Honestly asking.
It used to be the people at the top could have their cake & eat it too, where sometimes they'd have long open-ended contracts with a company directly - maintaining independence but also getting a steady paycheck. Now they have to shack up with one of these bodyshops that gets a fat cut of their labor, which disincentivizes the setup. I was certainly glad to get out of it; the whole operation felt shady from start to finish. Politically, this class of people used to be available as cover for the entirety of the contracting workforce. Did lawmakers really want to rob these All-American Mavericks of their Freedom? Anything that further disincentivizes the mock W-2 job route is a good thing IMO. The current situation of course is not sufficient but it's better than the free-for-all it used to be. I guess you could say it has hightened the contradictions.
Some might say given the reality of these distinctions within independent contractors, we should segregate protections based on income. I don't think that'll work. Any policy targeted at helping only those of lower means will quickly become a policy to be watered down further and further and further as all the incentives in the system are aligned toward greater exploitation. By including all classes of independent contractor in any legislation, we make it stronger against attacks that would land hardest on the worst off. If that shuts down some avenues of employment for people at the top, well, so be it. I don't think scoped contracts will ever go away.
Worth noting this entire thing is to some degree a sideshow of the larger debate about health insurance and how it's tied to employment. If medicare for all were passed, a lot of these issues would just go away.
Without getting too political, I really feel like untying health insurance from employment would transform the labor market and encourage far more entrepreneurial endeavors. People could take more risks if they didn't have to worry about losing healthcare coverage.
There are obvious tradeoffs involved, but I really never see this aspect considered in public debate. Making healthcare independent of employment really empowers people to do their own thing.
It was a big aspect in 2009/2010 when ACA was being passed.
The reason people want insurance tied to employment is because they benefit from lower premiums because their risk pool experiences less healthcare costs than the general public.
If everyone was dumped into one marketplace and risk pool, then the insurance premiums would have to rise for those working in white collar businesses who had previously been able to enjoy lower premiums since the nature of employment as a requirement precludes many sick people experiencing healthcare costs.
So when people complain that ACA increased their healthcare costs, what they are actually complaining about is having to now share risk pools with sicker people who previously were not getting healthcare period.
The optimal way this would work is if everyone was dumped onto healthcare.gov, and they picked whatever health insurance plan they want, and then naturally the premiums would balance out over time so that the costs are spread amongst the whole population.
Basically, taxpayer funded healthcare, except instead of one managed care organization (the US federal government) you have multiple (United Health, Anthem, Kaiser, CVS, Humana, etc).
