Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
Healthy San Francisco was created through an ordinance adopted in 2006 to provide sliding-scale health care for the city’s 73,000 uninsured. The $200 million program was to be funded through state, federal and city dollars along with revenue from an employer spending requirement, slated to go into effect on Jan. 1.
But last month the employer mandate was struck down in court by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, after The City’s restaurant association filed a lawsuit, charging that it violated a federal law governing employee benefits.
Subsequently, City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed an emergency stay order to allow San Francisco to move forward with the spending requirement while The City appealed White’s decision.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Herrera’s request, saying it had a “strong likelihood” of winning the appeal.
The court’s decision now makes effective the spending requirement for employers with 50 or more employees. These employers will have to pay up to $1.76 per employee per hour worked on health care or to The City to satisfy the law’s requirements. Payments will be due every quarter, with first payments due on April 1.
Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who was a primary author of the ordinance, said he was “delighted” by the ruling and Mayor Gavin Newsom said the judges’ decision was “an important victory for uninsured San Franciscans.”
Healthy San Francisco has so far enrolled 8,200 residents and currently offers services to uninsured San Franciscans earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty line, which calculates out to up to $31,000 per individual.
Golden Gate Restaurant Association member Daniel Scherotter said members are “disappointed” by the decision, but confident that once the judges’ hear all the arguments the association will ultimately win the appeal.
The lawsuit has far-reaching implications, Herrera said, adding that if the initial ruling stood “it certainly could have had an impact” on state health care reform efforts in Sacramento as well as in other states.



Comments from Examiner Readers
3:47 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008 re: "Healthy S.F. can move forward"
Report as inappropriate
11:54 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Healthy S.F. can move forward"
Report as inappropriate
EXAMNER READER said:
Lets see here...making employees pay a share of insurance costs? Seems to me there will be alot of business going under with this ridiculous law, and there will be more uninsured people out of work...so this proposal does nothing but let us know that for all this talk of this being a serious problem...these Losers at City Hall come up with this without looking at the backlash and that back lash will be Small Business' closing (mainly the San Francisco Restaurants etc...) McDonald burgers will go up to $10.00......groceries will skyrocket...This will be an excuse for all Politicians to raise taxes. I pay an enormous fee for my health insurance and do it alone..if I can do this alone so can everyone else....So certain people will be out of luck with their jobs and health insurance. It sure is a damn shame when Politicians...Hospitals...clinics make that one dollar more important than a life.....Has the world gone money crazy? be careful uninsured carol midgen is still driving...the drun
74 agree | 62 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Last I heard, the last restaurant Tom Ammiano went to exercised its right to deny service to him. Guess he's eating in more often nowadays.
81 agree | 72 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree