Malloy To Hospital CEOs: ‘I Know You All Want More of My Money’

This is what I live for. This is why talk shows are successful. This why Democrats are on the ropes. Well … except in Connecticut. From Bless her heart.

I will admit when I first saw Christine’s headline I thought she was just teasing me. But as I read her amazing well written report I knew it just had to be true. Speaking to the Connecticut Hospital Association yesterday, Malloy took pains to explain why he would be eliminating the $83 million dollars hospitals receive for treating the uninsured in the state. But in true Democrat fashion, he will impose a 5.5% tax on providers to raise $260 million, some of which will be used to replace the lost funds. Problem solved? Not exactly.

What’s hard for the hospitals to swallow is the unfairness of the tax.

Under Malloy’s proposed hospital tax everyone can’t be a winner.

Harp said federal law dictates that 75 percent can be winners, but 25 percent have to be losers, meaning they receive less back than they contribute.

Cost shifting. Spread the wealth around. But that’s not the money line.

Malloy said he understands he’s taking away the money for the underinsured and uninsured fund two years before it’s scheduled to disappear under federal reform, but he tried to make up for that with the provider tax proposal.

“I’d prefer perfect, but it’s not the set of circumstances I’m dealt,” Malloy told Barwis.

If hospital executives were expecting Malloy to sympathize with their situation, it didn’t happen. Malloy offered the executives glimpses at the reality and budget situation he has to deal with and perhaps hoped he would receive some sympathy from them too.

“I know you all want more of my money,” Malloy said. “No one has taken me up on my willingness to swap deficits so…but I think you all get it.”

Christine Stuart goes on to report that the state thinks the hospitals should understand that under the Governor’s plan more people will be added to Medicaid and will receive reimbursement in that fashion. But hospitals are quick to point out that under medicaid they only receive 70 cents on every dollar, when they do receive payment. And with more Doctors not accepting medicaid, it really is nothing more than “spread the wealth around.

Still I think the most egregious statement by the Governor was his offer to “swap deficits” with any of the hospitals. It’s the worst of straw man arguments. The Governor’s job is to deal with his legislators overspending and an offer to swap problems doesn’t do anything to change that responsibility. Nor do hospitals have an obligation to relieve him of that responsibility.

Secondly, it’s not your money champ, as taxpayers have been trying to tell you. Go to the post and read it all.

Posted in ,

Jim Vicevich

Jim is a veteran broadcaster and conservative/libertarian blogger with more than 25 years experience in TV and radio. Jim's was the long-term host of The Jim Vicevich Show on WTIC 1080 in Hartford from 2004 through 2019. Prior to radio, Jim worked as a business and financial reporter for NBC30 - the NBC owned TV station in Hartford - and as business editor at WFSB-TV in Hartford for 14 years while earning six Emmy nominations and three Telly Awards.


  1. Dimsdale on March 15, 2011 at 3:27 am

    Malloy was pretty smarmy yesterday, particularly his response to the "why are there 60 directors in a 200 bed facility?" question.  His response "maybe the directors think there are too many nurses" (as close as I can recall), to which he received many well deserved boos and heckling.


    I don't know what his answer was to state employees and admins giving up their state cars for three years…

  2. Plainvillian on March 15, 2011 at 3:50 am

    Memo to Mr. Malloy:  It's not your money!

  3. Don Lombardo on March 15, 2011 at 4:35 am

    Typical arrogant Liberal. He knows how to spend "OUR" money better than we do. He'll do anything to maintain the status quo gravey train. Where are those union give backs? When pigs fly we'll see them. What a pompous turd. 

  4. Lazybum on March 15, 2011 at 5:38 am

    Dan Malloy keeps mentioning what a dismal state he found the state in after Rell. What he fails to mention, or perhaps even realize, is that HIS party has been in charge of spending the money, several times holding us hostage to overspend against best advice from the GOP Gov and fellow Representatives. I do not mind him putting SOME blame on Rell, but lets try, at least, to be intellectually honest and place the blame for genesis of our financial woes where it belongs- To Dan's political cohorts in the House of Representatives.

  5. sammy22 on March 15, 2011 at 6:17 am

    The problem: uninsured go to a hospital to get treatment which the hospitals cannot deny and the state foots (some of the bill). The solution according to this post is: it's not your money. Brilliant!

    • BEA on March 16, 2011 at 11:06 am

      Hi sammy22…not trying to be fresh, but Malloy is the one that said “I know you all want more of my money.”
      This is just my take on it:?pointing out that he is incorrect is not a “solution”, but it does address his wrong thinking, which leads to possibly him making wrong decisions.

  6. SeeingRed on March 15, 2011 at 7:11 am

    Another Democrat shell-game for the dull.

  7. NH-Jim on March 15, 2011 at 7:22 am

    Obviously, communists don't understand the shell game being played before their eyes.  No, (Sammy), it is NOT your or the state's hard-earned money.  We give and give and we cannot give anymore, period!

    Here's the Malloy shell game as I see it:

    He eliminates $83 million from the budget with the promise to add 5.5% provider tax for two years extracting $266 million in 2012 & $269 million in 2013.  Wow, instant surplus compliments of the average Joe Taxpayer that is spread around as the STATE sees fit…Uuuh, can you say Communism?  {A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed}  Then, to go (hat-in-hand) to the federal government to get 50% match (down from a 60%)  What happens when the feds drop that match to, say, 10%.  Do you all think that this 5.5% provider tax will ever go away?  Remember the promise of the state income tax expiring after 6 years?  20 years and counting, folks!

    Taxing sick people, the infirmed, those that are already paying thoroughly for healthcare, now that is brilliant!

  8. Gary J on March 15, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    PV it is his money,after all he controls how much he gets. Want more simply demand it and it's magic.Poof there it is.

  9. sammy22 on March 15, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    Still looking for a hint of a solution in this blog of fiscal wisdom. Otherwise, it’s still like “I don’t like this”.

    • Dimsdale on March 16, 2011 at 10:42 am

      I would like to see an iota of fiscal wisdom from our elected leaders. How about, for starters, we start with mandatory courses in economics (micro and macro), taking away the ability for governors and legislators to arbitrarily raise taxes, and perhaps a representative from the citizenry in union negotiations?

  10. Shared Sacrifice on March 15, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    It's been said before, there is no chivalry among thieves. The hospitals could go forgo their million dollar beautification projects, $3,000 marble trash cans, and hallways lined with $1,000 sconces, but they'll keep decorating, keep giving bonuses to the execs, and they'll continue to give 1 to 2% raises to their workers while giving free care to illegals. It's the American way!

  11. TomL on March 16, 2011 at 2:58 am

    Since he cutting the spending now in anticipation of obamacare taking over in 2 years I wonder what his plan B is, since he didn't get the memo that a judge has declared obamacare unconstitutional.

  12. BEA on March 16, 2011 at 5:32 am

    I'm no expert on any of this, but aren't the principles the same as how we'd handle our own personal finances? Shouldn't the governor be focused on cleaning up within and then determining what the state can afford to hand out?

    I know that may be an over-simplified way of looking at things, but we haven't replaced our 14 yo living room set or our 14 yo carpeting yet (and we've got 3 teens people!!) because we want a family vaca this summer. We haven't replaced our 40 yo siding because our daughter is going to college this fall. I've shopped at thrift shops, clipped coupons, and for many years done without (including w/o my husband while he worked 15 hr days).

    Why shouldn't my gov't and it's employees be spending my money the same why I'm trying to spend my money?

  13. sammy22 on March 16, 2011 at 6:31 am

    The issue still is: uninsured people get sick, go to hospital, hospital must give care. Who pays? We know one answer; any other out there?

    • Dimsdale on March 23, 2011 at 8:40 am

      Make it so the hospital doesn't have to give care.  Let George Soros start his own free clinics with his money.  Maybe the uninsured should consider the possibility of getting sick and planning for it (with the gov't out of the way), particularly those uninsured by choice.  Let them buy only catastrophic insurance and handle the small stuff on their own.


      When people have to buy their own health care, the price will necessarily drop.

  14. Lynn on March 16, 2011 at 8:36 am

    OK, It's raining so I will try. Sammy22, people are answering your question, but you don't accept the answer. CT could extend Sustinet to adults to take care of the problem you stated. HOWEVER, WE are saying we want him to take a meat cleaver to the budget instead of a pen knife. If he cuts out the waste, eliminates departments instead of moving them around, cuts out cars to state employees, cuts health benefits to the legislators (who are part time & in the private sector part time employees do not get health benefits), than CT could afford to extend Sustinet. But Gov. Malloy keeps whining about how he inherited this mess from Gov. Rell when he really inherited it from his pals the Democrat veto-proof majority. He needs to get down to business, get REAL concessions from State employees and make it a true shared sacrifice.

  15. sammy22 on March 16, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Now I get it, Lynn! You gave an answer: extend Sustinet and fund it by eliminating departments, cut out cars to state employees, cut health benefits to the legislators and possibly more cuts. So the people who pay are not me (or maybe you unless you are a state employee). Fair enough: have somebody else pay. Brilliant!

  16. Lynn on March 16, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Sammy22, get real, somebody does have to pay for services or you can't have them. Personally, I would cut the public sector to smithereens because I don't think govt. should do anything but pay for protection and infrastructure. So in my world, we would not be in this fiscal mess. But you put a problem on the table and I said how it could be done. If you are going to present something where all services need to be provided and no one pays for them. Fine but that is Utopia, not the real world.

  17. sammy22 on March 16, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    This issue is not about generic "services". It has to do w/ hospitals having to provide care to anybody showing w/ or w/o health insurance. I have always said that EVERYBODY should pay for health insurance, but we both know what that means, and I have read many, many times on this post that one should be "coerced" to pay for health care. So somebody has to pay, and that seems OK, as long as "you" are exempted ( or you rely on fantasy).

    • Dimsdale on March 23, 2011 at 8:41 am

      Need is its own coercion.  No tickee, no shirtee.


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.