Jonathan Kantrowitz

A new report, “The Economic Impact of Uninsured Children on America,” brings to light what a great investment insuring all America’s children would be, and at what a little cost.

The cost of providing health insurance to each uninsured child through age 18 is $7,451 in current dollars.

The total cost: $9.6 billion for 2009. It would cost $112.9 billion to cover uninsured adults.

Great essay by Bernie Sanders:

…We as a nation have to answer two very fundamental questions.

First, should all Americans be entitled to healthcare in the same way we respond to other basic needs such as education, police, and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality healthcare to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way?

The answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans believe that all of us should have healthcare coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way.

To me, the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of healthcare in our country and move toward a publicly funded, single-payer, Medicare-for-all approach.

Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated, and bureaucratic in the world. But in America, the people who have to navigate that maze are the lucky ones. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments…

Despite the fact that we spend almost twice as much per person on healthcare as any other country, our healthcare outcomes lag behind many other nations. According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks 37th in terms of health system performance and we are far behind many other countries in terms of such important indices as infant mortality, life expectancy, and preventable deaths.

The main reason we get such bad results is that the function of private health insurance companies is not to provide quality healthcare for all, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies. With thousands of different health benefit programs designed to maximize profits, private health insurance companies spend an incredible 30 percent of each healthcare dollar on administration and billing, exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying, and campaign contributions. Public programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the department of Veterans Affairs are administered for far less…

From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the nation’s major health insurance companies increased by 170 percent. And, while more and more Americans are losing their jobs and health insurance, the top executives in the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages….

The time is now for our nation to address the most profound moral and economic issue we face. The time is now for our country to join the rest of the industrialized world and provide cost-effective, comprehensive, quality healthcare to every man, woman, and child in our country. The time is now to take on the powerful special interests in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and pass a single-payer national healthcare program.

I had written in my last post that there was no limit to the tax credits the State Of Connecticut is obligated to give away to film companies. But that’s not true. According to the Connecticut Film Center, llc there is a limit:

Are there any caps?

Many programs also contain caps – a cap on the overall amount a production can earn; a cap on the amount the region can give out in a given year, a cap on the overall salary of above-the-line players. In Connecticut, the only cap is a $15M limit on salaries PER PERSON.

(L-R) CT State Reps. C. Leone, J. Berger, Blue Sky CEO B. Keane, CT Gov. M. Jodi Rell, V. Morrison, pres. of Fox Animation and CT State Rep. J. Amann cut the ribbon to open Blue Sky Studios' new Connecticut home.

Connecticut’s state subsidies for the entertainment industry are a money-losing proposition for the state. That is the conclusion of a new report,
Fiddling While Rome Burns: Connecticut’s Multi-Million Dollar, Money Losing Subsidy to the Entertainment Industry. The report is published by Connecticut Voices for Children.

The report is based on recently-released data from the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism (CCCT). While intended to spark a home-grown entertainment industry in Connecticut, these data show that the tax credits have largely been subsidizing out-of-state personnel and businesses. The report finds that only 11% of the $113.2 million of state revenues lost through the “film tax credit” subsidized production expenses that were classified by CCCT as “actual Connecticut expenditures.”

“Connecticut has been hoodwinked by the entertainment industry into paying for 30% of their production costs. But the glitz and glamour of this industry shouldn’t blind us to the fact that these tax credits are big money losers for the state,” said Shelley Geballe, Distinguished Senior Fellow at Connecticut Voices for Children and author of the report. “At a time when the health and well-being of our families and communities is threatened by severe state budget cuts and Connecticut must create new, permanent, full-time jobs, investing our scarce resources into schools, health care, and home-grown businesses in emerging fields like renewable energy makes far more sense than subsidizing the next horror movie or thriller.”

The study found that eight productions received a total of $9.3 million in tax credit subsidies, though they reported no actual production spending to Connecticut entities at all. Presumably, these productions transported all production-related personnel, equipment and supplies into Connecticut from other states for the duration of the production. Overall, the state has awarded $2.73 in production tax credits for every dollar of actual Connecticut spending on the production of films, television shows, commercials, infomercials, and video games.

The report also cites evidence from independent analyses of state film tax credit programs in Connecticut and other states to show that the film tax credits lose money for states and do not pay for themselves through increased sales, income, corporate and other taxes. These studies estimate that states earn back in tax revenue between 15 cents and 23 cents for every dollar of tax credit issued, even taking into account any additional economic activity generated by the credits.

The report criticizes the unusually generous and open-ended nature of the film tax credits. The film production tax credit covers 30% of eligible production expenses. These entertainment tax credits do not operate like any other business tax credit in Connecticut, in that they do not simply reduce the taxes an entertainment production company owes Connecticut. Rather, production companies awarded the credits can sell the credits to other companies (even if they are unrelated to the entertainment industry) when they have no Connecticut tax liability to offset. So Connecticut is “on the hook” for 30% of a company’s production costs, whether or not that company owes any Connecticut taxes. Further, there are no caps on the amount of credits that may be granted per production, or in total, so Connecticut can lose virtually unlimited amounts of revenues, even in a deficit year. The costs of Connecticut’s entertainment industry tax credits far surpass the state’s investment through tax credits in any other industry, and also exceed the total budget of the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development.

A complete list of the productions which received tax credits is here.

One huge give-away that hasn’t happened yet: Blue Sky Studios.Their highly touted new headquarters at One American Lane, Greenwich, Connecticut 06831 is accessible only from New York State. No local CT businesses will benefit from this business. This is an animation company. All development work will be done in-house. The only possible benefit is to the Greenwich tax rolls – in desperate straights as we all know.

Yes the give-away was the motive:

The move took place over the 2008 year-end holidays. The company said goodbye to its cramped, piecemeal home spread over three floors of a nondescript office building and headed off to its new digs: a spacious studio surrounded by 150 acres of undeveloped land one state, seven miles and a whopping 30 percent tax credit away.

“This is the second phase of what we’re trying to do,” boasted Jeff Berger, co-chair of the state’s Commerce committee “We still want crews filming on Main Street, but we want to build an industry,” based on digital animation. “The reason Blue Sky is here is because of the tax credit.”

The lure of a 30% credit against all production costs up to a $15 million annual ceiling is hard to resist…

A research analyst from The Federal Reserve Bank in Boston recently came to the same conclusion:

Major points

• The state is devoting considerable public resources to the film tax credit. According to the state’s 2008 tax expenditure report, the estimated cost of the film tax credit for fiscal year 2009 (FY 2009) will be $90 million—higher than estimates for any other corporate tax expenditure for this fiscal year including tax credits for fixed capital investment ($60 million), research and experimentation ($10 million), and general job creation ($10 million).

• The credit does not “pay for itself.” Increases in economic activity spurred by the film credit generate some additional tax revenue for the state from a variety of tax sources. This additional revenue is likely to offset some, but not all, of the initial cost of the credit. Increased economic activity may also reduce government spending if it results in less need for government services.

• If a production company’s tax credit exceeds the taxes it owes to Connecticut, the company can sell its unused credits to other taxpayers. In other words, the film tax credit is a transferable credit. As such, its initial cost will tend to exceed the lost taxes that production companies would have paid themselves. The purchasers of the credits—who would have been paying additional state taxes to Connecticut—are instead making payments to film companies directly. Thus, transferable credits more closely resemble direct appropriations as compared with credits that are not transferable.

This tax credit was Jim Amann’s baby. He is still crowing over it. It has been an unmitigated disaster. It should be eliminated immediately.

What is SUSTINET?

SUSTINET is the first step in a plan to provide reasonably priced, publicly controlled, comprehensive, universally available health insurance to Connecticut residents

Who supports SUSTINET?

SustiNet is supported by AARP, the American Cancer Society, the AFL-CIO, the Connecticut Association of Realtors, the Connecticut Catholic Conference, the Connecticut State Medical Society and a broad network of other Connecticut organizations.

SUSTINET has been hailed as “landmark” legislation by the Hartford Courant, and a “wise” approach by the Connecticut Post.

What can I do to help support SUSTINET?

SUSTINET has been passed by the Connecticut House of Representatives and the Connecticut Senate. It is now on Governor Rell’s desk awaiting signature. You can sign the petition urging Governor Rell to sign the legislation establishing SUSTINET. To see the petition click here.

I need more information. What are the details of SUSTINET?

The actual relevant sections of the law, as passed by the Connecticut legislature, are below:

AN ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUSTINET PLAN.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2009) As used in sections 1 to 14, inclusive, of this act and section 17b-297b of the general statutes, as amended by this act:

(1) “SustiNet Plan” means a self-insured health care delivery plan, that is designed to ensure that plan members receive high-quality health care coverage without unnecessary costs;

(2) “Standard benefits package” means a set of covered benefits as determined by the public authority, with out-of-pocket cost-sharing limits and provider network rules, subject to the same coverage mandates described in chapter 700c of the general statutes and the utilization review requirements described in chapter 698a of the general statutes that apply to group health insurance sold in this state. The standard benefits package includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(A) Coverage of medical home services; inpatient and outpatient hospital care; generic and name-brand prescription drugs; laboratory and x-ray services; durable medical equipment; speech, physical and occupational therapy; home health care; vision care; family planning; emergency transportation; hospice; prosthetics; podiatry; short-term rehabilitation; the identification and treatment of developmental delays from birth through age three; and wellness programs, provided convincing scientific evidence demonstrates that such programs are effective in reducing the severity or incidence of chronic disease;

(B) A per individual and per family deductible, provided preventive care or prescription drugs shall not be subject to any deductible;

(C) Preventive care requiring no copayment that includes well-child visits, well-baby care, prenatal care, annual physical examinations, immunizations and screenings;

(D) Office visits for matters other than preventive care for which there shall be a copayment;

(E) Prescription drug coverage with copayments for generic, name-brand preferred and name-brand nonpreferred drugs;

(F) Coverage of mental and behavioral health services, including tobacco cessation services, substance abuse treatment services, and services that prevent and treat obesity with such services being at parity with the coverage for physical health services; and

(G) Dental care coverage that is comparable in scope to the median coverage provided to employees by large employers in the Northeast states; provided, in defining large employers, consideration shall be given to the capacity of available data to yield, without substantial expense, reliable estimates of median dental coverage offered by such employers;

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2009) (a) There is established the SustiNet Health Partnership board of directors. The board of directors shall consist of nine members, as follows: The Comptroller; the Healthcare Advocate; one appointed by the Governor, who shall be a representative of the nursing or allied health professions; one appointed by the president pro tempore of the Senate, who shall be a primary care physician; one appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall be a representative of organized labor; one appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, who shall have expertise in the provision of employee health benefit plans for small businesses; one appointed by the majority leader of the House of Representatives, who shall have expertise in health care economics or health care policy; one appointed by the minority leader of the Senate, who shall have expertise in health information technology; and one appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives, who shall have expertise in the actuarial sciences or insurance underwriting. The Comptroller and the Healthcare Advocate shall serve as the chairpersons of the board of directors.

Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2009) (a) The SustiNet Health Partnership board of directors shall design and establish implementation procedures to implement the SustiNet Plan. The SustiNet Plan shall be designed to (1) improve the health of state residents; (2) improve the quality of health care and access to health care; (3) provide health insurance coverage to Connecticut residents who would otherwise be uninsured; (4) increase the range of health care insurance coverage options available to residents and employers; (5) slow the growth of per capita health care spending both in the short-term and in the long-term; and (6) implement reforms to the health care delivery system that will apply to all SustiNet Plan members, provided any such reforms to health care coverage provided to state employees, retirees and their dependents shall be subject to applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Sec. 4. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2009) (a) The board of directors shall develop the procedures and guidelines for the SustiNet Plan. Such procedures and guidelines shall be specific and ensure that the SustiNet Plan is established in accordance with the five following principles to guide health care reform as enumerated by the Institute of Medicine: (1) Health care coverage should be universal; (2) health care coverage should be continuous; (3) health care coverage should be affordable to individuals and families; (4) the health insurance strategy should be affordable and sustainable for society; and (5) health care coverage should enhance health and well-being by promoting access to high-quality care that is effective, efficient, safe, timely, patient-centered and equitable.

Maybe putative candidate Will Gregory is on to something. It seems that many Republicans are disgusted with their own party:

Almost 4 out of 10 (38%) Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have an unfavorable opinion of their own party, while just 7% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party. Additionally, a May 29-31 USA Today/Gallup poll shows that the top-of-mind images of the Republican Party among Republicans are considerably more negative than are the images of the Democratic Party among Democrats.

One thing young Will has not addressed however, is the gender gap:

A new Gallup analysis of almost 150,000 interviews conducted from January through May of this year sheds new light on the substantial gender gap that exists in American politics today. Not only are women significantly more likely than men to identify as Democrats,… but — with only slight variation — this gap is evident across all ages, from 18 to 85, and within all major racial, ethnic, and marital-status segments of society.

More good work from Dodd:

Consumer Watchdog Gains Key Supporter
Washington Post:

Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, yesterday announced his support for the creation of a new agency with broad authority to protect consumers of financial products such as mortgage loans and credit cards.

and:

Sen. Dodd urges consumer finance protection agency :

U.S. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd on Thursday called for creation of an independent consumer protection agency as part of wider reforms to the U.S. financial regulatory structure.

“If the financial crisis has proven one thing, it is that protecting the financial well-being of American consumers should be our first priority as we work to bring our financial regulatory structure into the 21st century,” the Connecticut Democrat said in a statement.

Peter Schiff really seems to think so.

Schiff is being pushed as a Ron Paulite candidate. The Washington Independent discusses his candidacy:

Schiff would be disrupting the plans of Rob Simmons, a Republican congressman from 2001 to 2007 who is already running against Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), but he’d be the latest candidate from the sprawling movement of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Dozens of 2008 Republican candidates (and at least one Democrat) ran on Paul’s banner and ideas, and just this month Paul-endorsed candidate Steve Lonegan lost a heated Republican primary for governor of New Jersey, scoring 41 percent of the vote. When lightning strikes, Paul-backed candidates can raise a lot of money, get media coverage, and shift their GOP rivals to the right.

Schiff’s excuse for not voting: Republicans can’t win in Connecticut – hey Peter, how about Rowland, Rell, Shays – just to mention a few?

Matt Browner Hamlin in his great Hold Fast blog, discusses these issues in detail.

Here’s Schiff addressing the Libertarian Party of Connecticut:

My Left Nutmeg discusses Shiff’s potential candidacy here.

I hope he runs as a Republican in a primary. Then Republicans will have a chance to vote for someone who, if he is really a Libertarian, opposes any government control of abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, drug sale or use, and opposes our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.