Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- Weekly Radio Address: Assembly Lead Water Negotiators Huffman, Caballero Discuss this Week’s Historic Agreement to Solve California’s Water Crisis
- Feinstein Once Again Flirts With Entering the Governor’s Race
- A Good Health Care Bill Emerging from the House
- Schwarzenegger Applauds Passage of Peripheral Canal/Dams Water Package
- "Historic" Water Deal Draws Both Praise and Criticism
- Republican State Senators Vote for Administrative Chaos, Backdoor Cuts in IHSS
- Assembly Budget Committee Follow-up Informational Hearing on Implementation on IHSS Program Changes
About Us
David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.
About California Progress Report.
Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).
Sponsors
Books
California State Assembly Gives Final Passage to AB 8—Democratic Health Care Legislation Goes to Governor Schwarzenegger Who Will Veto It and Call a Special Session
Fact Sheet on Historic Bill

Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez presenting AB 8 on the Assembly Floor
By Frank D. Russo
The California State Assembly has just passed AB 8 (Nunez-Perata) by a vote of 45 to 31 and sent it to Governor Schwarzenegger. Shortly before 5 p.m., during the middle of the debate, the Governor indicated he would veto AB 8 and will call a special session of the legislature to deal with the health care issue. Earlier this afternoon, it passed the State Senate on a 22 to 17 votes. In both houses it did not receive a single Republican vote.
We will report on the debates on the floors of the Assembly and Senate later. Here, for the moment, is a statement issued by Anthony Wright, Executive Director of Health Access California, the statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition of over 200 organizations, and a fact sheet prepared by him that reflect amendments made to the bill last Friday.
Statement of Anthony Wright
"It's a historic day when any state legislature, especially that of the largest state in the nation, endorses a health care plan, especially one whose elements are as groundbreaking as the creation of Medicare and the minimum wage.
"Legislative leaders have done their due diligence, in crafting a compromise plan that meets the Governor's framework and vision of shared responsibility, but within the contraints of federal rules and a majority-vote bill that can be passed. As part of the shared responsibility vision, the bill includes six different funding streams, less than half from employers. If the Governor wants action, action, action, he should sign this bill, and continue to work in the legislature and on the ballot for other elements."
FACT SHEET ON AB 8(Nunez/Perata)
AB8(Nunez/Perata) seeks to make health coverage more available, affordable, and automatic in each of the three ways that consumer now get coverage: through employers, public programs, and the individual market.
Passage and enactment of the bill would be historic, as it would be the biggest expansion of public health coverage since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid 40 years ago; it would set a minimum employer contribution for health care, as significant as the establishment of the minimum wage 70 years ago. It would provide immediate relief for millions of uninsured Californians, and security for millions more that are concerned about losing coverage.
AB8(Nunez) bill would:
• Expand Medi-Cal and Healthy Families to extend coverage for children and parents up to 300%FPL, which is around $60,000 for a family of four.
• Create a statewide purchasing pool initially for employees and dependents of employers that choose to use the purchasing pool. A new, affordable option for employers to cover their entire workforce, the purchasing pool would cover an estimated three to four million people.
• Establish a standard for a minimum employer contribution to spend 7.5% of payroll on health benefits, either by paying into the purchasing pool or by expending the funds on health insurance or other health benefits.
• Reform the individual insurance market so that coverage is available to anyone who wishes to purchases, by limiting insurers ability to deny people based on “pre-existing conditions,” and providing better funding for coverage for those that are denied, through an assessment on insurers.
• Bring in billions in new federal dollars to California ’s health system, by getting matching funds for these expansions of public programs and employer contributions.
• Offer workers tax savings, by providing the ability to pay premiums, or share-of-premiums, with pre-tax dollars, for a savings of 15-40%.
• Place other rules and oversight on insurers, including limiting the percentage of premium dollars that go to administration and profit, rather than patient care.
• Expands small group insurance reforms, making coverage more accessible and affordable for employers of 2-100 workers.
• Encourage use of health information technology and disease management.
• Additional cost containment provisions would foster better transparency and data on cost and quality of health care, allow for prescription drug bulk purchasing, and to facilitate a public insurer option.
RESPONSIBILITY AND AFFORDABILITY IN AB 8:
AB 8 is a majority vote bill, but with multiple funding sources, including:
* the minimum employer contribution;
* required worker contributions;
* reinvested state savings;
* new federal Medicaid matching dollars,
* use of Section 125 federal and state tax breaks, and
* an assessment on insurers.
INDIVIDUALS: AB8 includes individual responsibility, for those who have their risk of health costs shared by an employer or the statewide purchasing pool. Unlike the Governor’s plan, AB8 does not have a mandate to go into the individual market, for those that lack access to group coverage from a public program or an employer.
While AB8 requires workers to take up coverage offered at work or in the purchasing pool, there are exemptions for those with other group coverage (for example, through a spouse). The bill would also exempt anybody from having to take-up employer-based coverage that would cost them more than 5% of their income.
In the purchasing pool, those under 300% of the federal poverty level (around $30,000 for an individual, $60,000 for a family of four) would be guaranteed coverage at a maximum premium of 5% of their income; they would not have to take up coverage if the plan had a maximum of more than $1500 for total out-of-pocket costs, including deductible.
EMPLOYERS: While most employers already provide coverage to their workers, all employers would have to contribute 7.5% of payroll to health care under AB8.
For those that don’t provide coverage or provide minimal benefits, they would also have a new purchasing pool option to only pay 7.5% of payroll, and get the benefit of having all their workers covered. This is a significant, especially for low-wage and small employers, that would have to pay a much larger percentage of payroll to cover their workers, and is a reason they are more likely not to. Right now, most employers pay more than 7.5%.
Like the minimum wage does for pay, this minimum employer contribution would set a standard that employers can’t go below, but that many do above, in order to attract and retain workers in the job market.
GOVERNMENT: In the biggest expansion of public program coverage in 40 years since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, children and parents under 300% of the poverty level would be eligible for Medi-Cal or Healthy Families-type coverage.
This is partially funded from the reinvested state savings from having employers contribute to the health care of worker that have been on existing public programs. The rest comes from federal matching funds, which California has been leaving behind every year. Expanding the use of “Section 125” plans uses federal tax breaks to also finance coverage.
INSURERS: Insurance companies would be required to spend 85% of premiums collected on patient care, rather than administration, marketing, and profit. They would be limited in their ability to deny coverage because of “pre-existing conditions,” and they would pay an assessment per covered life to help fund coverage for those Californians in the individual insurance market that were denied coverage.
PROVIDERS: AB 8 (Nunez) does not include the provider taxes proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger in his proposal, largely because of the 2/3 vote requirement. The hospitals came out in support of the hospital fee, which would be used to bring down federal matching funds, that would be used to increase the Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, as well as expand coverage. (See below.) This component will need either significant Republican votes to pass, or need to be passed by a ballot measure.
UNINSURED IMPACT
Earlier estimates indicate that AB8 would cover 70% of the uninsured, 3.2 million of the 4.9 million Californians that are uninsured at any point in time, through expansions of group coverage, through employers and public programs. (About 6.5 million Californians are uninsured at some in the year: about 4.9 million at any point in time, according to the California Health Interview Survey.)
If the bill is accompanied by a hospital provider fee, AB8 can cover 80% of the uninsured, four million of the 4.9 million uninsured, by using new resources to expanding Medi-Cal to cover 600,000 very poor adults without children at home (“childless adults below 100% of the federal poverty level”). If the bill includes the hospital provider fee and such an additional Medi-Cal expansion, such reforms can cover 97% of Californians.
Comments
'Historic'? Californians will all look back at this and say what a huge waste of time. What would be historic is if California passed single-payor (SB 840). Comparing AB 8 to to medicare and the minimum wage is a bunch of bs.
Posted by: Jed Cruz at September 10, 2007 11:57 PM
My name is James Clemmons. I own Bob's Muffler & Radiator in Bakersfield, CA. I would like to comment on ab8 and the financial impact it would have on small business. I have 7 employees, like most small business owners I live day to day just like yourself. When I read other peoples opinions about the minimum impact that ab8 will have on small businesses I realize that none of these people actually run a small business. Ab8 will increase my payroll about $3000.00 dollars a month, that is $3000.00 dollars more that I can afford.
I cannot raise my prices because of all the businesses in my area that are hiring illegal aliens and are paying them under the table. They pay no taxes, workman’s comp, insurance, etc. Since I cannot raise my prices were is the additional money gong to come from? If all of a sudden you were hit with a $3000.00 a month bills what would you do. California is on the verge of running all the small businesses out of business. Have you noticed that there are no trucking companies based in California, they all left.
Do your want nothing but large companies and no competition from small businesses? This bill would leave me no choice but to lay off 2 or 3 of my employees and to try to make it with a smaller crew. Most of the small business owners that I have talked to have told me the same thing, and that they definitely have no intentions of growing any bigger. A lot of business owners have told me they will start cheating on there taxes, and pay there employees under the table to make ends meet. If you don’t have the money what else can you do?
I keep reading that it is a shared responsibility. If that is the case then take a percetage out of the employee’s paychecks. Also, if what I am reading about health insurance is correct they expect premiums to triple in the next 5 years. Nobody is fixing the problem. The impact on small business would be enormous. You have no idea what you are talking about. My only hope is that Arnold will veto the bill. Remember businesses create jobs
Posted by: James Clemmons at September 12, 2007 07:10 AM
Question for the last commenter, James Clemmons. A few questions for you, as the accountant for a small business. Don't you believe your employees should be able to afford to go to the doctor? How much do you loose when you have an employee call in sick? What about large companies who do not pay in to the healthcare system at all such as Walmart? What are they costing you per year in increased health care costs? Since you already pay workers comp you should understand the impact this program will have on rates. Workers comp has decrease in cost every year since it was reformed and since the State Fund was started. This program follows a similar model.
Posted by: Alex Zeh at September 13, 2007 07:10 PM
You are missing the point. The big companies can afford the additional expense; the mom and pop small businesses are going to go out of business. Your solution is instead of fixing the problem of high medical cost is to put it on the backs of the employers. Do you want nothing but large companies and no competition from small businesses? Answer my question if you can. Where is the additional money going to come from if you can’t raise your prices? When I lay off 3 of my employees do you think they are going to care about medical cost when they cant pay there rent? Check out this website for additional information, http://www.benefitscafe.com/articles/ab8.html.
I am for health care reform but this is not the way to go about it. Nevada is starting to look like a good place to move my business.
Posted by: James Clemmons at September 14, 2007 07:41 AM
Unbelievable: Why didn't they back the real Health Care Reform bill...SB840, the one that provides for all and gets the lifebloodsucking middlemen (insurance companies) out of there?
Posted by: Evergreen at September 14, 2007 08:56 AM
Well here is a Stat:
"Twice as many Hispanics _ 39 percent compared to 23 percent of all Californians _ are uninsured, according to a report released Monday by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Posted by: OneHundredPercentAmerican at September 14, 2007 04:33 PM
Evergreen: SB 840 was not voted on because its author, Senator Sheila Kuehl, chose not to bring it up for a floor vote because of the Governor's indicated veto. In the last session the legislature passed a very similar bill by Kuehl only to see it vetoed.
Had SB 840 come up for a vote, there is every indication it would have passed--with Democratic votes only--as the Sepaker and other support it.
Posted by: Frank D. Russo at September 15, 2007 08:40 AM
Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
RSS 