The move, part of California's drive to make sure all its residents have health coverage, does not come without opposition. (Photo: Shutterstock)
Among its many firsts, California looks to be claiming a new one: the extension of health benefits to immigrants ages 19 to 25 who are in the country illegally.
Not everyone is happy with the plan, according to the Sacramento Bee, although perhaps not for the reasons one might expect. While those against extending such benefits to those who have not entered the U.S. legally are vocal in their opposition, Republican lawmakers oppose the measure—part of California's drive to make sure all its residents have health coverage—because part of the deal is to levy a tax on people in the state who don't have health insurance.
According to the Sacramento Bee, the health care move is part of “a broader plan to spend $213 billion of state and federal tax money over the next year.” Legislative approval would see low-income adults aged of 19 and 25 who are in the state illegally added to its Medicaid program.
Only that particular age group whose incomes are low enough to qualify would get those benefits, although the state Senate had wanted adults 65 and older to be included; State Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, has proposed a bill to do just that. With the cost of the limited reach of the program expected to total $98 million—it will cover about 90,000 people—the Newsom administration felt covering seniors too would be too expensive.
Sen. Holly Mitchell, a Los Angeles Democrat who led the budget negotiations, said of the move, “California believes that health is a fundamental right.”
But it's not just immigrant families who will benefit from health coverage; the deal—the first of its kind in the country—also provides help for middle-income families to pay their premiums. A family of four earning as much as six times the federal poverty level, more than $150,000 a year, would be eligible for about $100 a month in premium assistance.
The overall budget, of which the deal is a part, still has to be approved by the full state legislature, so it's not necessarily a done deal; in fact, Republicans on the negotiating committee voted against it, claiming it was unfair to provide coverage to illegal state residents while taxing legal residents for not buying coverage.
Complete your profile to continue reading and get FREE access to BenefitsPRO, part of your ALM digital membership.
Your access to unlimited BenefitsPRO content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking benefits news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Marlene Satter
Marlene Y. Satter has worked in and written about the financial industry for decades.
