The bill, Senate Bill 125, responds to new federal limits on how states may tax health plans. California’s managed care organization tax, known as the MCO tax, is charged to health plans that coordinate care for their members. Until now, California has taxed Medi-Cal plans at a higher rate than private health plans, allowing the state to generate billions of dollars annually and draw additional federal matching funds for Medi-Cal.

Under the revised plan approved by the Legislature, Medi-Cal plans and private plans would be taxed at the same monthly rate: $8.85 per enrollee. If signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and approved by the federal government, the change would shift more of the tax burden onto privately insured Californians while producing less revenue overall than the current structure.

The issue matters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where many families already face rising health care costs and where Medi-Cal covers large numbers of low-income residents, children, seniors and people with disabilities.

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat, acknowledged this week that lawmakers were not choosing from ideal options. She said the Senate still had concerns, but the state needed to act quickly to protect revenue amid changes at the federal level.

“We have as a Senate been very clear that we needed revenue,” Limón told reporters, describing the decision as one lawmakers believed they could manage while federal rules continue to shift.

The federal changes stem from a tax and spending law passed by Congress last summer. Those rules restrict provider taxes, including taxes on health plans. Under the previous structure, California received nearly $8 billion a year from the MCO tax, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The new federal limits are expected to reduce that amount by billions of dollars.

The Legislature’s proposal would not directly increase insurance premiums. Instead, it would raise taxes on private health plans, which say they would pass those costs on to customers.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office has estimated that if health plans pass along the full cost, privately insured Californians could see monthly premiums rise by about 1.5%. That would come in addition to routine annual premium increases.

The California Association of Health Plans estimates the added tax could cost consumers roughly $100 more per year in premiums. For a family of four, the increase could amount to about $400 annually.

Charles Bacchi, president of the association, said taxes and fees are factored into the administrative portion of insurance premiums.

“That is just actuarial science,” Bacchi said. “So when you increase taxes on health plans and insurers, that is built into premium rates and the customer pays it.”

The Newsom administration has said the proposal seeks to balance affordability concerns for people with private insurance against the need to maintain funding for Medi-Cal as federal support shrinks.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the state Department of Finance, said the $8.85 monthly assessment was chosen because it would generate about $2.3 billion a year, similar to the amount California received before 2023 to support Medi-Cal. About $2 billion would go toward existing Medi-Cal services, while roughly $300 million would support previously approved rate increases for providers offering primary care, maternity care and mental health services to Medi-Cal patients, Palmer said.

Some lawmakers voiced reservations even as the bill moved forward. Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson, a San Diego Democrat and physician, called the proposal “extremely problematic” during a Wednesday hearing and said she was uncomfortable with the cost it could impose on families. She ultimately voted for the measure Thursday.

Health plans, physician groups and the California Hospital Association urged lawmakers to reject the proposal in its current form.

After the Assembly approved the bill, the California Association of Health Plans criticized the vote, saying it clashed with state leaders’ stated focus on affordability.

“It is difficult to reconcile those statements with a vote that will increase health insurance premiums on the very people policymakers say they are trying to help,” the group said.

Opponents also argue the proposal conflicts with Proposition 35, the 2024 voter-approved measure that limits taxes on private health plans and requires much of the revenue to be used to expand Medi-Cal services and increase provider rates, rather than backfill general fund spending.

Dr. René Bravo, president of the California Medical Association, said using higher insurance costs to help stabilize the state budget would hurt families.

“Raising health insurance premiums to help balance the state budget is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul,” Bravo said. “It will only make it harder for families to keep coverage and get the care they need.”

California is being forced to redesign the tax because of new federal rules issued under last year’s congressional spending plan. The state’s current approach taxed Medicaid plans more heavily than commercial plans, then used the proceeds to draw down federal matching funds.

Federal officials under the Trump administration have argued that states have used such arrangements to shift Medicaid costs to the federal government. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a final rule earlier this year barring states from taxing Medicaid plans at a higher rate than private plans.

Now that the Legislature has approved the revised tax plan, Newsom must sign it before California can seek federal approval. Budget observers expect him to do so because the proposal closely mirrors the administration’s own plan.

Consumer advocates say preserving MCO tax revenue is essential to keeping Medi-Cal stable. But they also say lawmakers should ensure that any added costs paid by privately insured residents are used to improve health care, not simply to reduce pressure on the state budget.

Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, said consumers should not be asked to pay higher premiums only to have the money backfill the general fund.

The largest remaining uncertainty is whether the federal government will approve California’s revised tax structure. Without that approval, the state would not be able to continue using the tax to draw down federal matching funds.

Adriana Ramos-Yamamoto, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget and Policy Center, said lawmakers’ task is to craft a plan that complies with the new federal rules. But approval is not assured.

“It’s not a guarantee that the federal government will approve our new MCO tax proposal,” she said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Weighs Health Insurance Tax Increase as Consumers Watch Premiums appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, a Downey Democrat, says Assembly Bill 1821 is intended to protect local governments from frivolous or abusive records requests, including requests generated by artificial intelligence. But open-government advocates warn the measure would erode California’s Public Records Act and weaken the public’s ability to monitor city halls, school districts, county agencies and other public bodies across the state, including throughout Southern California and the Inland Empire.

The latest version of the bill would allow public agencies to delay certain requests, charge at least $88 per hour to search for and review records considered to be for “commercial use,” and take requesters to court if officials believe the request was made with “malicious intent.”

Pacheco first introduced a broader version of the proposal in March, when it drew criticism from transparency advocates and concern from some of her Assembly colleagues. She later narrowed the bill so it focused primarily on giving agencies more time to respond to records requests, a change that helped it pass the Assembly in May.

Now, many of the most controversial provisions have returned — and critics say the new language is even more restrictive than the original.

“Transparency is important to me,” Pacheco told CalMatters. “We just want it to run efficiently, and these are just minor amendments or minor tweaks to the Public Records Act.”

Local governments have long argued that large or repeated public records requests can overwhelm staff and drain time from other public services. Supporters of the bill, including the League of California Cities, say agencies need tools to deal with bad-faith requests and emerging uses of public records, including companies seeking large volumes of government emails or documents to build private products.

Donald Larkin, an attorney representing the League of California Cities, has pointed to a 2023 case in which someone sought Bay Area city officials’ emails to train an artificial intelligence service they intended to sell to local governments.

But First Amendment attorneys and open-government groups say California law already gives agencies the ability to push back against requests that are overly broad or unduly burdensome. They also argue that in practice, agencies sometimes delay or withhold records for months or years even under current law.

David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition and a former journalist, said public access to government records is central to accountability.

“The only way that there’s any government accountability is that people know what the government is doing,” Snyder said. “This looks a lot like an effort to evade accountability.”

David Cuillier, a University of Florida journalism professor who serves on the federal Freedom of Information Act advisory committee, said the proposal would take California in the wrong direction.

The changes, he said, could “make California stand out as the most secretive state in the country.”

A key provision would allow agencies to sue people they believe are seeking records with “malicious intent.” If a court agreed, the requester could be required to pay $88 an hour to obtain the records.

Government agencies in other states have filed lawsuits against people they describe as vexatious requesters, though those cases have often been unsuccessful. Critics say California would be the first state to explicitly authorize agencies to sue over alleged malicious intent in public records requests.

Snyder said putting that authority into law would encourage agencies to fight requests rather than comply with them.

“It would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability, as has already happened elsewhere in the country,” he said.

Shaila Nathu, a senior attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, said even the threat of litigation could discourage people from seeking public documents.

Pacheco said she does not expect cities to file lawsuits frequently, noting that agencies would have to go to court to recover a limited amount of fees. She described the provision as a safeguard for extreme cases.

“Hopefully this will curb the bad actors,” she said. “I don’t anticipate that this would slow down legitimate requests.”

The bill’s proposed fee structure has drawn some of the strongest objections. Under current law, public agencies generally may charge only the direct cost of copying records, often between 10 cents and 50 cents per page. The law also prohibits agencies from restricting access based on why someone wants the records.

AB 1821 would allow agencies to impose higher charges when they determine a request is meant to advance a “commercial, trade, or profit” interest. The bill would exempt certain requesters, including journalists, academics and government agencies.

For other members of the public, agencies could ask for information to determine the purpose of a request. Those who do not respond “promptly” could be treated as commercial requesters, though the bill does not define what qualifies as prompt.

Pacheco acknowledged that the determination could vary by situation.

“It’s so fact-specific that it’s kind of hard to say what’s reasonable, what’s prompt,” she said. “Most people will reply if a city asks, and then the city can then obtain the records for the individual.”

In an email to CalMatters, Pacheco spokesperson Alina Evans said the assemblymember does not want taxpayers to subsidize “the cost of building or improving a private company’s commercial product.” Evans also said Pacheco plans to amend the bill so it does not require every requester to explain the reason for seeking records.

Transparency advocates remain unconvinced. Snyder said the language would give agencies wide discretion to scrutinize requesters’ motives and potentially treat people differently depending on how officials view their purpose.

Those classified as commercial requesters could be charged $22 an hour in administrative fees and $66 an hour in professional fees for searching, reviewing and redacting records. Critics note that the California Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that similar charges can threaten the public’s right of access.

Cuillier called the proposed hourly rate “outrageous” and said it could place public records out of reach for many low-income Californians.

The bill also would change response deadlines depending on how a request is filed. Current law requires agencies to respond within 10 calendar days and allows an extension of up to 14 additional calendar days in certain circumstances. The law does not require requests to be submitted in a specific format, though many agencies use online portals.

Pacheco’s bill would change those deadlines to 10 and 14 business days, but only for requests submitted in person or by email during normal business hours. Requests submitted by fax, mail or through an online portal would not receive the same guaranteed timeline, according to critics.

The timing of the latest amendments has also angered open-government groups. Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy director for Oakland Privacy, said significant changes made after Assembly approval can lead to poorly vetted legislation. She described AB 1821 as “a virtual horror show of governmental non-transparency.”

Evans told CalMatters in March that the idea for the bill came from one of Pacheco’s trips sponsored by special interest groups. Pacheco reported receiving more than $45,000 in sponsored travel last year, the most of any California lawmaker, including a study tour in Spain, a golf tournament in Pebble Beach and a conference in Maui.

Asked recently which trip inspired the proposal, Pacheco said she did not remember and said the bill grew out of multiple conversations with local governments.

Evans said the latest amendments reflect discussions with the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the city of Downey, municipal clerks and several lawmakers on the Assembly Judiciary Committee. That committee previously approved a narrower version of the proposal.

For residents across California, the debate could affect one of the main tools used to scrutinize government spending, police practices, development decisions, school district operations and communications by elected officials. Open-records advocates say any new costs or legal risks could discourage ordinary residents from asking questions of their local agencies.

Pacheco and supporters argue the bill is meant to protect public resources from abuse. Opponents say it would give those same agencies too much power to decide who gets records, how quickly they get them and at what price.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Lawmaker’s Bill Raises Fears California Could Become Nation’s ‘Most Secretive’ State appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Family members, friends, faculty, and staff gathered to honor the graduates and celebrate an important milestone in their educational journeys. The annual ceremony recognizes the accomplishments of students and the support systems that help them succeed, including families, educators, and the broader community.

The Child Development & Education Center serves as both a high-quality early childhood education program and a laboratory school supporting MSJC’s Teacher Education and Developmental Studies (TEDS) program. Through observation, mentorship, and hands-on learning opportunities, the Center helps prepare future educators while providing exceptional care and education for local children.

The Center offers full-day toddler and preschool programs for children ages 18 months to 5 years in a nurturing environment built around play-based learning, creativity, exploration, and hands-on discovery. Educators focus on supporting each child’s unique interests, strengths, and emerging abilities while fostering social-emotional development, communication skills, confidence, and a lifelong love of learning.

This year’s graduation ceremony included translation services to help ensure that all families could fully participate in the celebration, reflecting the Center’s commitment to accessibility, inclusion, and family engagement.

“Watching our students cross the stage and celebrate their achievements with family and friends is one of the most rewarding moments of the year,” said Kendra Woodcock, Director of the Child Development & Education Center. “We were especially proud to offer translation services during the ceremony, helping ensure that every family could fully participate in this important milestone. Our goal is to create an inclusive environment where all students and their loved ones feel welcomed, connected, and celebrated. Seeing our graduates reach this accomplishment reminds us of the incredible opportunities that education can create and the bright futures that lie ahead for each of them.”

The Center’s staff recognizes the trust parents place in the program each day and remains committed to providing a safe, nurturing, and enriching educational experience for every child. Early childhood education plays a critical role in laying the foundation for future learning, behavior, and overall well-being, and the CDEC strives to create an environment where children can thrive academically, socially, and emotionally.

For the graduates, the ceremony represented more than the completion of a program—it marked the beginning of new opportunities. Their hard work, perseverance, and commitment have prepared them to pursue future educational goals, meaningful careers, and personal aspirations with confidence.

The graduates demonstrated remarkable determination throughout their educational journey. Their success reflects not only their resilience and dedication but also the encouragement of their families and the support of the faculty and staff who guided them every step of the way.

As MSJC concludes its 2026 graduation season, the Child Development & Education Center ceremony serves as a reminder that educational success begins early and that every milestone deserves celebration.

The Child Development & Education Center currently has 15 openings available in its preschool program for the 2026-27 academic year. Families interested in learning more about the program, scheduling a visit, or enrolling a child are encouraged to contact Director Kendra Woodcock at kwoodcock@msjc.edu. Space is limited.

About Mt. San Jacinto College 

Mt. San Jacinto College (MSJC) is a comprehensive community college serving a diverse student population of approximately 30,000 annually across a 1,700-square-mile area. With campuses in San Jacinto, Menifee Valley, Temecula Valley, and San Gorgonio Pass, MSJC provides accessible, equitable, and innovative educational programs. The college offers a wide range of courses and programs designed to meet the transfer requirements of four-year colleges and universities, supporting students in achieving their academic and career goals. 

The post Mt. San Jacinto College Child Development & Education Center Celebrates 2026 Graduates appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The issue drew dozens of public employees to a Senate committee hearing Wednesday, where they urged support for legislation that would set stronger statewide standards for telework and give individual agencies more room to decide when in-person work is necessary.

The Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee advanced the bill on a 4-1 vote. The measure would not directly block Newsom’s return-to-office directive, which the governor has said is intended to improve accountability, strengthen government services and help revive downtown Sacramento.

Instead, the proposal by Assemblymember Alex Lee, D-Milpitas, would require state agencies to evaluate telework options and justify in writing when employees must come into the office. It also would direct the Department of General Services to create a public dashboard showing the costs, savings and other effects of state telework programs.

Lee and supporters pointed to a 2024 state audit that found remote work could save California money while reducing pollution and improving productivity and employee morale. Supporters also argued that forcing office workers back to cubicles is not a responsible solution for struggling downtown economies.

“As we grapple with the affordability crisis, we want to make sure that our downtowns and urban cores are not places where workers have to be, but where workers want to be,” Lee told the committee. “It’s not fair to shackle our office workers to be the entire bedrock for downtowns.”

The debate has implications across California, including for state employees who live in Southern California and the Inland Empire and may face long commutes to regional offices or state facilities. Telework became widespread in state government during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it did in many private workplaces.

Newsom began pushing state workers back to offices in 2024, first requiring two in-office days per week. His administration later increased the requirement to four days. A four-day mandate had been expected to take effect last year for some workers, but the governor delayed it for certain unions during labor talks as part of an effort to reduce payroll costs.

State employee unions, with the exception of those representing public safety workers, are backing Lee’s bill. Supporters include SEIU Local 1000, the largest state worker union, which is currently negotiating a contract with the Newsom administration. According to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, the union has contributed at least $2 million to current California lawmakers.

At Wednesday’s hearing, workers said many state jobs can be done effectively from home and that departments have already invested heavily in digital systems. One employee with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation said the department had spent years and millions of dollars moving away from paper-based work and argued that pesticide evaluations do not require a permanent office presence.

In a separate development affecting public employees, California health plans serving government workers will not be required to expand coverage for GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. A provision that would have required CalPERS to provide the benefit to its 1.3 million members was removed from legislation this week after the pension fund and a health insurer warned it could raise premiums and cost taxpayers about $187 million annually.

Original source: CalMatters

The post State Employees Push Back on Newsom’s Return-to-Office Order appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Secretary of State’s office confirmed June 17 that supporters submitted enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. The measure is backed and financed by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which argues California needs a major new revenue source to prevent hospital, clinic and health care workforce cuts.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has repeatedly resisted statewide tax increases, has already come out against the proposal. Some of California’s wealthiest technology and business figures are also funding efforts to defeat or weaken it, warning that the tax could drive billionaires, investment and businesses out of the state.

Newsom is reportedly trying to broker a last-minute agreement that would remove the measure before the November ballot is finalized June 25.

The initiative would apply a one-time 5% tax to California residents whose net worth exceeded $1 billion as of Jan. 1, 2026. Supporters estimate about 200 people would be affected. Those subject to the tax would be allowed to pay it over five years.

Supporters say the measure could raise $100 billion. Under the proposal, the money would be placed in a special fund, with 90% dedicated to health care and 10% set aside for education and food assistance. The Legislature would decide how to spend the money and could allocate as much as $25 billion a year to eligible programs, including Medi-Cal and CalFresh.

The measure would need a simple majority vote to pass.

SEIU-UHW, the state’s largest health care workers union, has put more than $31 million into the campaign. Union leaders say California’s health care system faces a severe funding shortfall after changes to Medicaid included in the federal tax and spending package signed last year by President Donald Trump, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

The law makes broad changes to Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income people and people with disabilities. Experts say new work requirements, shorter eligibility periods and limits on federal Medicaid spending are expected to reduce enrollment and cut funding to states. In California, Medicaid is known as Medi-Cal and covers roughly 14 million residents.

The state Department of Health Care Services previously estimated that federal cuts could cost California $30 billion a year. At the same time, state leaders have been dealing with budget deficits and rising program costs. Last year, Newsom and lawmakers limited Medi-Cal enrollment for low-income immigrants without legal status, and additional cuts are being considered as the state adjusts to new federal rules.

Miranda Dietz, director of the Health Care Program at the UC Berkeley Labor Center, has estimated that nearly 3 million Californians could lose health coverage over the next two years because of state and federal changes.

Union officials say the proposed billionaire tax is the only plan large enough to replace the money California stands to lose.

“We are facing literally a collapse of our healthcare system here in California and elsewhere,” SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said when the campaign was launched in October.

Union spokesperson Renée Saldaña said voters who signed petitions were receptive to the proposal, with some saying they preferred a permanent tax rather than a one-time assessment.

“This is popular. The public is feeling the strain of their own healthcare costs,” she said.

The measure has been endorsed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Several local unions, along with the Teamsters and AFSCME California, have also backed it.

Opponents say the initiative is risky fiscal policy that could damage California’s economy and ultimately reduce revenue if wealthy residents move elsewhere. Newsom has long argued that tax increases on high earners could push both people and companies out of California. During a recent appearance on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” he said the state has “already seen dozens and dozens of people leave.”

The opposition has attracted major financial support from some of the state’s richest residents and former residents. Google co-founder Sergey Brin, whom Forbes estimates is worth about $300 billion, reportedly moved to Nevada because of the proposed tax. Brin has contributed $82 million to Building a Better California, a committee supporting several ballot measures that could undercut the billionaire tax if it passes. The committee itself has not taken a formal position on the tax measure.

Two of those countermeasures are also expected to appear on the November ballot. The Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act would prohibit new state taxes on personal property, which could effectively invalidate the billionaire tax if both measures are approved. Another proposal, the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness and Efficiency in California Government Act, would require audits of state programs funded by special taxes.

Other wealthy business leaders, including former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt, Kleiner Perkins Chairman John Doerr and The Wonderful Company President Stewart Resnick, have donated millions to Brin’s committee. Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen has launched another political action committee, Golden State Promise, to directly oppose the tax. Venture capitalist Ron Conway is funding a separate group called Stop The Squeeze.

Together, opposition committees had raised $107.9 million as of June 15, according to state campaign finance records.

Robert Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said opponents are especially concerned about language they believe would allow lawmakers to modify the tax after voters approve it. He said the Legislature could alter the tax rate, change how often it is collected or lower the wealth threshold for who must pay. The union disputes that interpretation.

The proposal has also drawn opposition from groups that might typically align with labor-backed health care funding efforts. Planned Parenthood and the California Teachers Association have opposed the measure, as have major health care organizations including the California Medical Association, the California Primary Care Association and the California Hospital Association.

Even if voters approve the initiative, it is expected to face court challenges. Legal questions could delay the state’s ability to collect or spend the money for years. Critics point to the measure’s retroactive design because it would apply to people who were California residents on Jan. 1, 2026, including those who later moved away. Supporters argue the proposal is legally sound.

Mark Peterson, a public policy professor at UCLA School of Law, said the revenue could significantly help California offset federal health care losses, but only if the measure survives lawsuits and efforts by billionaires to relocate or shield assets.

The debate is already being shaped by concerns over whether wealthy residents will leave. Fortune reported that six billionaires moved out of California last year before the tax could apply to them; their combined wealth could have generated an estimated $27 billion in revenue. Others, including Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, reportedly moved after Jan. 1.

Still, there is no evidence that most of California’s roughly 200 billionaires are leaving. Some wealthy Californians, including former gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer, have said they support the tax.

Early public polling shows the measure has support, but not by a wide margin. A UC Berkeley Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research-POLITICO poll found 50% of voters favor the initiative. At the same time, 54% said they were concerned wealthy residents would leave California, and 63% were concerned they would take businesses with them. A March UC Berkeley Institute of Government Studies-Los Angeles Times poll found 52% support.

Ballot measure campaigns generally prefer to begin with stronger early support because backing often declines as election day nears and opposition advertising increases.

For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, the measure is likely to become one of the most closely watched contests on the November ballot, pitting concerns over health care access and Medi-Cal funding against fears that another tax on high earners could weaken California’s economy.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Billionaire Tax Measure Qualifies for November Ballot: What Voters Should Know appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A 181-page report prepared by researchers organized through the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research examines what California would need to decide before moving to a universal health care model financed through a unified system. Such a system could combine state and federal health care dollars with money now spent by employers and residents, and potentially require new taxes.

During a webinar Wednesday, the research team summarized its findings and responded to questions. On many of the most important details, however, the answer remained uncertain. The report does not prescribe one specific plan. Instead, it lays out the choices policymakers would face if they attempt to redesign how health care is paid for in California.

One of the biggest decisions would be whether the state should pursue a true single-payer model, in which California finances health care for all residents, or a more limited hybrid approach that preserves parts of the existing insurance system. Single-payer supporters often point to systems in the United Kingdom and parts of Western Europe as examples, though California’s health care landscape is far more fragmented.

State leaders would also have to decide whether California would continue paying the existing network of private and public health care providers or create a new state-run structure. Other questions include whether doctors and hospitals would be paid for each service they provide, or whether the state would keep some version of managed care, which now dominates both private insurance and public programs.

Federal funding would be another major hurdle. Medicare, Medi-Cal and other federal programs currently account for roughly half of health care spending in California. Any unified financing plan would likely depend on the federal government agreeing to redirect tens of billions of dollars to the state. The report also raises the issue of how such a system would treat undocumented immigrants, who are generally barred from federally financed health benefits.

The UC report suggests that a single-payer system could offer the greatest administrative efficiency by reducing billing complexity, paperwork and other costs associated with today’s mix of insurers and public programs. But researchers also noted that the same approach would likely be the most politically difficult to achieve.

For many progressives in California and across the country, single-payer health care has been a long-sought goal. Gov. Gavin Newsom embraced the idea during his 2018 campaign, saying at the time that he was tired of politicians claiming to support single-payer while arguing that it was too soon, too costly or someone else’s responsibility.

After taking office, Newsom shifted toward a more incremental strategy. He later described single-payer as an “aspirational” goal rather than a firm commitment, while his administration focused on expanding coverage through Medi-Cal and other programs.

Newsom did sign legislation in 2019 creating the Healthy California for All Commission to study the issue. At the time, he said the state needed input from experts in both the public and private sectors as California continued moving toward universal coverage.

The commission’s 2022 report supported the concept of unified financing but stopped short of calling specifically for a single-payer system. That work helped lead to the 2023 passage of Senate Bill 770, which directed further study by the University of California. The UC report, released in April, is the result of that effort.

In many ways, the report brings the debate back to where it began. When Newsom first promoted single-payer during his campaign, health policy experts already warned that transforming California’s enormous and costly health care system would be complicated. The new report reinforces that conclusion in extensive detail.

With Newsom nearing the end of his time as governor and widely viewed as a possible future presidential candidate, the question now is whether California’s pursuit of a unified health care financing system will continue — or remain largely an exercise in policy planning.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Single-Payer Health Care Could Work in California, but Fiscal and Political Hurdles Loom appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Two years later, parts of that agenda are moving forward. A new interagency council intended to improve coordination among workforce programs is scheduled to meet next week. The state also is developing a digital “career passport” meant to help students and workers organize their education, skills and work experience in a format employers can use.

But the money behind some of Newsom’s most visible workforce initiatives is tightening as California confronts another budget shortfall. Under the governor’s proposed 2026-27 budget, several job training efforts would receive little or no new funding. The California Workforce Development Board, one of the state’s main agencies for coordinating workforce programs, could lose about 20% of its staff.

Among the programs facing uncertainty are Newsom’s “high road” training partnerships, which were designed to connect workers with careers that offer better wages, stronger retention and employer involvement. Without additional funding, some programs could shrink or end around the time the next governor takes office, or shortly afterward.

The Legislature has approved a budget that largely reflects Newsom’s proposal. The governor has until the end of the month to sign it.

Workforce groups say the timing is troubling, particularly as Californians continue to struggle with high housing, transportation and living costs.

“At a time when affordability is such a massive concern, it feels like we’re focusing on what things cost and not enough on what people can earn,” Julia Hatton, president of the Rising Sun Center for Opportunity, told CalMatters. Her organization trains workers for construction and climate-related jobs and has received nearly $4 million in state workforce grants.

State finance officials say the administration is not abandoning workforce development. At an April legislative hearing, Allison Hewitt, a budget analyst with the California Department of Finance, said the Workforce Development Board’s budget was not being cut so much as returning to a lower level after several years of unusually large grant allocations.

That explanation drew skepticism from Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a Los Angeles Democrat.

“You can say that all you want,” Durazo said at the hearing. “But if we’re not proposing funding for that … then you’re basically saying this is gonna be the new policy. The bottom line is without funding, it’s not a reality.”

In an emailed statement to CalMatters, Marissa Saldivar, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor’s workforce plan emphasizes “structural changes to benefit students, which does not always require funding.”

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the Department of Finance, said in the same email that the current budget plan includes more than $250 million in new workforce funding, including for health care and construction programs.

That figure is far below the more than $2.2 billion in new workforce grants California approved in the 2022-23 budget year, when the state had far more money available.

For decades, state and federal governments have invested in job training programs, especially for low-income workers and people without college degrees. Results have often been uneven. Some participants end up in low-wage jobs or positions with high turnover, leaving policymakers searching for better ways to connect training with long-term employment.

California’s high road training partnerships were created to address those weaknesses by focusing on programs that involve employers and lead to jobs with livable wages and career growth. The state began making smaller investments in the model around 2014, according to Stewart Knox, secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

In 2021 and 2022, California dramatically expanded those investments, sending hundreds of millions of dollars into programs tied to construction, health care, technology, public-sector jobs, youth apprenticeships and retraining for oil workers affected by refinery closures.

The results have varied. Some grants helped train large numbers of workers for union jobs, while others produced fewer measurable benefits. In one case, a grant intended to train workers at electric vehicle company Proterra was disrupted when the company shut down before workers could begin.

This year, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, a Los Angeles Democrat, is carrying legislation that would place tighter limits on how high road training money can be used.

Another bill, by Assemblymembers Isaac Bryan of Culver City and Damon Connolly of San Rafael, would give grantees more time to spend funds intended to help oil workers retrain. According to a bill analysis, about 500 of roughly 1,700 eligible oil workers had participated as of May.

Newsom’s broader career education push formally took shape in 2023, when he signed an executive order calling for a master plan that would reshape how California prepares people for work. Released in 2025, the plan called for better coordination among workforce providers, expanded high road training programs and continued support for youth apprenticeships.

Knox said the state is still in the middle of that effort, even if program funding is less robust than it was during the post-pandemic budget surge.

“We’re definitely not done,” Knox told CalMatters. “We’re kind of mid-stage.”

He pointed to other parts of the master plan that are advancing, including growth in dual enrollment, which allows high school students to take college courses, and efforts to help more students receive college credit for prior work experience.

Palmer said the Legislature’s budget proposal includes additional money for both dual enrollment and credit for work experience. Those dollars, however, come from Proposition 98, the constitutionally protected funding stream that largely supports K-12 schools and community colleges, rather than from the workforce budget.

The Shirley Ware Education Center, a national workforce training nonprofit founded in Oakland, was one of the earliest and largest recipients of high road grants. Since 2017, it has received more than $40 million in state workforce funding and used the money to help more than 5,500 workers move into better jobs, mostly in health care.

“When the state was flush with cash, they put a lot of money into these programs,” Executive Director Rebecca Hanson told CalMatters.

Now, Hanson said, California’s budget deficit makes it difficult to argue for more workforce funding when other essential services also face cuts. Her organization’s high road grant runs through 2027, but she said the group has other funding sources and is accustomed to shifts in state support.

“My hope is that by the time we’re talking about 2028, we’ll be able to find other money,” Hanson said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Funds Dwindle for Newsom’s Promise to Help Californians Build New Careers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Priscilla Preciado, a Cal State Fullerton communications student studying journalism, traces that fear through her father’s experience more than 30 years ago in Tustin. At the time, he was a 21-year-old Chicano who had recently moved to the Orange County city. One day, while driving to a 7-Eleven with four friends, a police officer began following him and directed him into the store’s parking lot.

More officers arrived. What began as one patrol car became several.

Preciado said her father believes his appearance shaped the way officers treated him. He had slicked-back black hair, brown skin, tattoos and the look of a young man who stood out in a largely white community. Music played from his lowrider. Officers searched his car but found nothing incriminating, she said. Her father and two friends who had identification were allowed to leave. Two others, who did not have IDs, were detained.

That encounter has taken on renewed meaning for Preciado as immigration enforcement has intensified in California and across the country. Border Patrol agents have joined Immigration and Customs Enforcement in roving patrols, raising concerns among immigrant-rights advocates and Latino communities about who is being targeted and why.

For Preciado, the current climate has drawn her closer to her father’s history.

Her father, the oldest of five children, grew up carrying adult responsibilities early in life. His father was incarcerated, and his mother worked at an appliance store to support the family. He often felt like an outsider, Preciado said.

When she asked him what parts of himself he felt others judged most, he pointed to his clothing, tattoos and skin color.

“My dress, the color of my skin, tattoos,” he told her. “Even as an adult I still feel like I stand out now.”

Preciado said those experiences shaped the way her father moved through the world — and the way he viewed his role in her life. When she was preparing to graduate from high school, she wanted him there to celebrate with her. But he worried that stepping onto campus might hurt her opportunities or draw unwanted attention.

“I do not want to hold you back from receiving any more opportunities,” he told her.

To Preciado, that fear reflected the toll of years of profiling. Her father had come to see himself through the assumptions others placed on him, she said, even though she saw him as a devoted father, brother and husband — not as an obstacle.

Now, she said, he worries not only about himself, but about her.

“You have to be aware of your surroundings at all times,” he tells her. “You’re darker than your siblings. You look the most like me, therefore are more vulnerable to profiling and the experiences I’ve endured. Be careful of where you decide to go now and only go if necessary.”

Those conversations reflect a broader issue within Latino communities. A 2021 Pew Research Center study found that 57% of Latino adults said skin color affects their daily experiences “a lot.” Among Latinos with darker skin, 62% said their skin tone has hurt their ability to get ahead in the United States.

Concerns about racial profiling have also reached the courts. In a concurring opinion in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that immigration stops may consider certain factors, including the large number of undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area, locations where day laborers gather and industries such as landscaping, agriculture and construction. Many legal scholars have argued that the opinion gives immigration agents broad room to engage in racial profiling.

In September, the Department of Homeland Security reported that 2 million undocumented immigrants had left the United States, including 1.6 million people the agency described as having “voluntarily self-deported” and more than 400,000 deportations.

For Preciado, the moment has made skin color and identity impossible to ignore. She argues that the narratives attached to Latino men — particularly men with darker skin, tattoos or working-class markers — must be challenged by their families and communities.

She points to earlier periods of Latino activism in Southern California and beyond: the 1968 East Los Angeles student walkouts, when thousands of Mexican American students protested unequal treatment in schools; the Chicano Moratorium of the 1970s, which opposed the disproportionate drafting of Mexican Americans during the Vietnam War; and the organizing that helped lead to the collapse of California’s Proposition 187, the 1990s anti-immigrant measure.

Those movements, she said, show the power of collective resistance during moments of fear and exclusion.

For her, the lesson is also personal. Her father’s experiences did not distance her from him. They strengthened her understanding of what he endured — and why today’s immigration raids feel, for a new generation of California Latinos, like the return of old wounds.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Immigration Raids Put Skin Color at Forefront for Young California Latinos appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

According to multiple media reports, Chase died after complications from meningitis and a serious blood infection that progressed to sepsis. Hernandez said she had been hospitalized in Los Angeles earlier this month after suffering from malnutrition and that her condition deteriorated rapidly in recent weeks.

For millions of fans, Chase will forever be remembered as the voice of Lilo Pelekai in Disney’s 2002 animated hit Lilo & Stitch. The film became a worldwide success and remains one of Disney’s most beloved modern animated features. Chase continued voicing the character in sequels and television adaptations, helping establish Lilo as one of the studio’s most recognizable young protagonists.

That same year, Chase delivered another performance that would define her career. In the American horror film The Ring, she portrayed Samara Morgan, the ghostly child whose terrifying appearance became one of the most iconic images in modern horror cinema. Her performance earned widespread praise and helped make the film a box office success. The role later earned her an MTV Movie Award for Best Villain.

Born July 24, 1990, in Las Vegas, Nevada, Chase entered the entertainment industry at a young age. In addition to her work in Lilo & Stitch and The Ring, she provided the English-language voice of Chihiro in the acclaimed animated film Spirited Away. She also appeared in several television series and films, including Donnie Darko, ER, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, and HBO’s Big Love, where she played Rhonda Volmer in a recurring role spanning multiple seasons.

While her early career was marked by significant success, reports indicate that Chase faced numerous personal challenges later in life. Hernandez described a difficult childhood, estrangement from family members, and struggles finding stability after her years as a child star. A fundraising campaign launched before her death sought assistance during her medical crisis and highlighted the hardships she endured in recent years.

The news of Chase’s death has sparked an outpouring of tributes across social media, with fans remembering both the warmth she brought to the character of Lilo and the chilling impact of her portrayal of Samara. For many millennials who grew up in the early 2000s, her performances became defining parts of their childhood movie experiences.

Although her life was marked by both remarkable success and personal struggles, Daveigh Chase leaves behind a legacy that continues to resonate with audiences around the world. Her work helped shape some of the most memorable films of her generation, ensuring that her performances will continue to be discovered and appreciated by future audiences.

The post Daveigh Chase, Voice of Lilo and Star of The Ring, Dies at 35 appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The resort’s “Stars, Stripes & Sizzle” celebration will take place June 26-28 and again July 3-5, featuring fireworks, live music, DJs, carnival-style games and themed dining specials throughout the property.

The festivities will officially begin June 26 with a fireworks display scheduled for 9 p.m. Resort officials said the event is intended to give visitors an early start to Independence Day celebrations while recognizing the nation’s semiquincentennial, marking 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Throughout both weekends, guests can enjoy live entertainment on multiple stages, poolside activities, interactive games and promotional giveaways.

A centerpiece of the celebration will be Morongo’s “Rev, White, and Blue” vehicle giveaway promotion on June 28. The festivities continue July 3 with the resort’s “250 for 250” promotion, which will award a total of $250,000 in prizes in honor of the nation’s 250th anniversary.

On July 4, guests will also have an opportunity to receive a commemorative 250th anniversary hat while supplies last.

Amy Hunstock, vice president of marketing for Morongo Casino Resort & Spa, said the resort wanted to create an event that brings together entertainment, community and summer traditions.

“As the country prepares to celebrate 250 years, we’re excited to bring guests together for a series of events centered around entertainment, celebration, and community,” Hunstock said. “From fireworks and live music to gaming, dining, and special promotions, this summer lineup reflects the energy and experiences guests have come to expect at Morongo.”

In addition to entertainment and gaming promotions, visitors will find a variety of limited-time food and beverage offerings inspired by classic fair and carnival favorites.

Featured menu items include a giant Bavarian pretzel with beer cheese sauce, fried chicken tenders paired with French toast sticks, corn esquites topped with Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, caramel apples, specialty frappuccinos and dessert shakes. Additional themed beverages and treats will also be available at various dining locations throughout the resort.

Owned and operated by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Morongo Casino Resort & Spa is located along Interstate 10 near Cabazon. The AAA Four-Diamond resort features gaming, dining, entertainment, lodging, a full-service spa and access to the nearby Morongo Golf Club at Tukwet Canyon.

The celebration will include dining specials across the Morongo Casino Resort & Spa, including:

• Good Times Cafe – Giant Bavarian Pretzel with whole grain mustard and beer cheese sauce | $14
• Ruffled Feathers – Fried Chicken Tenders & French Toast Sticks with maple syrup and powdered sugar | $13
• Fiesta Taco – Corn Esquite with Flamin’ Hot™ Cheetos | $12
• Pink Coffee – Assorted Caramel Apples | $8.50 or Carnival Candy Crunch Rich chocolate Frappuccino topped with colorful carnival sprinkles and whipped cream | $8
• Mozen Express – Carnival Cake Shake, Strawberry confetti shake topped with whipped cream and a vanilla cupcake | $14
• Marketplace – The Carnival Cruiser in a Souvenir Cup Baja Sipper, tropical fruit, pineapple, cherry, and island flavors | $19.99

Additional information about the Stars, Stripes & Sizzle celebration and event schedules can be found through Morongo Casino Resort & Spa.

Source: Morongo Casino Resort & Spa press release.

About the Morongo Casino, Resort & Spa

The AAA 4-Diamond Morongo Casino, Resort & Spa is located along the 10 Freeway near Palm Springs, Calif. Owned and operated by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Morongo Casino, Resort & Spa offers the hottest slots and an array of table and high-limit gaming at one of the largest tribal gaming centers in the United States. The towering 27-story resort features top-rated restaurants, a stunning swimming pool with private cabanas, a world-class spa, legendary live entertainment and, nearby, the 36-hole championship Morongo Golf Club at Tukwet Canyon. Learn more at morongocasinoresort.com.

The post Morongo Plans Two-Weekend Celebration for America’s 250th Birthday appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.