Comedy influencer rips California law doubling his ambulance bill after he provided proof of insurance
Comedy influencer Robby Witt is calling out California state legislators for recent laws that have added new fees and confusing insurance "discounts" to first responder services. One of these laws made it so that the bill for his young daughter's ambulance ride became more than twice as expensive after he provided proof of insurance.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Witt slammed the lawmakers behind AB 716, a law that went into effect in California last year that gives uninsured individuals discounts on healthcare payments. It turns out that in Witt's case, having insurance doubled the price of the ambulance bill compared to if he was not insured – the "opposite" of how he thought it should work.
"Your whole life you've been told, right? Like, you want to buy health insurance so that if something – God forbid – happens, then you will get a lower rate than if you didn't have the insurance. Like, that's what we've all been told our whole lives. And then the exact opposite happened," Witt, who has more than 580,000 TikTok followers, told Fox.
Though he's from the Los Angeles area, Witt also ripped the San Jose City Council for voting unanimously this week to allow its fire department to bill locals $427 for emergency medical care starting in 2026.
As a local NBC Bay Area affiliate reported, "demand for emergency medical care significantly increased after the COVID-19 pandemic -- with 911 incidents reaching all-time highs since 2022," leading to the proposal from Fire Chief Robert Sapien.
"Implementing a first responder fee will align the department with other medical care providers, helping our community to sustain critical life safety services through cost recovery from medical care payers," Sapien told the San Jose Spotlight.
With the city's approval, San Jose's Fire Department joins 23 other fire departments across the state that have implemented first responder fees.
Witt told Fox he disagrees with the added fees.
"We pay high taxes in CA to fund the fire departments. I don't like the idea of turning around to nickel and dime people in their time of need. As Americans, we have always been told you pay your taxes and that goes towards police and fire, etc.," he said.
"And now you still pay your taxes, but here comes an additional bill. That doesn't sit right," he said, adding his own advice for the government: "If the states/counties/cities could mix in a little operational efficiency with our tax dollars [they] could keep these services running without the need to go after citizens for new fees. That's the recipe."
However, California's statewide AB 716 law is the one that hit the young father too close to home.
Witt went viral on TikTok last month with a video depicting his phone call with a healthcare company after his daughter took an ambulance to the hospital for an allergic reaction to food.
During the clip, which has been viewed more than 30 million times, Witt detailed his confusion to a customer service member over the $600 ambulance bill somehow morphing into a $1,300 bill after he provided proof of insurance.
"We got a bill and then we realized that you guys didn't have our insurance, so we sent you the insurance and it looks like the bill went up," Witt told the representative in the now-viral clip.
"OK, yeah, so the first thing you received, that's a discount that you received if you're uninsured. So, you're not eligible for the discount since you are insured," the person on the line responded.
As the representative explained to him, Witt's insurance paid $1,078.85 of the $2,342.14 ambulance ride, leaving him with nearly $1,300 left to pay. Had he never provided proof of insurance, California law would have capped his payment at $600.
"OK, so I'll get cheaper healthcare if I'm uninsured?" Witt asked the rep, pointing out the ridiculousness of his situation.
As the representative explained on the call, Witt's original bill being so low was due to the California law, which mandates that "a ground ambulance provider shall not require an uninsured patient or self-pay patient to pay an amount more than the established payment by Medi-Cal or Medicare fee-for-service amount, whichever is greater."
The father told Fox he found the reasoning behind the law problematic, noting that people could just opt out of insurance to pay less.
"My real problem, I guess, is that it's based off of insurance and why this bill wasn't written based off of income… So in fact, you could have a higher-income family than me who decides to say, you know what? We're not going to buy insurance. And now, all of a sudden, their ambulance bills are going to be cheaper, even though they're higher income."
He then called out the lawmakers who came up with it.
"And so, you know, sometimes when they go to legislate these things, I don't know if they ran out of IQ points to get it done, but it just doesn't make sense to me that you would offer discounts based on whether someone's insured and not based off of their W-2 income."
Putting the whole situation into perspective, he added, "I paid $10,000 in healthcare premiums a year, and I was worse off on an ambulance ride than if I didn't do that. So just on the ambulance ride, I should have an extra $10,000 back in my pocket, and I would have got a cheaper bill."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Contributor: The scars from unrest can run deep, for protesters, residents and even authorities
The heavy-handed responses by the Trump administration to ongoing protests in Los Angeles reveal how little imagination our politicians continue to have when it comes to grasping the causes and consequences of social unrest. Last Friday, in response to increasingly bold and reckless raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Angelenos began large-scale protests. They mobilized in support of family members, friends and neighbors being unscrupulously removed from their communities, often without sound legal justification. As a behavioral epidemiologist who studies psychological trauma, I spend a lot of time speaking to people about their mental health and what motivates them to act. The aim is to understand what keeps them up at night and what helps keep them grounded, to get a sense of what they'll do next. It's an intuitive process. Concern about increasingly untethered ICE raids are clearly one of those things that has kept thousands in Los Angeles up at night, and it directly contributed to the swelling protests and the isolated, unfortunate instances of property destruction and looting. Scholars also research the aftermath of unrest. Studies of protests from around the world show that rarely do participants leave emotionally unscathed. For both protesters and those protested against, feelings of indignity, frustration and despair often persist well after the protest sites are abandoned. These types of outcomes are even worse when violence — from the protesters, law enforcement or military elements — is part of the equation. Protests like those in L.A. this week aren't spontaneous. Their genesis is usually rooted in the perceived denial of their civil rights or physical and psychological safety. A protest is a way of expressing feelings of rejection. Some argue that demonstrations are sometimes a response to collective trauma. Whatever the spark for the larger social uprisings, most researchers and activists rightfully see destructive riots and looting as primal, unhelpful outgrowths of protests. Vandalism and hooliganism distract from the purposes of constitutionally protected demonstrations — and this blurring is an especially grave danger in an era of mass media and hyper-polarized audiences here in the U.S. Depending on the quality of your news sources, you might have the sense that Los Angeles is a war zone right now — even though on almost every block, quotidian life is proceeding as normal, and where there has been destruction, it has been minimal. Reality is not all that matters, however; the perception among many Americans is that L.A. has been consumed by riots and lawlessness, which is precisely President Trump's hope. He further hopes that people with this misconception eventually come to see very little distinction between an impassioned protest and a riot. Once that happens, he knows they're more likely to broadly tolerate and acclimate to the kinds of strongman responses that we're currently seeing. Americans also disagree widely on when protests are appropriate. A poll conducted in 2023 by YouGov found that people are more likely to find protest tactics acceptable when those tactics are in support of a cause they favor. Apparently, many people wish for those who disagree with them to package their dissent as unassumingly as possible, ideally making it invisible and inaudible. But some politicians seem almost giddy when their political enemies demonstrate. In the recent protests in L.A., Trump saw a prime opening to send in the National Guard and later Marines, finally scratching an itch he has had — dating back to the summer of 2020 when protesters fanned out across the nation to protest George Floyd's murder — to use military force on American soil. L.A., of course, is something of a vanguard when it comes to protests, and in particular to protests that devolve into riots. The city's civic meltdowns have typically been measured in terms of people killed and property damaged. The Watts riots in 1965, sparked by police brutality against the city's Black population, killed 34 people and caused $40 million in damage (equivalent to around $300 million today). In the 1992 L.A. riots, another act of resistance in response to police brutality against Black people, 63 people were killed, and losses reached up to a staggering $1 billion (around $2 billion today). Fortunately, so far, there have been very few injuries reported in the current demonstrations, and no deaths. There is no sense yet of the property toll, which is sure to draw a lot of attention from those intent on demonizing the protesters and their cause. Our real focus should be on the psychological toll. One large study of mental health outcomes following various protests determined that the prevalence of major depression in the affected community increased by 7%, irrespective of how personally involved an individual was in the protest. The prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder ranges from 4% to a stunning 41% in areas affected by protests, riots and revolutions. And those impacts also radiate to the law enforcement officers who intervene. For example, in a study of LAPD officers following the 1992 riots, 17% subsequently showed symptoms aligned with post-traumatic stress disorder, including avoidance and emotional resignation. Similar results were observed among law enforcement in Ferguson, Mo. in 2014, following riots there in the aftermath of the murder of a Black teen, Michael Brown. More recently, U.S. Capitol officers reported PTSD-like symptoms after the Trump-inspired insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. A major trope in American politics and among free speech advocates is that dissent makes for a healthy democracy. But too much of anything — especially dissent — has become an albatross on the American psyche. And there are deepening consequences to our seemingly never-ending dissent: It's likely to continue coming in the form of protests and riots. In the eyes of the average American, the U.S. has been in a perpetual state of unrest for at least the last decade. In the last five years alone, the U.S. has been convulsed by coast-to-coast protests — in the aftermath of Floyd's murder in Minneapolis at the hands of police, in response to Israel's ongoing assault on Gaza, and now in Los Angeles and elsewhere in the U.S. over ICE's feckless immigration raids. When the smoke clears, psychological trauma lingers in those who were on the protest grounds, and even those vicariously exposed to it through social media and TV reports. If the response to protests or riots is militarization, and we normalize it, Pandora's box will be opened. It perhaps already has been with Trump's quixotic decision to send unneeded troops to L.A. The militarization of a community, whether in the form of short-term interventions or long-term occupations, is rarely received well by those who must live with it. At best, we consider intrusions by policing officials a necessary evil. At least when it comes to our own communities, most of us appear to prefer to live in spaces that are reasonably policed but still governed by elected representatives. We're at a precarious moment now when we can envision how that could be lost — as we see Trump's effort to militarize Los Angeles and America more broadly through ICE and other authoritarian intimidation tactics. However one feels about the backlash against ICE, or the federal government's reaction to those protesters supporting their immigrant neighbors, most of us likely agree that the political theater and the clashes in the street are bad for the nation — and preventable. With the ultimate hope of removing the need for protests like these, I'm reminded of what a research participant once told me: We have just as much capacity to create trauma for one another as we have to eliminate it. Jerel Ezell is an assistant professor and the director of the Center for Cultural Humility at UC Berkeley. He studies the racial and cultural aspects of politics. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California looters now face 'hard-charging' consequences after blue state abandoned soft-on-crime approach
Amid the continuing unrest and flash mob-style looting incidents in Los Angeles, California is making a significant pivot toward tougher criminal enforcement. Criminal defense attorney David Wohl told Fox News Digital that the legal consequences are no longer a slap on the wrist for looters following the reversal of Proposition 47, which notably did not criminalize theft under $950. "Now we have a very conservative, hard-charging DA in Los Angeles," Wohl said. "He's adding up what is stolen by each individual co-defendant, and if that's over $950, everybody's getting charged with felonies." In a city once known for turning a blind eye to petty theft and soft prosecution, looters who are taking advantage of protests over federal immigration operations now face stricter penalties. California's Soros-backed Progressive Experiment Collapses After A Decade In 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, a ballot initiative that reclassified several nonviolent felonies, including shoplifting, theft and drug possession, as misdemeanors if the value involved was $950 or less. Read On The Fox News App Supporters argued the measure would reduce prison overcrowding and redirect state funds to additional programming. Critics argued that it contributed to a noticeable increase in retail theft and emboldened looters. In 2024, voters voiced their concerns and overwhelmingly chose a sharp course correction from the progressive reforms that Proposition 47 implemented and voted in favor of Proposition 36. Prop 36 restored the ability to file felony charges against repeat offenders, regardless of whether their latest crime falls under the $950 limit. It also enhances penalties for group theft and organized looting, which had previously fallen into legal gray zones under Prop 47. The shift stems from a growing rejection of the previous criminal justice model championed by former District Attorney George Gascon, who Wohl described as "more liberal than a lot of public defenders." Under Gascon's leadership, prosecution was often delayed or diminished, with an emphasis on giving offenders "second, third, fourth, fifth chances," Wohl said. Los Angeles Officials Still On 'Progressive Warpath' Despite Overwhelming Voter Rebuke Of Leftist Policies William Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell University and founder of offered a sharp critique of California's criminal justice policies in light of the emergence of looters during the ongoing L.A. protests against immigration enforcement. "Looting and violence have always been illegal, even in California," Jacobson told Fox News Digital. "Unfortunately, California's lax enforcement of the criminal laws, including the former decriminalization of shoplifting, has created a culture of criminality that has played out in numerous riots over the years." "The current riots against immigration enforcement and violence targeting both ICE and the community are part of the California political ecosystem," he said. Several stores across downtown Los Angeles were hit by looters in the early morning hours as anti-ICE riots continued. On Monday night, looters took to the streets and ransacked a series of storefronts, the Los Angeles Police Department confirmed with Fox News Digital. Apple and Adidas were among the stores hit by thieves, as well as several mom-and-pop shops. "What have they done to my business? I don't know," one local business owner shared with Fox News affiliate KKTV. "I have to go inside and see what's going on. I don't know what they have done with the business." WATCH: One video, taken by Brendan Gutenschwager, captured looters ransacking an Apple storefront on Monday night. The video captured a slew of individuals dashing up to the technology storefront and grabbing goods before dispersing as police arrived. The footage captured the store's glass windows spray-painted with "F--- ICE." Other photos showed ransackers disappearing into the night with stolen goods after a smash-and-grab in Compton, a city south of Los Angeles. It was unclear if the thieves were participating in the ongoing anti-ICE protests or if they were being opportunistic of the city's unrest. "Let me be clear: ANYONE who vandalized Downtown or looted stores does not care about our immigrant communities," Mayor Karen Bass said in a post to X. "You will be held accountable." On Tuesday and Wednesday, after continued protests, other businesses set out to protect their stores. Fox News Digital saw a T-Mobile store on the corner of 3rd Street and Broadway boarding up ahead of likely another night of protests in the city. While a security guard protected the property, a repairer worked on the CVS store on the corner of 7th and Spring streets in downtown Los Angeles after several nights of rioting. Attorney General Pam Bondi offered a blunt message to would-be robbers and looters in the deep-blue city on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday. "If you loot a business in California during this, we're charging you with robbery under the Hobbs Act. No longer are the days of non-prosecution for looting. It's a criminal act," she said. The administration is also determined to crack down on those who inflict harm on law enforcement. "We've all made over 190 arrests, [and] more [are] coming. If you hit a police officer, you assault a police officer, state or federal, we are coming after you."Original article source: California looters now face 'hard-charging' consequences after blue state abandoned soft-on-crime approach
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas parents and teachers worry bills to root out liberal sway from public schools pave the way for conservative bias
Halcyon Ramsey, a mother of three children in the McKinney school district, is active in her kids' elementary and middle schools. She knows how to reach administrators and has many teachers' cellphone numbers. Ramsey values having a voice in what her children will be taught, especially when schools are preparing to discuss complex topics like sexuality. 'I get a permission slip, and then I have an opportunity to preview and see what they're going to show to determine if I give my permission,' she said. 'So as a parent, I feel like my rights are being acknowledged, because I have the option to opt out.' During this year's legislative session, Republican lawmakers championed several proposals advocating for parents' right to guide their children's education in public schools, a sentiment Ramsey agrees with. Supporters of the legislation say it will give parents more control over their children's learning and push back against what they criticize as liberal bias in instruction. But Ramsey worries that some new laws might do more harm than good. Some teachers and parents note that Texas schools already have ways to take in feedback from families, and many work closely with parents in determining school activities and teaching plans. They say efforts to eliminate ideological bias in the classroom are contradicted by other conservative proposals approved this year that seek to push schools to the right. Ultimately, they warn, the proposals will further fan the flames of culture wars in schools, strain the trust between parents and teachers, and make it more difficult to navigate classroom instruction. 'I think when you have too many opinions and too many things involved, it muddies the water, then we don't get anything done,' Ramsey said. Frustration with schools The push for more parental involvement in schools gained traction during the COVID-19 pandemic, when schools closed and switched to remote learning. It led to plummeting grades and created challenges for many parents, who suddenly had to find child care during the day. Schools also introduced mask and vaccine requirements, which conflicted with some families' personal beliefs. Frustrations with public schools eventually extended to classroom instruction. Conservative groups said the way schools taught children about issues like race, racism, sex and gender amounted to forcing leftist ideologies onto students, and that parents should have the power to push back. Lawmakers echoed concerns that classrooms had become too politicized and that taxpayers' money was being used to promote certain ideologies. Conservative criticism led to legislation in 2021 banning public schools from teaching critical race theory, a college-level field of study that explores how race and racism influence laws and institutions, despite the discipline not being taught in K-12 schools. In 2023, the Texas Legislature approved a law prohibiting school libraries from acquiring or keeping sexually explicit materials, which was partially blocked last year. This session, many bills, big and small, sought to build on those efforts. Senate Bill 12, which supporters dubbed the Parental Bill of Rights, aims to give parents more authority over their children's curriculum and extracurricular activities. The bill's goal is to help parents 'make informed choices that align with their family's values,' Rep. Jeff Leach, the bill's sponsor, said on the Texas House floor in May. The legislation, which is headed to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk, will also ban Texas schools from considering diversity, equity and inclusion when hiring or training staff, as well as prohibit student clubs related to sexual orientation and gender identity. Under the law, parents must approve their child's participation in club activities. They will be able to report school employees whom they believe are violating the DEI ban to the principal. If they're not satisfied with the school's response, they can appeal to the Texas education commissioner, who can investigate the complaint and conduct a hearing. Meanwhile, one of the central arguments for Senate Bill 2, which will create a school voucher program in Texas that will allow families to use taxpayer funds to pay for their children's private schooling, was to make it easier for parents to opt out of public schools they believe are underperforming academically or unsafe. Other bills approved this year include Senate Bill 13, which will allow parents to have a bigger role in approving or challenging any school library materials, and Senate Bill 204, which orders the creation of a handbook outlining the ways in which parents can influence their schools. Mandy Drogin, a campaign director with the conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation and a school voucher advocate, said she believes legislation approved this session will give more control to parents worried that what their children are learning in classrooms contradicts some families' traditional values. But Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, a critic of those efforts, said the bills don't give parents anything they didn't have before. Even before the recent parental rights movement, families have been encouraged to reach out to their school board members or participate in parent-teacher associations to advocate for changes and improvements in their children's schools. According to Charles Butt Foundation research, nine in 10 Texas public school parents feel comfortable communicating with teachers on safety, academic performance and mental health. Before the passage of the school libraries bill, parents already had ways to provide input on what content their children could access, Wu said. He also criticized a feature of the bill that will allow school boards to oversee book approvals and removals, or delegate that responsibility to local school advisory councils if parents in a district sign a petition allowing their creation. The bill requires only 50 parents or 10% of parents in the district, whichever is less, to sign the petition. 'If a parent really objected to a book, they could have gone to the library. They could have gone to the school. They go talk to the school board,' Wu told The Texas Tribune. 'What these bills do is allow a very small minority to override and to control the process.' Like other priority Republican legislation this year, Wu said, parental rights bills misrepresent what they do. During the Texas House debate on the DEI ban on K-12 schools last month, he blasted Leach for referring to LGBTQ+ student groups as 'sex clubs.' 'Just like school vouchers are really about school choice, banning books is really couched as parental rights,' he said. 'This has been the consistent M.O. of the religious right, of the Republican right, for a long time now. You call things what [they are] not. And after a while, you say it enough times, the lie becomes true.' 'That is a culture war' For Nicole Hill, communications director for Texas' chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, these bills will ultimately limit how children behave and what they read. 'That's not parents' rights. That is a culture war,' Hill said of legislation like the K-12 DEI ban and the school libraries bill. "It's nothing to do with an actual parent's right to be involved in their child's education and to have all the information they need to make good choices.' Hill said some teachers worry the new legislation will make it harder to teach certain topics and increase self-censorship among educators fearful of getting reported. For Drogin, teachers should exercise a certain level of restraint. For instance, she criticized teachers who have read in class, 'My Shadow Is Purple,' a children's picture book about gender identity. Drogin said that kind of material doesn't belong in the classroom. Teachers 'should be self-censoring. That has no business in a classroom with children,' she said. 'If parents want to read those books to their children, by all means, you can go on Amazon and buy it, but my tax dollars and my children should not be exposed to that ideology, which is a radical ideology.' Some teachers said the vague language of the new bills leaves many unsure of what is actually prohibited. Rachel Preston, who teaches AP French language and culture at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy in Austin, said she's rethinking her curriculum. She's concerned that some topics she teaches could be misunderstood or taken out of context under the DEI ban. For instance, her textbook includes a section titled 'La sexualité,' which she fears could be misinterpreted under the new rules and viewed as the promotion of a certain ideology. 'We talk about gender issues, and sometimes sexuality comes up in that. But this is a college-level coursework that we're expected to deal with in high school. So it just feels like it will make teaching my AP class a lot harder next year when I get around to those issues,' she said. Megan Holden, an English and AP art history teacher at Bowie High School in Austin, said she's concerned that teachers won't know what to expect from parents. Every parent has their own views, she said, which will make it hard for teachers to know what's considered acceptable. 'We're not even sure what parents are looking for, and so we have to guess that,' Holden said. 'We have to guess what might be offensive to every parent, which is a lot to have to figure out.' Preston and Holden pushed back against the notion that teachers are trying to indoctrinate children. 'We don't tell them what to think. We tell them how to think. It's the how, not the what, and it feels like it's being assumed that we're telling them the what,' Preston said. Ramsey, the McKinney ISD mom, agrees with the idea that classrooms shouldn't be used to promote any ideology. However, she said other bills prioritized by GOP legislators and approved this session seem to do just that. She pointed to Senate Bill 10, which will require schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Ramsey is concerned that, in trying to keep ideology out of the classroom, lawmakers are actually depriving students of important knowledge and exposing them to more political influence. 'I feel like that is under attack here in Texas, the freedom to have a child actually be educated without being indoctrinated with religion,' Ramsey said. 'I want my children to be able to make choices in their life based on what they have been taught at home, not what is being controlled and put in their heads at school, and I see public education headed in the wrong direction based on the decisions that the Legislature is making.' Disclosure: Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Texas Public Policy Foundation have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
