in the exchange.

“This is the world we’re living in,” Counihan said. “We’re living in soundbytes. We’re living in snapshots, and dealing with people who don’t want to do hard analysis.”

He said it’s “tempting” to operate that way, but “that’s not the approach we’re going to take as a state.”

Having recently returned from a meeting with White House staff, Counihan said he understands the pressure of elections and the desire to show that there was a decrease in rates, but “at the same time the risk of that has the potential for undercutting other things.”

“I’m not sure if it’s right or wrong, that’s just what we’ve decided to do,” Counihan said Tuesday.

The Access Health CT Board of Directors is expected to learn from actuaries what the cost of the plans participating in Connecticut’s exchange may be at its special meeting on Tuesday, July 30.

Five companies have submitted plans to the state Insurance Department for review:

—Aetna (Individual)

—Anthem (Individual)

—Anthem (small group)

—ConnectiCare Benefits Inc. (individual)

—ConnectiCare Benefits Inc. (small group)

—HealthyCT (individual)

—HealthyCT (small group)

—United Healthcare (small group)


Connect with Christine:

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

Comments

(29) Archived Comments

posted by: RAN | July 24, 2013  8:27am

Counihan is being somewhat understated in his comments about NY and CA.  Those states are outright lying about their exchange rates.  No one who knows anything about health insurance believes that Obamacare is going to lower rates/costs.  When was the last time that the governments involvement in anything resulted in lower costs and increased efficiency? Answer: Never!  Can you say, Detroit?  ‘Nuff said.

posted by: JAM | July 24, 2013  10:18am

Sounds like we’re getting prepped for sticker shock.
It seems the clear message is not to expect cheaper insurance through the exchange.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 24, 2013  10:21am

This law is a disaster - another Ponzi scheme requires membership of younger (less medically active) to pay for the medical payments of older folks.  Wouldn’t a free market (individual medical savings account) work better without forcing people to purchase a product from a corporation… i suppose that doesn’t comport with the corporatists agenda as they are in bed with politicians in Hartford and DC.  What ever happened to the Individual in our society?

posted by: JH_1 | July 24, 2013  11:12am

There is going to be a lot of pain in the wallets for a lot of people come January 2014 because of higher medical insurance premiums.

In my own personal budget, I’ve assumed a 30% increase in medical insurance premiums. 

I have absolutely no idea what the increase will be, but if that’s what it is, then it won’t affect my budget since I would have expected it.  If the increase is lower, than it’ll feel like savings.  If the increase is higher, then that will stink.

posted by: JAM | July 24, 2013  12:27pm

@RAN:
read today’s lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal. NY’s market for individual health insurance has been a mess for years, and premiums have been out of control.
I won’t try to repeat the editorial here, but bottom line is the NY pool consists of only 16,000 (yes that’s 16K for the entire state and most of those had a pre-existing conditon when they got in). The savings being claimed for NY come off a totally distorted market, which, if you introduce lots of healthy (young?) people into it, can’t do anything but go down.
When you read about this particular situation, you get get a good idea of what can go wrong with ObamaCare rather than what can go right.

posted by: RAN | July 24, 2013  2:38pm

JAM - I know.  NY stating that their exchange rates will be lower is liking saying your new KIA price will be lower than the Lamborgini price that you’ve been paying.  The rate reduction claim is more than just an apples to organges comparison.  It is complete deception.

posted by: wmwallace | July 24, 2013  3:13pm

Maybe this is why union’s are bailing left and right.

posted by: CT Jim | July 25, 2013  6:06am

Seems like everybody posting today has some sort of PHD in health insurance. Just over a year ago they were constitutional lawyers saying the law was unconstitutional. After the suprememe court told them to pound sand theyve gone to the sky is falling the sky is falling. I guess if the sky doesn’t fall you’ll still have Benghazi. You should start looking for other scandals your getting boring

posted by: RAN | July 25, 2013  7:43am

CT Jim: I’ve been in insurance since 1989.  You obviously know nothing about insurance.  So tell me what does the government do better, i.e. more efficiently and cost effectively, than the private sector?  Please tell me health insurance, right?  THe government, as they are always prone to do, underestimated the future cost of Medicare by a whopping factor of 9.  Stick to what you know and love, socialism.  Leave insurance to the experts.

posted by: JH_1 | July 25, 2013  10:21am

CT Jim - Your comment is a little hypocritical, isn’t it?  Wasn’t it only a few months ago that liberals were warning of the sky falling because of the looming sequester? 


As for the upcoming health insurance premiums, you’re letting your ideology get in the way of logic.


Health insurance policies are priced based on risk.  The higher the risk pool, the higher the premiums needed to pay for future claims.  With so many previously uninsured or high risk people being added to existing groups, the risk threshold will likely increase, therefore causing a jump in required premiums.


The only way to offset that is to balance the total risk by adding a lot of younger people who tend to be healthier and with lower risk.

posted by: gutbomb86 | July 25, 2013  1:00pm

gutbomb86

Plenty of crock-of-poop-a-doodle-do in this comment thread, per usual.

@JH_1: Insurance rates should be based on risk, but instead they are based on risk plus outrageous B.S. like:

-markups to support ridiculous salaries and bonuses for upper management

-constant refusals of coverage for basic health needs and enabled by both dirty policymakers and ridiculous fine print that contradicts spoken language (and in some cases, written) at point of sale;

-prejudicial pricing for women as if men aren’t part of the childbirth process

-refusal to cover pre-existing conditions

-total lack of accountability or penalties for insurers who violate agreements or otherwise fail to deliver.

The list goes on. The new healthcare system will take a little time to configure but at the end of the day, having everyone in the pool will drive down rates.

@RAN - if you’ve been in for-profit insurance since 1989, rather than nonprofit (the way insurers should operate), then really you’re just speaking from a point of self-preservation. How about helping consumers? Claiming the gov’t can’t be as efficient as private insurers is a falsehood. The massive markup and the refusal of services, et al, can’t be ignored. Private insurance has a license to print money.

posted by: JH_1 | July 25, 2013  2:04pm

Gut -  Any other BS stuff you mentioned was in there before the affordable care act was put into law.  What will change?  The overall risk level, thereby driving up rates.

It’s basic logic.  When you add more risk, how can rates not go up? 

Only time will tell whether rates will go down.  I’m not banking on it.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 25, 2013  2:21pm

gutbomb - I think you need a refresher course on what insurance is.  It is not a catch all; it is a business arrangement between a private person and a company - who indemnify risk.  Pre existing conditions make the ‘risk’ part much more likely and either cost prohibitive for the person (through high premiums) or the company through high pay out.  To say “those evil bastards didn’t pay for his cancer” when he had cancer as he showed up is to misunderstand the relationship of the insured and the insurer.  They are in the business of making money through the actuarial probability of risk.  Adding risk to the market does nothing but force high premiums on ALL.  This fundamental misunderstanding of insurance is what leads the common low info voter to think they are entitled to the services of someone else’s labor.  I.e. doctors.  What is the second order effects of the pressure on the medical profession?  A shortage of doctors, and they get squeezed at both ends through malpractice law suits (which they have to buy super expensive insurance for) WHY do they have to pay super high premiums for that - because the contingency fee billing has markedly increased ‘nuisance’ law suits against doctors and made payouts (risk) more prevalent and thus the insurance more expensive.  You want to make it seem like this is a corporate issue, when it is much more complicated than that.  This is why the law sucks. I stand by my previous statement that it is a ponzi scheme because it depends on the younger not so sick people to pay in for their healthy years so the system can afford to pay for the multitudes of older folks who are more sick…so long as we have young healthy people not going to the doctor the system will work…once they start the ‘entitlement’ thinking and going to the doctor for every nick and cut… system crashes…but they know this already.  If you haven’t read rules for radicals yet…you may want to start.

posted by: gutbomb86 | July 25, 2013  4:30pm

gutbomb86

“To say “those evil bastards didn’t pay for his cancer” when he had cancer as he showed up is to misunderstand the relationship of the insured and the insurer.”

It’s not a misunderstanding, ASTANVET. Precisely the opposite. It’s a decision to change the system because a system that is attempting to profit off the sick is immoral, inadequate, and criminal. The previous status quo - what you just described above - is a complete failure and has been for a long, long time. Deny all claims, right?

Maybe you’ve been among the lucky ones and haven’t lost your home. Or you’ve been taking advantage of the VA system - good for you. That’s basically a single-payer healthcare system that we’d all like to access. If you’re a vet, you’ve earned plenty of respect from me and anyone else who understands sacrifice. But that doesn’t mean you should be the only ones with access to good healthcare.

What I see from your response is kind of a fundamental lack of comprehension or empathy for society as a whole. It’s common among people of retirement age, unfortunately.

Everyone needs healthcare. We were pushed to the ACA. The country, by a huge majority, wanted single-payer and your wonderful clowns in the House wouldn’t allow it because they were protecting their buddies in the for-profit insurance industry. Instead, we have this and we’re not going to repeal it. We’re not going to go backward. We’re going to try to make it work because it has to. It’s not a partisan issue. Everyone needs access to healthcare. If you don’t like that, you’re in the wrong country. We’re inclusive here.

@JH_1 - clearly you’re offering a lot of BS yourself. Sour grapes perhaps. At this point, people have already begun receiving rebate checks because of the new 80/20 rule, which is a step in the right direction. People are no longer being refused insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Health insurers are being forced - by the govt - to become more efficient. Kind of a shocker considering the rhetoric we hear from insurance companies and anti-govt types like yourself these days.

Unless insurers are allowed to game the system, rates should go down. If they don’t, the logical step is to add more people to the pools, or combine the pools, to spread out the risk. I think you can understand that.

Or are you suggesting that the wealthy & healthy should get to be in their own pools and pay low premiums while the poor and sick get jammed with premiums they can’t afford? Bottom line here is that every person should have equal access to healthcare. If you can’t understand that, I’ll suggest that you’re missing out on the concept of empathy.

posted by: Fisherman | July 25, 2013  7:15pm

OK, Christine… who do I see about getting the quotations of other posters in BLUE with a box around them; or having the select words in my postings appear in BOLD like “gutbomb86”?

posted by: Christine Stuart | July 25, 2013  7:54pm

Christine Stuart

@Fisherman - it’s HTML. the comment fields are kind of HTML friendly. Check out this link for the blockquote

And to make stuff bold or italic you use “strong” and “/strong” or “b” and “/b” and “i” and “/i” but instead of the ” you use the less-than or greater-than symbols. Click the links in this comment and there’s instructions. > <

posted by: ASTANVET | July 25, 2013  9:31pm

Gut - just to be clear, i am a combat vet, and I do not use the VA system, even when it is shoved down our throats, i want the guys who need it to have access - the guys who are missing limbs etc… Not me.

posted by: JH_1 | July 26, 2013  3:50am

Gut - Nice post.  Offering BS?  Sour grapes?  Lack of empathy?  You clearly struggle to make your point without resorting to inflammatory remarks.  I’m not surprised as that’s the common denominator with all your posts.


Going back to my original comments, I stated a fact.  It’s insurance underwriting 101, increased risk will increase rates. 


I have no doubt the ACA will benefit some people and I actually agree with some parts of it.  However, I disagree with everyone else absorbing the cost through increased insurance premiums.  But I guess that’s redistribution 101.


I’m done with this topic.  I can only make my point so many times.

posted by: ALD | July 26, 2013  7:44am

“What I see from your response is kind of a fundamental lack of comprehension or empathy for society as a whole. It’s common among people of retirement age, unfortunately.”

I had no reason to add to this thread until I saw the above quoted comment.

I must say that comment is about as offensive, incorrect, and divisive, as I have ever seen posted anywhere.  That, is what is so unfortunate!!!!!!!

I am someone who is of retirement age. I have children. I also have a large extended family that includes many retired friends and relatives all of whom have many of their own children and grand children. Our collective concern for our society and the future society we are all creating for our children, and grand children is something we all worry about, and concern ourselves with, daily.

Just because we maybe a bit older does not mean we are unable to think. There is nothing wrong with our comprehension. That is certain. In fact it is exactly our clear comprehension that is the driving force behind our empathy for our society, as well as our deep concern for it’s future. 

It would be very easy to generalize as well.  But that’s just playing into a losing hand. And that also would be very mistaken, as well as very unfortunate.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 26, 2013  8:06am

Empathy is something one feels towards another person or group of people, you cannot legislate through empathy.  There are 3.5 million people in CT not everyone shares the same views.  If you feel empathy, volunteer, help your neighbor, get involved with your community…take action - do not use the force of government to compel someone to follow your empathy.  I have empathy for the over taxed, over regulated citizens of CT who are just trying to squeak by a living and provide for their families while big government central planners do their best to squash the last remaining shreds of individual freedom…  For governance I will stick with reason, not empathy.

posted by: RAN | July 26, 2013  10:10am

Gutbomb, you don’t run a business on “empathy”.  That’s how you end up with Detroit.  Corrupt politicians empathizing with unions thug bosses who, in turn, empathize with corrupt politicians. 
Profit is not evil.  There is no such thing as “not for profit”.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.  Not for profits have to take in more than they expend or they go under.  Healthcare is no different.  Go peddle your utopian garbage somewhere else.  More government can’t fix healthcare.  It is government that has destroyed healthcare.  Political know it alls, like Obama, telling us they know how to fix healthcare are like an arsonist running to the fire they started with a bucket of gasoline yelling for the rest of us to get out of the way so they can put the fire out.  Now all of our houses get burned down.  No thanks.

posted by: CTResidentForLife | July 26, 2013  12:26pm

What a mess this is going to be.

posted by: gutbomb86 | July 26, 2013  2:21pm

gutbomb86

@JH_1 - you referred to my comment as BS and thus opened the door. Try to tough it out, it’s a comment thread.

Also, your point about redistribution and the idea that you’re the only one who understands “logic” or who is stating “fact” is bunk. It’s interesting in that the whole concept of insurance is about spreading out the costs, but that you’re apparently only willing to spread out the costs to people who aren’t very sick or poor, correct? The best doctors only for the best patients?

You can walk away from discussion any time you want but at the end of the day, logic suggests that you’re still not providing a solution for everyone and that’s no longer acceptable to the rest of us on the outside of the insurance system. Rather than complain along partisan lines, why not try to be part of the solution and offer some ideas that will include everyone. I’m glad to hear that you like some of the provisions - I do too. Not all of it though. But I’m a fan of making it work rather than complaining.

I fully expect some bumps in the road on the way to changing the ridiculous, rigged system that was in place for so many years, robbing us all blind. Doctors deserve a better system as well.

So many people seem to only be able to look at this problem through partisan eyes that it’s difficult to get anyone on the right wing to even admit that there was a problem with the system as it stood before the ACA. This is THE reason we elected the guy - to fix it. And Republicans have fought it the whole way, creating a lot of the bumps themselves.

In terms of facts, yes you add cost when you add risk. You also decrease costs when you increase membership universally.

@astanvet - that’s interesting that you’re a combat vet who is avoiding the VA system. If you need the care you should access it, obviously. I respect efforts to remain independent but not at the expense of your health.

In terms of empathy for the overtaxed vs. the lack of empathy for the people who lose their homes or can’t afford food because of healthcare costs… well I think you can guess where I place my empathy.

@RAN - no, you don’t run a business on empathy. But you definitely DO use empathy when you make decisions about how you treat your employees. You DO use empathy when you consider public policy and the delivery of medical care.

And you definitely DO use empathy when you consider that health insurance ratepayers are funding $30 million salaries for single individuals in the corner offices of these insurers, along with the largest lobbying operation in Washington, while tens of millions of Americans can’t afford health insurance. At least a moral person considers those things. Where does that leave the folks who are fighting the ACA? That’s the difference between for-profit and not-for-profit - the inhumanity or humanity inherent in the top-end margin that benefits 1 person while bankrupting others. A rising tide raises all boats, unless someone has poked holes in the bottom of everyone else’s boat.

And thanks so much for mentioning Detroit, the new Republican dog-whistle word. Feel free to enjoy the impoverishment of people who would have had to live on $19,000/year pensions that they worked for throughout their whole careers. None of this has anything to do with this discussion or CT whatsoever, but I’m sure you enjoyed having said “Detroit” in a comment thread all the same.

No one wants a free lunch. They just want reasonably priced and administered health care. What we have now is phenomenal healthcare for the top 25% of our income brackets, mediocre & overpriced healthcare for the next 25% (care that often gets yanked out from under us), and then virtually zero healthcare available to the bottom half. It sucks and it’s time to change it, regardless of loud libertarian/republican/anti-gov’t complaints.

@ALD - I also find the echo-chamber of bitter, anti-gov’t tirades tiresome & divisive. Unfortunately, that’s what I see here on a continual basis. You are likely one of the few exceptions to the rule here in these comments but I’ll make an effort to avoid overgeneralizing if the folks here also agree to do so.

posted by: RAN | July 26, 2013  6:43pm

Gut - I can see it is useless trying to make you understand something you are incapable and unwilling to.  There is no such thing as coverage for all.  Only Utopians think the way you do.  Your philosophy results in spreading the misery not spreading opportunity.  Everyone doesn’t want to nor should they be coerced to conform to your philosophy.  There are millions who choose not to have insurance for their own personal reasons or by their own actions.  I know your type thinks you know what’s best for everyone else.  History is strewn with the human wreckage caused by your ilk. One size does not fit all.  Especially in this country.  The country that champions individual liberty and opportunity.  I know that sounds cheesy to you dictatorial types but it is the truth.  We will have to agree to disagree.

posted by: dano860 | July 27, 2013  2:41pm

What is healthcare? Is that when people take care of their health? Be proactive and exercise and eat properly, go to the doctor for annual check ups, go to the dentist at least once a year, is that healthcare? Owebamacare is dependent on proactive care to reduce costs. Do we really think people will stop living out of convenience stores? Do we think that they will eat properly as long as they can buy trash food with the S.NA.P. card?
...or is it when you get hurt doing dumb things then run to the E.R.? Is it waiting until you are so sick that you can barley move then race to the walk in clinic? Accidents are just that, accidents but care and concern can reduce trips to the E.R.
If you have motor vehicle insurance and are in an incident that requires medical attention then the insurance on the vehicle of the responsible party should cover the medical costs. Today they dump it onto the “health insurance” of the employer or the family members insurance that covers the family.
There are many changes to the way insurances work today that need revamping.
Even with cheap insurance people will abuse it if things aren’t changed. Abuse of the system is probably the largest driver of cost increases over the past 30 years.

posted by: gutbomb86 | July 27, 2013  4:25pm

gutbomb86

@RAN - Hey I wanted single-payer so don’t blame me for your problems. This compromise is the best we could do based on opposition from people like you.

It sounds more to me like you’re an insurance industry insider who is unwilling to even discuss changes to your industry because you stand to lose a lot of margin.

Whatever the case may be, please spare us the Republican dog-whistle words like “utopia” and “coerce” and “dictatorial” and all the other anti-gov’t talking points. The vast majority of Americans want better access to healthcare and we elected and then re-elected the president (by a large majority btw) in order to make this happen. There was no dictatorship, no coercion. Just a minority of red-faced, angry Republicans who no longer have a good understanding of who makes up the electorate.

Let’s face it - you’re in the industry and you don’t want to change it despite the fact that tens of millions of people can’t gain access to it. These are all going to be new customers. You’re likely going to make tons more money out of this, but because the gov’t and the president are making it happen you’re in an uproar. You’re operating as if your industry hasn’t done anything wrong or as if it hasn’t failed us one bit. I’ve got news for you - it has. I’m looking forward to having something smaller than a 5-figure annual deductible very soon. Thanks.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 28, 2013  11:39am

Gut - honestly my last comment on the subject - but you don’t know why I stay away from the VA - first of all, you want everyone to have the VA experience (per your previous comment) well guess what - it’s coming.  over a 260 day wait to get seen for an issue.  Disabled combat veterans with multiple issues can’t even see a doctor.  Why is that.. because the system is overloaded.  Why is that?  because the VA needs more members to get more appropriations, so they sign up every single returning veteran for some kind of claim… that takes processing time so that the guys that i know that have miraculously survived horrific injuries are waiting to get seen so that someone who has ‘eligibility’ goes there for a stuffy nose.  That is the health care system that you have now through the affordable health care act.  which is neither affordable, nor providing health care.  It is overloading the system and will create such a backlog that you may wish for the day when we as free people could make choices one way or another.  I will clearly not get through to you on this issue, but just remember - do not complain to your federal overlord when you can’t get seen by a doctor… you asked for it, you’ve got it… health care as provided to you by the same guys at the DMV… great job there gut…

posted by: ASTANVET | July 29, 2013  7:07am

Lawrence - I am happy to see that a libertarian leaning constitutional conservative and a self described liberal can some to some agreements - that does give me hope on a Monday morning.  I will respectfully disagree with the paid sick time, and the minimum wage - as I have read a log on the Min Wage from Thomas Sowell and have agreed with him that it has caused more poverty than it has ‘helped’.  Paid sick leave is another ‘benefit’ which should be best left to the businesses to offer as a competitive tool to attract the best and brightest to company A vs. company B.  But we aren’t hiring in this state so that is a moot point.  Not to get all Jimmy Carter, but we are in an economic malaise that will not break if we do not radically change our direction, priorities and philosophy.  Perhaps there is hope - I hope you see I’m not anti-employee - but believe in free will and freedom to choose - for businesses to make those assessments of what they can and cannot afford to offer services/product.  Allowing freedom back into the market place would create innovation, and growth.  But thank you for being respectful - that is also a lost art in the anonymous internet blog-a-sphere.  Good day to you sir!

posted by: ASTANVET | July 29, 2013  11:16am

Lawrence - I am happy to see that a libertarian leaning constitutional conservative and a self described liberal can some to some agreements - that does give me hope on a Monday morning.  I will respectfully disagree with the paid sick time, and the minimum wage - as I have read a log on the Min Wage from Thomas Sowell and have agreed with him that it has caused more poverty than it has ‘helped’.  Paid sick leave is another ‘benefit’ which should be best left to the businesses to offer as a competitive tool to attract the best and brightest to company A vs. company B.  But we aren’t hiring in this state so that is a moot point.  Not to get all Jimmy Carter, but we are in an economic malaise that will not break if we do not radically change our direction, priorities and philosophy.  Perhaps there is hope - I hope you see I’m not anti-employee - but believe in free will and freedom to choose - for businesses to make those assessments of what they can and cannot afford to offer services/product.  Allowing freedom back into the market place would create innovation, and growth.  But thank you for being respectful - that is also a lost art in the anonymous internet blog-a-sphere.  - sorry, i posted on the wrong thread… operator error!

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network

Categories

Our Partners

Sponsored Messages