by Jeffrey Laurenti, senior fellow and director of foreign policy programs at The Century Foundation, a public policy research organization.
– - – -
“It’s time to take a stand,” economics Nobel laureate and New York Times commentator Paul Krugman advises this week. “Something must be done.”
No, Krugman is not talking about health care reform this time. He is calling for action against a threat to global economic recovery as dire as the creative schemes for financial destruction he regularly rails against Wall Street for hatching.
This threat, he says, is hatched from abroad: the Chinese government’s policy of keeping its currency, the renminbi, immovably pegged to the dollar – and grossly undervalued. And Krugman is not alone.
Even the most dedicated free-trade economists are alarmed. Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati calls for “people’s feet being held to the fire” by an International Monetary Fund empowered to deal with willful currency misalignment, according to a Times dispatch from Hong Kong reporting on Beijing’s skillful use of “inconsistencies in international trade rules to spur its own economy at the expense of others.”
John Williamson and William Cline of the Peterson Institute for International Economics warn that “China has again begun to ride the dollar down,” using an artificially low exchange rate for the renminbi to gain a huge price advantage for Chinese goods in international markets-effectively a price discount on their goods, they calculate, of up to 40 percent.
One consequence is the rebound in the Chinese economy after the 2008 economic meltdown stabilized last year – it expanded an astonishing 8.7 percent, and manufacturing employment has surged – while American job levels have stagnated. True, China’s own domestic stimulus spending deserves much of the credit; China’s exports have contracted with the collapse of Western consumption spending – but not nearly as much as U.S. manufacturing.
The massive economic imbalances between China and the United States that result, Williamson and Cline insist, “pose systemic threats” to the global economy. The director of their institute, Fred Bergsten, describes Chinese economic planners’ unshakable determination to keep the renminbi cheap as “an off-budget export and job subsidy” and laments the “devastating impact on the global trading system” from the continuing “currency misalignments.”
Chinese officials have been quick to cry “protectionism” whenever their currency-contrived conquest of American industries triggers demands for remedial measures in Washington. Their bark frightened off Bush administration officials already predisposed to unfettered free trade. But that dog may not hunt as readily in Obama’s Washington, where far less threatening trade measures are drawing skeptical scrutiny now that labor unions have a seat at the trade table.
The administration, rightly, does not want to undermine the architecture of the painstakingly constructed international trading system, where impartial multilateral panels adjudicate charges of unfair trade practices. But it can and should find a way to support initiatives that roll back currency misalignments that fuel unsustainable imbalances. The IMF scrupulously and impartially collects the relevant economic data; those data provide the basis for compensatory measures.
In a rare example of bipartisan initiative in our filibuster-snarled Senate, two Democratic senators, Max Baucus and Charles Schumer, and two Republican colleagues, Lindsey Graham and Charles Grassley, have been pressing legislation to correct currencies that are in “fundamental misalignment.” As Krugman suggests, a carefully calculated currency correction (he estimates, in the China case, 25 percent) – imposed as a surcharge based on IMF data on products from countries incapable of rectifying their currency imbalances – can help fix the problem.
Chinese officials may be tempted to contest such an initiative in a World Trade Organization tribunal rather than respond constructively to the invitation to correct the currency misalignment. The United States can strengthen its case before international public opinion if it dedicates any revenues realized from a currency surcharge not to its own industries or its government budget, but to development projects of the World Bank or United Nations agencies.
In a mano-a-mano test of wills with China’s economic policymakers (who may be counting on stealth allies in American business that have invested heavily in outsourcing production to China), gestures like the use of currency surcharge revenues can make a difference. After all, this is not simply a Chinese-American wrangle. Many other countries have a stake.
The Europeans and countries throughout the developing world are deeply concerned about China’s manufacturing steamroller, powered by its currency discount – just as they are by Chinese obduracy in rejecting any limits on climate-change emissions. China’s leaders risk unifying the international community against them in the economic arena as thoroughly as high-handed American conduct in the political sphere once isolated the United States. The Obama administration should not let this opportunity slip.
Here’s his plan it its entirety – hard to believe some of these ideas are practicable, especially changing existing contractual arrangements with state employees, and even if he accomplishes all, (including $3 Medicaid co-pays!) it won’t come near covering the $4 billion deficit – but read his lips – he’s promising no new taxes:
Imposing a Four-Year Hiring Freeze. Institute a hiring freeze for every department and every agency with no exceptions or exemptions without my written approval. There are currently approximately 80,000 full and part-time state government employees.
Proposing legislation to bring oversight of UConn/CSU hiring practices under executive control. A majority of all new State hires since July 1st have been in higher education. We simply cannot afford unlimited and unrestricted hiring in public higher education. We’ve made significant investments in UConn 2000, 21st Century UConn and a similar program for the CSU system. We need to bring their hiring practices under Executive oversight – and hold them to the same “essential-hires-only” standards as other Executive branch agencies; for example, restricting new hires to classroom-only staff.
Imposing a Four-Year Spending Freeze. Our government must live within its means just like Connecticut families do. Most families in Connecticut have seen their incomes decline during this recession, while state government costs have grown to unsustainable levels. We are at a tipping point. We cannot continue to ignore the fact that government’s expenses exceed its revenues.
Proposing a Two-Year Moratorium on All But Essential Borrowing. The budget put in place last fall by the Legislative majority raised taxes and required borrowing of nearly $1 billion. This prompted Connecticut’s credit outlook to drop – potentially costing Connecticut taxpayers $80 million per year. I will prohibit all but essential state borrowing for two years and thereafter approve only what the state can afford to pay back. Only essential bonding – for public safety, health, education and borrowing necessary to complete prior multi-year projects – would be permitted, in addition to economic development projects that create net new jobs.
Eliminating all Earmarks. I will replace local pork projects with a competitive process that requires demonstration of state-wide benefits and jobs. We should not be borrowing funds and paying them back over twenty years for municipal skate parks, community festivals, gazebos and other local projects. These projects should be funded more appropriately with local resources. Long-term bonding should be reserved for water treatment facilities, school construction and similar large infrastructure projects that demonstrate their benefits over the twenty year period of the bonding.
Eliminating “Discretionary” Funds in the State Budget. I will take steps to make sure that projects for local legislators are no longer doled out by legislative leaders because they have “discretionary” money from a budget deal. Discretionary funds belong to the taxpayers not the politicians.
Restructuring State Employee Pensions, Salaries and Practices Can No Longer be Deferred
As Governor I will negotiate state employee benefits so they are more in line with those in the private sector. Quite simply, state employees should not enjoy benefits that far exceed those available to the average working person in our state.
Pensions, salaries and practices are important issues to state employees and as Governor I will assure that restructuring efforts are justifiable, equitable, and workable and have a meaningful influence on the state budget.
Pensions. The state employee pension system is dangerously underfunded by $9.3 billion, while $1.26 billion is being paid annually to 42,414 state retirees. Connecticut was ranked the fifth-worst state in the nation for underfunding its state pension. If left unchecked, unfunded pension liability will have significant consequences for taxpayers. It’s the equivalent to a ticking time bomb – and the clock is ticking.
As a result, I propose that all new employees be enrolled in a defined contribution plan (401k) as opposed to the current pension plan. For existing employees:
o Cap current defined benefits at $150,000 of salary that can be used toward the defined benefit calculation. Any salary over $150,000 would go toward a defined contribution plan (401K). Some state employees earn in excess of $400,000 per year.
o Prohibit the use of overtime and longevity pay in calculating salary for purpose of defined benefit pension payout.
o Require that pension calculations be based on the three last year’s employment, not three highest years.
Health Care. Connecticut currently spends $1 billion on active and retiree health insurance. The state is also responsible for future health insurance and other retiree benefits totaling $24.6 billion. The following cost-savings actions should be implemented:
o Retiree health insurance should be available only to those who reach full normal retirement while working for the state – not those who serve for 10 years and then leave for another job.
o Reform plan benefits to be aligned with private sector benefits
o Reform plan benefits to be more encouraging of healthy lifestyles and disease prevention.
Work Practices/Schedules. Changes to state government work practices and schedules should be implemented to reduce payroll costs. Examples include:
o Change correctional officer schedules to match common practices in other states across the country. This alone will achieve estimated savings of $39 million annually.
o Reduce number of paid state holidays – which drives up overtime costs. Eliminating just one of the state’s 12 holidays would save $3.2 million annually (Lincoln’s Birthday, for example).
o Eliminate the mandate to use state police on road construction sites.
Salaries. Modifications to state compensation programs and benefits should be reviewed for cost reducing potential including:
o Require coalition bargaining for salary increases (move unions onto same schedule and comparable percentage for increases. Also forces the state and arbitrators to deal with the full costs of increases for all full-time state employees as opposed to the current piecemeal approach).
o Eliminate longevity payments for State employees – which are bonus payments based on working for the State for ten years. State employees already get merit increases and cost of living increases each year that far outpace the rate of inflation. (State spends $43 million annually on state employee longevity payments).
o Reform sick and vacation accrual and payouts so retiring state employees don’t get windfall payments for unused sick and vacation time.
Labor Process Changes. Contract negotiation methods and related issues should to be reassessed so that outcomes reflect a sound strategy for the long term and not a temporary fix that becomes an even bigger problem just a few years later:
o Require both chambers of the General Assembly to vote up or down on union contracts and provide the Governor the authority to veto them.
o Require arbitrators to consider the State’s ability to pay as a paramount concern in deciding contract awards.
o Require that arbitrators cannot factor in the Rainy Day Fund when considering the State’s ability to pay.
o Require arbitrators to consider the state’s constitutional spending cap in considering state’s ability to pay.
o Increase state’s ability to transfer and retrain people in a layoff situation in order to reduce workforce through attrition and avoid layoffs.
Making our Government More Efficient
As Governor, I will examine every aspect of state government to reduce wasteful spending and streamline state agency operations.
Merge State Agencies. Many state agencies have similar missions and could be merged to achieve reductions in staff and leased office space – all state agencies should be evaluated for consolidation. Some examples include:
o DECD, CDA, CI – combine into one agency offering all existing programs through one point of contact. All of these agencies offer financial and technical assistance to employers.
o Agriculture – merge with Tourism (CT Grown), Consumer Protection (milk and farm regulation) and DEP (aquaculture –shellfish).
o Banking and Insurance – move to new “Department of Business Regulation.” While regulated industries pay costs of these agencies, the merger would reduce the cost of doing business in Connecticut and reduce the size of government.
o Combine Department of Education and Department of Higher Education.
o Eliminate the CSU central administration. All four state universities have presidents and individual administrations.
Eliminate Inefficiencies in Government. Every common sense measure to eliminate inefficiencies in state government should be explored. The days of “this is the way we always did it” will be over. And the mindset that it’s too hard to do will have to change. Some examples include:
o Adopt best practices. For example, Corrections Re-entry programs to reduce recidivism enabled the closing of one prison. Connecticut still has statutory authority to send prisoners out of state to save money.
o Use technology to improve services and save money – government is the only entity that adopts new technology and then hires more people. The exact opposite should occur – technology is implemented to reduce staff.
o Approve master contracts with technology companies that offer one-stop shopping which will allow government to keep pace with changing technologies.
o Eliminate expensive office space leases. State government spends more than $60 million per year on leased properties. As the size of government is reduced, eliminate expensive leases by consolidating employees into state-owned space.
Reforming our Approach to Big Ticket Items Like School Construction and Human Services
Closing budget deficits will require systemic and fundamental changes to the structure and delivery of state programs.
School Construction Process. The state’s local school construction program has been an important component in maintaining schools and has given towns the ability to construct schools for the 21st century. School construction accounts for 75 percent of all annual bonding (higher education and local school construction).
In FY 2009, the state borrowed $639 million for this program and is expected to borrow another $688 in FY 2010. I propose to make practical cost-saving changes to modify the program. While the following efforts will not have an immediate influence on the state budget, they will begin to drive down the state’s long term indebtedness.
o Require the Department of Education to develop standard architectural and engineering plans that can be adapted easily to different sites and sizes. This will avoid the state repaying for these services every time a town constructs a new school. Any additions or modifications to the standard plan would be the sole responsibility of the town.
Place a cap on how much the state can bond for school construction in any given year. No one can argue that a cap of $450 million is unreasonable and it will help restore our bond rating.
A cap may mean we can only afford to build fewer schools in a given year – the schools last in the pipeline would have to wait to start construction until the next year.
Human Services Programs. Connecticut has a substantial social services network that provides services to the needy. A large percentage of the state’s budget is dedicated to these services and cannot be excluded from consideration of reducing budget expenses. Our Medicaid budget alone is close to $4 billion.
As mentioned earlier, the approach of being tough-minded must always be tempered by being responsible to those genuinely in need and I have no intention of harming elderly or poor individuals with high co-pays on prescription drugs.
Having said that, we should require cost sharing for certain Medicaid services as allowed under federal law. Forty-five states require $3 co-pays for certain medical services or prescriptions – or both. Connecticut is one of just five states that requires neither.
We should also identify where Connecticut is more generous than other states and determine if that is affordable. For example, Connecticut is one of only a few states that provide over-the-counter drugs to Medicaid recipients – a benefit that not even the best private health plans offer.
Just like we need to bring state pensions and benefits more in line with the private sector, we should review Medicaid services and bring them more in line with what other states provide.
One other example: private sector providers deliver quality services at half the cost of state-run services – group homes – and other facilities.
If we truly care about serving those in need – we should serve them as cost-effectively as possible so we can serve more of our neediest citizens with the scarce dollars we have.
I will also examine the budget to remove all earmarks in social services budgets. While these are well intentioned services, we cannot afford to provide certain towns with special benefits that are not available statewide. An example is the LEAP program, a $1 million earmark to provide youth services – an admirable goal – but is only available to one town. While these dollar figures are small, we must evaluate all possible budget cuts during this budget crisis.
New Haven will be thrilled to lose its great LEAP program just because no other city has it.
The Better for Choices for Connecticut coalition has released a report, Revenue Solutions for FY 2011, outlining several options to modernize Connecticut’s revenue system while closing our state’s massive budget deficit. The Better Choices coalition, made up of nonprofit providers, public service workers, and community and advocacy organizations, pressed legislators to adopt the measures to protect families in this devastating national recession, and maintain vital public services— including education, health, public safety, environmental protection, and transportation systems—when families are needing them most.
Increasing revenue, according to the Better Choices report, would align Connecticut with 30 other states that have acted in the last year to increase state revenues to not only keep pace with the growing need for public services, but to position themselves for future growth and sustainability when better economic conditions return. Notably, citizens in Oregon themselves voted to raise personal income taxes on higher-income households in order to maintain the state’s quality of life.
The menu of revenue options advocated by Better Choices for Connecticut includes proposals to:
· Close corporate tax loopholes that benefit multi-state companies over local companies;
· Evaluate the $5 billion in tax breaks in state tax laws and reduce or eliminate unproductive tax breaks;
· Increase income taxes for those who can best afford it, the state’s wealthy residents;
· Delay reductions in the gift and estate tax, a tax that affects only a handful of the state’s wealthiest residents;
· Either increase the sales tax or modernize it to cover services rather than only goods;
· Raise taxes on unhealthy products such as soda;
· Restore the scheduled Petroleum Gross Earnings Tax rate increase; and
· Tax excess profits of electricity generators.
“We can balance the budget without relying solely on spending cuts that damage the state’s economic future and harm families,” said Jamey Bell, Executive Director of Connecticut Voices for Children. “There is a wide range of more balanced alternatives, such as evaluating and reducing the state’s ‘hidden budget’ of tax breaks and corporate tax loopholes.”
“Coming to grips with the projected deficit requires both reductions in expenditures and increases in revenue,” said William Cibes, chancellor emeritus of the Connecticut State University System and former secretary of the Office of Policy and Management under Gov. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. “It’s not a question of IF revenues will be raised, but WHICH revenues will be raised. Better Choices is performing an important public service by putting forward some very constructive suggestions about how to do that.”
“During a recession as deep as this one, demand for public services dramatically escalates. Slashing vital state services would hurt the working poor and middle-income people who have lost their jobs and are falling behind. Connecticut is the wealthiest state in the nation, but it is among the most unequal. We have the capacity to protect and invest in our people and our communities,” said Maggie Adair, Deputy Director of Connecticut Association for Human Services.
Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission delivered to Congress a National Broadband Plan, titled “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan.” It sets an ambitious agenda for connecting all corners of the nation while transforming the economy and society with the communications network of the future — robust, affordable Internet.
While broadband access and use have increased over the past decade, the nation must do much more to connect all individuals and the economy to broadband’s transformative benefits. Nearly 100 million Americans lack broadband at home today, and 14 million Americans do not have access to broadband even if they want it. Only 42 percent of people with disabilities use broadband at home, while as few as 5 percent of people living on Tribal lands have access. Meanwhile, the cost of digital exclusion for the student unable to access the Internet to complete a homework assignment, or for the unemployed worker who can’t search for a job online, continues to grow.
Other gaps threaten America’s global competitiveness. A looming shortage of wireless spectrum could impede U.S. innovation and leadership in popular wireless mobile broadband services. More useful applications, devices, and content are needed to create value for consumers. And the nation has failed to harness broadband’s power to transform delivery of government services, health care, education, public safety, energy conservation, economic development, and other national priorities.
The Plan’s call for action over the next decade includes the following goals and recommendations:
• Connect 100 million households to affordable 100-megabits-per-second service, building the world’s largest market of high-speed broadband users and ensuring that new jobs and businesses are created in America.
• Affordable access in every American community to ultra-high-speed broadband of at least 1 gigabit per second at anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals, and military installations so that America is hosting the experiments that produce tomorrow’s ideas and industries.
• Ensure that the United States is leading the world in mobile innovation by making 500 megahertz of spectrum newly available for licensed and unlicensed use.
• Move our adoption rates from roughly 65 percent to more than 90 percent and make sure that every child in America is digitally literate by the time he or she leaves high school.
• Bring affordable broadband to rural communities, schools, libraries, and vulnerable populations by transitioning existing Universal Service Fund support from yesterday’s analog technologies to tomorrow’s digital infrastructure.
• Promote competition across the broadband ecosystem by ensuring greater transparency, removing barriers to entry, and conducting market-based analysis with quality data on price, speed, and availability.
• Enhance the safety of the American people by providing every first responder with access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable public safety network.
The Plan was mandated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009.
Linda McMahon, surging from a 10-point deficit two months ago, now leads Rob Simmons 44 – 34 percent in the Republican primary for the Connecticut U.S. Senate contest, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
This reverses a 37 – 27 percent Simmons lead in a January 14 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. In this latest poll, businessman Peter Schiff has 9 percent, with 12 percent undecided.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal tops Merrick Alpert 81 – 6 percent in a Democratic Senate primary and stomps his Republican opponents:
• 61 – 28 percent over McMahon, compared to 64 – 23 percent January 14;
•
• 62 – 26 percent over Simmons, compared to 62 – 27 percent;
•
• 64 – 21 percent over Schiff, compared to 66 – 19 percent.
•
Blumenthal gets a 79 – 13 percent approval rating, continuing a 10-month string of approval ratings of 78 points or higher, and a 70 – 18 percent favorability rating.
“What explains Linda McMahon’s rise in the polls? Money. She is the only Senate candidate on TV right now. She quickly has become as well-known and well-liked among Republicans as the former frontrunner for the Republican nomination, three-term Congressman Rob Simmons,” said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, PhD.
“In the general election, however, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has a commanding lead over all three potential Republican opponents. Blumenthal’s approval rating continues near 80 percent. While money could make the difference in the Republican primary, it will have less of an effect in the general election. It is very hard to change the public’s opinion of an elected official they have known and liked for 20 years.”
Favorability ratings for other Connecticut U.S. Senate candidates are:
• Alpert: 93 percent don’t know enough about him to form an opinion;
•
• McMahon: 36 – 26 percent with 36 percent who don’t know enough about her;
•
• Simmons: 38 – 21 percent with 40 percent who don’t know enough about him;
•
• Schiff: 85 percent don’t know enough about him.
•
Connecticut voters say 46 – 36 percent they prefer a candidate who relies on campaign donations, rather than a wealthy candidate who relies on his/her own funds. Results are similar among Democrats, Republicans and independent voters.
The next Connecticut U.S. Senator should generally support President Barack Obama’s policies, voters say 56 – 36 percent.
Connecticut voters approve 54 – 42 percent of the job President Obama is doing, compared to 55 – 41 percent January 14 and Obama’s lowest score in the state since he was inaugurated. Voters disapprove 52 – 42 percent of the way the President is handling health care and disapprove 50 – 46 percent of the way he is handling the economy, but approve 54 – 39 percent of the way he is handling foreign policy.
Voters mostly disapprove 48 – 40 percent of the proposed health care reform pending in Congress. Democrats approve 68 – 22 percent, while disapproval is 87 – 7 percent among Republicans and 50 – 34 percent among independent voters. The proposed health care legislation is too complicated, 59 percent say, while 32 percent say changes must be complex to be effective.
Only 16 percent of Connecticut voters trust the government in Washington to do the right thing almost all of the time or most of the time, while 53 percent say the federal government does right some of the time and 30 percent say “hardly ever.”
But only 23 percent of Connecticut voters say they are Tea Party supporters. That group includes 50 percent of Republicans, 4 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independent voters.
“While very few voters trust the government in Washington to do what is right most of the time, President Barack Obama still gets a 54 percent job approval,” Dr. Schwartz said.
From March 9 – 15, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,451 Connecticut registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points. The survey includes 549 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 4.2 percentage points and 387 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points.
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) gave the following remarks as she joined Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Representatives Schakowsky and Matsui, and representatives from AARP and the Center for Medicare Advocacy to call for the passage of health care reform.
Last night, our Republican colleagues once again showed their true colors when it comes to health care for our seniors and American families.
For hours on end, they voted against motion after motion to protect seniors’ health, shore up the Medicare trust fund, bring down the cost of health insurance, close the donut hole – a donut hole they themselves created in 2003 – and add important preventive benefits for seniors.
Meanwhile, too many seniors are struggling desperately with health care costs. Seniors should not have to skip necessary medical care that could save their lives, or take half a pill instead of a whole pill to save money – yet that is exactly what is happening right now.
Today, we have a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which finds that prices for commonly-used medications in the donut hole have far outpaced inflation since 2006. Actonel, a common osteoporosis treatment, has risen 39 percent since then. Aricept – for Alzheimer’s disease – has risen 41 percent. And Plavix, an important medication for reducing blood clots, has gone up 25 percent.
Our reforms would aid seniors who need these potentially life-saving medications. They close the donut hole in Medicare Part D completely. But if we do nothing – as our Republican colleagues would have us do – that donut hole is projected to increase to $5,755 by 2018.
Our reforms provide immediate relief to seniors. They will reduce the size of the donut hole by $500 right away. And they guarantee 50 percent price discounts on brand-name drugs and biologics, including all the drugs I just mentioned, for low and middle-income beneficiaries in the coverage gap.
Meanwhile, our Republican colleagues have voted again and again, against these benefits for seniors. In the battle for health reform, they stand with the insurance industry.
In November, when the House voted in our health reform bill to close the donut hole and add important preventive benefits to Medicare – the Republicans said no.
In December, when the Senate voted on their bill to provide discounts to seniors in the donut hole, shore up the Medicare trust fund, and help seniors and their doctors take better care of their chronic diseases – Republicans said no.
And last night, when Democrats offered a motion in the Budget Committee to strengthen Medicare by closing the donut hole and expanding access to preventive care, once again, the Republicans said no.
So that is what we are faced with – a choice between the Democratic way of strengthening Medicare, closing the donut hole, and promoting prevention and wellness for seniors; or, the Republican way of dismantling Medicare, turning it into a voucher system, and throwing seniors into an unregulated private market.
I think the American people know which way we should move forward.
U.S. Congressman John B. Larson (CT-01) reports that House Democrats are closer than ever to reforming our nation’s broken health insurance system with a plan that puts Americans back in control of their health care choices, holds insurance companies accountable, and makes coverage more affordable.
Connecticut will see immediate benefits as soon as the legislation goes into effect. Individuals who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition will be able to buy affordable coverage through a temporary high-risk pool while banning insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. In addition, insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping people when they get sick and seniors’ costs for prescription drugs will go down.
“This bill gives Connecticut residents more choices and brings down their health care costs,” said Rep. Larson. “As soon as it’s enacted, small businesses, seniors, young people, and those who have been discriminated against by insurance companies will see immediate relief.”
Once the bill is enacted it will:
-Prohibit insurance companies from dropping your coverage when you get sick.
-Ban insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
-Require new private plans to cover preventative services and immunizations with no co-payments.
-Provide a tax credit of up to 35% of premiums to small businesses that provide health coverage to their employees.
-Extend coverage to young people, allowing them to remain on their parents’ insurance policy until their 26th birthday.
-Create a temporary high-risk pool to insure those who are currently uninsured because of a cancer, diabetes or any other pre-existing condition.
-Protect consumers by ensuring they have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal insurance plan decisions.
-Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans.
-Increase funding for new training programs to train more primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals and for community health centers – allowing them to almost double the amount of patients they treat over the next five years.
For seniors in Connecticut, the legislation will provide immediate relief by:
-Providing a $250 rebate for Medicare beneficiaries who hit the “donut hole.”
-Making preventative services and immunizations free under Medicare right away – eliminating co-payments for preventative services and exempting preventative services from deductibles.
-Expanding home and community care so seniors can live longer in their homes not at a nursing home.
“I’ve traveled around this district and spoken to residents that know firsthand how important reforming the health insurance system is to this nation. I think about Kristen Martinez from Colebrook, who at the age of 31 was diagnosed with stage 4 Metastatic Breast Cancer and fears she will be dropped by her insurance company. And the seniors I met at the Windsor Senior Center, who talked about the rising costs of prescription drugs and the need to close the Medicare Part D “donut hole”. They cannot wait any longer for action and I stand with them,” said Rep. Larson. “By enacting health care reform right away, we will be able to lower costs for everyone, providing the seniors like the ones I met in Windsor, and citizens like Kristen, more control and security when it comes to their health care.”
The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) prohibits tobacco industry advertising practices that encourage underage teenagers to smoke, yet new research out of the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego has found that a 2007 marketing campaign for Camel brand cigarettes was effective in encouraging young girls to start smoking.
The study, led by John P. Pierce, PhD, professor of Family and Preventive Medicine and director of the Cancer Center’s Cancer Prevention and Control Program, will be published March 15 in an early online edition of the scientific journal Pediatrics.
The research, part of a national study on parenting practices, involved 1,036 males and females who were 10 to 13 years old when enrolled onto the study. Between 2003 and 2008, scientists conducted five telephone interviews, which included questions about smoking. The fifth interview was conducted after the start of RJ Reynolds’ “Camel No. 9” advertising campaign in 2007.
Consistent with earlier research, the new study showed that youth who had never smoked but who reported having a “favorite” cigarette ad at the beginning were 50 percent more likely to initiate smoking. The number of boys with a favorite ad was stable across all five surveys. For girls, however, it was stable across the first four surveys, but by the fifth survey, which took place after the start of the Camel No. 9 campaign, the proportion of girls who reported a favorite ad jumped by 10 percentage points, to 44 percent. The Camel brand accounted almost entirely for this increase.
The Camel No. 9 marketing campaign included ads resembling fashion spreads that were placed in five of the top 10 U.S. teen readership magazines, such as Glamour and Vogue. The campaign also featured promotional giveaways such as berry lip balm, cell phone jewelry, purses and wristbands.
