Whether you make a living by selling life insuranceand annuities, developing comprehensive financial plansfor the affluent, or giving institutions investment advice, the U.S.Senate's health finance policy fight is your fight, too.

The United States could generate about $19 trillion in grossdomestic product this year and have $87 trillion in net wealth.

The country will spend about $3.5 trillion on health care. Thefederal government will allocate $1.2 trillion, or 29% of what itspends, for Medicare, Medicaid and other health care programs.

Related: On the horizon--complianceissues

An advisor from another planet who looked at thenumbers for the United States might think the country was anendowment set up to yield a steady stream of funding for healthcare programs.

The last big wave of efforts to change the U.S. healthfinance system ended in the late 1990s, when the country decidedthat letting primary care doctors control managed-care planenrollees' access to specialty care and hospital care wasunacceptable.

During the current wave, players on the left, who thought of thegovernment-run health care system in France as the ideal, squaredoff with players in the middle, who hoped a public or privateentity could make the system work better by having health planscompete for consumers' business through a carefully policed healthinsurance supermarket.

Now Republicans in Congress are coming to terms with whatpioneers in the health insurance supermarket movement were saying10 years ago: that running a successful health insurancesupermarket is complicated, and that keeping relentless tides ofhealth risk from pushing the good customers and the good insurersout is hard.

Related: 3 big trends in retirement planning in the'new normal'

Democrats approved the current Affordable Care Act and itshealth insurance supermarket program, the public health insuranceexchange system, in 2010. The Obama administration took a slow,aloof approach to implementing it. Republicans did what they couldto strangle it. Now, the system is wobbling. The tides of healthrisk are pushing the good risks and the most generous insurersout.

Members of the House passed a major Affordable Care Act changebill, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act bill, by a 217-213vote May 4. No one knew whether the House version of H.R. 1628would pass until it passed.

Related: HSA tax considerations

Now, Senate Republicans are struggling to pass their own versionof H.R. 1628, the Better Care Reconciliation Act bill.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was hoping to get theBCRA bill through the Senate as early as Wednesday. Shortly beforepress time today, he said he was postponing the vote because SenateRepublicans need more time to talk about the bill.

Here's a look at three possible implications the BCRA fightmight have for financial advisors, whatever the ultimate outcome ofthe fight might be.

1. The BCRA fight could decide the fate of two taxes thataffect high-income taxpayers, and of the Internal RevenueCode.

The Affordable Care Act created two taxes thathave turned out to be solid revenue generators for the federalgovernment: the net investment tax and the 0.9% Medicaresurtax.

Together, the taxes accounted for about 1.85% of the $1.45trillion in individual income tax revenue that the Internal RevenueService collected in 2015, according to IRS figures.

The net investment tax imposes a 3.8% tax on the investmentearnings of households with modified adjusted gross income over aminimum level. The minimum level is $200,000 for individuals and$250,000 for couples.

The Medicare surtax imposes an extra 0.9% tax on wages,compensation and self-employment earnings over a minimum level. Theminimum level is $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 forcouples.

Both the Senate BCRA bill and the House American Health Care Actbill would eliminate the net investment tax for tax years startingafter Dec. 31, 2016.

Both bills would eliminate 0.9% Medicare surtax for tax yearsbeginning after Dec. 31, 2022.

Today, developing strategies to deal with the netinvestment tax and the Medicare surtax is difficult, because no oneknows whether the taxes are here to stay.

The outcome of the BCRA fight might give financial advisors agood idea about the fate of those two taxes. It could alsodetermine what any efforts to reform the Internal Revenue Code looklike.

Would-be Republican tax code changers are hoping they can usehundreds of billions of dollars in Affordable Care Act-relatedbudget savings to ease any pain that simplifying the tax code mightcause.

2. The health bill fight could lead to heated discussionsinvolving AARP.

AARP has been running television ads urging 11 U.S. senators ineight states to vote against any bill that resembles the HouseAmerican Health Care Act bill.

Both the House bill and the Senate bill would increase the gapbetween the amount insurers can charge their oldest adult enrolleesand their youngest adult enrollees to 5 to 1, from 3 to 1today.

Both bills would replace the current income-based premium taxcredit subsidy system with a new system based more on a consumer'sage. The new system would provide bigger credits for olderconsumers, but not big enough credits to make up for the premiumincreases for older enrollees, according to analyses by AARP, theHenry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and other organizations.

AARP is calling the House bill tax credit system, and anysimilar systems, an "age tax."

AARP has been urging members across the country to contact theirsenators to oppose any premium tax credit system that resembles thesystems in the House bill.

At least one of the senators on AARP's target list, Dean Hellerof Nevada, has announced that he cannot support the current versionof the Senate's health bill.

Over the past 20 years, AARP has changed the boundaries formainstream discussions of Medicare policy. Few players inWashington now question whether Medicare should exist.

Whether AARP succeeds at blocking the current premium tax creditchange proposals or not, its visibility on this issue could makesenators think twice about how they address a range of topics,ranging from long-term care finance to the idea of turning all 401(k) plan accounts in Rothaccounts.

3. The health fight could push the White House andRepublican leaders in Congress to seek bipartisancompromises.

When Donald Trump took the oath of office, it looked as if hemight pursue a bipartisan approach to crafting legislation. Just afew years earlier, he was helping the current Senate Democraticleader, Chuck Schumer (pictured above), raise money for DemocraticSenate candidates.

Since then, Trump's administration has been taking a stronglypartisan approach to legislation.

That could change.

Reporters at Politico today quoted anonymous sources who sayMitch McConnell is telling colleagues that, if the currentRepublican Affordable Care Act change efforts fail, "the GOPwill lose all leverage and be forced to work with ChuckSchumer."

A shift in Washington back toward bipartisan policymaking couldhurt the chances for big, highly partisan measures, such as taxcode simplification, but it could help the odds of smaller measureswith some bipartisan appeal, such efforts to kill the Cadillacplan excise tax, sweeten the rules for holders of health savingsaccounts, or create new mechanisms for paying for long-termcare.