What the new nominee and a bill introduced to California legislature have to do with the future of healthcare coverage
A new bill was introduced into the California legislature (AB-1400) that Guaranteed Healthcare for All. It proposed a one payer system, also known as universal healthcare. This bill cleared the Senate floor but did not pass the House. Why did it not pass the House? The bill didn't include how California planned to pay for this system, especially for those that could not afford to pay. A separate bill was introduced to accompany it, that details how the bill would be funded, which in sum, increased the gross receipts tax, income tax and increased employer taxes for both the employer and employee. The bill failed this time in what appears to be a lack of planning on the side of the lobbyist. These lobbyist put in the effort to detail to California residents how they could have your legislature unendorsed by the Democratic party if they did not approve the bill, but that effort could have been better served in building a bill that was worth passing. (Oooops)
Now what does a bill that did not pass have to do with healthcare reform or much less, SCOTUS Nominee Ketanji Brown? Everything. California is not the only state proposing similar bills, New York and Oregon have as well. In fact, it's in some ways being fueled in a bipartisan effort. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are Republicans pushing to have Employer benefits for providing group health coverage capped or eliminated in general, although maybe not for the reason you may be thinking. With the implementation of the Marketplace came the red tape that requires employers to show they have offered employees a group health benefit. This has meant time and money over the years since an individual can simply check a box stating that their employer has not offered them coverage and it's on the the employer to prove that they have, more often than not, after fees have been accessed. It is becoming a bigger liability than a benefit and thus, many Republican lawmakers are now considering a move to cap or eliminate the tax deduction given to employers for offering coverage, so that these employers can be relieved of the duty to prove they have offered it to those who defy regulations and apply despite having it available through their employer.
While these two scenarios come from opposite sides of the spectrum, they are triggered by a common goal, to make healthcare coverage, in some sense, a little more manageable. In my next blog post, I'll explain how in either scenario, getting your coverage through a broker like Jeremy Carter is your best bet, not just from a coverage standpoint, but legal and financial as well.
But back to the subject, and on to SCOTUS nominee, Ketanji Brown. What do we know about Ketanji Brown? Not a ton, at least nothing that can really give us a clear picture on how she truly views certain hot political topics. What we do know is that Brown is by the book in its current state. What I mean by that is while advocates and lobbyist may put a law or bill into question due to the fairness as it may be seen by the individual, Brown views the fairness in light of the current law and not how it can be made better or worse. Since President Biden has been in office, this Supreme Court has already reinstated several restrictions once removed by former President Trump. It won't be the end of the requested changes either, especially as we come up on mid-term elections. While Brown scouts for legislative support, many will be on board with a one payer system although the reasons they support it may vary. The dialogue, and promises, for the upcoming elections will hold a common theme, Healthcare Reform (again) but with a push by Republicans to alleviate the burden of business owners. Brown has a strong background in socio-economic injustices and without a firm standing on healthcare reform, she is likely to move in the direction of a one payer system to suit the masses.
What is not being portrayed here, and why it is so important for consumers to point out to their legislature, employer based healthcare was created to benefit consumers, not to be regulated out of existence as we see happening now. Employer based healthcare was originally created when the government attempted to cap the individual wage so employers had to find another way to encourage the best talent to work for them, by offering healthcare benefits, to which the government agreed not to tax. Now many lawmakers want to take that away, increase our taxes to pay for a single payer health care system that we will then have to use our after tax monies to pay for our monthly premiums (where applicable). Definitely seems like the consumer is getting the short end of the deal.
While there are obvious issues within the healthcare system of the United States, on many fronts, taking away options is not the solution. When you take away options from the American people, the acceptable standard becomes increasingly lower, because there is no other competition. We have to voice our opinions to our elected officials before it is too late. Rome didn't fall in a day, it was one little change here and there to satisfy the masses. Real solutions are available but we have to be willing to have some real conversations. You can find the elected officials in your area by going here: https://www.usa.gov/local-governments
Carter Health Insurance is here if you have any questions regarding proposed changes to health care laws or questions regarding your own personal coverage.