D-day arrives for HealthySF
Article History
This is the latest version.

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The city requirement that employers spend money on health care for employees goes before a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel today as local businesses go into a holding pattern before they commit funds to The City’s universal health care program.

The health care security ordinance, which is expected to contribute $28 million to the $196 million Healthy San Francisco plan, requires employers to either pay an amount based on the hours an employee works, or purchase a health care plan.

The Golden Gate Restaurant Association challenged the requirement, and in December 2007 federal Judge Jeffrey White ruled against the plan. Several weeks later, however, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency stay, allowing The City to enforce the spending requirement.

Today in Pasadena, the same panel — Judges Alfred Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt and William Fletcher — will hear arguments on the association’s appeal of the stay. A ruling could come within a month, said Kevin Westlye, executive director of the restaurant association.

The goal for the association’s attorneys is to separate the universal health care program from the employer spending mandate, Westlye said.

Vincent Chhabria, a deputy city attorney, will argue before the panel that although local governments are not allowed to force employers to adopt health care plans, local governments can require spending if it brings businesses into compliance.

“If they prefer not to create their own [health care] plan, they can simply pay The City,” Chhabria said.

Businesses, which have expressed confusion about how to comply with the ordinance since the stay was issued in January, are taking a wait-and-see approach, Mayor Gavin Newsom said.

“I’ve heard a lot of people are waiting for [today] before they really decide what they do,” Newsom said.

Carol Piasente, spokeswoman for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said she’s heard that some businesses are not signing up for the HealthySF care plan, but are using other options such as medical reimbursement accounts.

dsmith@examiner.com


Name
Comments

characters left


Comments from Examiner Readers

8:31 PM MST on Tue., May. 6, 2008 re: "D-day arrives for HealthySF"

Examiner Reader said:
One more way to drive jobs out of the city and to put the small struggling businesses who simply cannot afford any more govermnet mandated expenses out of business. They say anyone with 20 or more employees must pay a minimum of $1.17 more per hour worked per employee. We already have the highest minimum wage in the country. San Francisco city government is so anti business and anti small business especially. They only add to the desperation and lack of jobs in this city.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

2:06 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 17, 2008 re: "D-day arrives for HealthySF"

Examiner Reader said:
"Carol Piasente, spokeswoman for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said she’s heard that some businesses are not signing up for the HealthySF care plan, but are using other options such as medical reimbursement accounts." Starve the beast -- until it collapses and dies.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:45 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 17, 2008 re: "D-day arrives for HealthySF"

Examiner Reader said:
The cities Healthy Plan is one of the dumbest things the city could do.Mr. Newson, In case you forgot the city is facing severe money problems.(Laying off hundreds of employees but keeping this 180,000,000.00 program has to be a joke,Right)I hope the illegals are happy. You trully are a piece of work!!!!!!

4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:07 AM MST on Mon., Feb. 25, 2008 re: "Judge's decision gives HealthySF a Band-Aid"

examiner reader said:
NAtive SAn Franciscan is so right!!!! What about cutting some of Newsom's $150,000 per-person-plus-perks staff and taking the money out of that? What about cutting some of our MAyor's salary?

26 agree | 29 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:24 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008 re: "Judge's decision gives HealthySF a Band-Aid"

Native San Franciscan said:
Liberals are always generous with OTHER peoples money.

32 agree | 29 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:40 PM MST on Thu., Feb. 21, 2008 re: "HealthySF heading to top jurist’s desk"

SF Native said:
This is another bit of Neo Socialist BS propogated by the SF BD of Stupes, who incresingly legislate unpopular laws against the business community. Due to this law many restaurants are passing along the health care requirement to their customers, with a 4-5% surcharge on your bill. I work in SF, but live 14 miles away, so I won't be dining there any longer. I don't need to pay for their social conscience.

42 agree | 42 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:03 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "HealthySF heading to top jurist’s desk"

Examiner Reader said:
It's amazing that under every "Examiner" article there is a pit of snarling, sociopathic right-wingers shouting "communism" and "illegal aliens". (Er, thanks for weighing in from St. Paul and Boston--we really want your opinions.) Meanwhile their neocon idols are burning billions a month occupying another country--talk about illegal aliens! One guy even claims that "government has no business in the free market economy," as if that phrase is emblazoned in the Constitution, as if there is such a thing in this crony-capitalistic sham. Okay, fellas, shut out those who can't afford medical care and let disease reign!

62 agree | 50 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:22 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "HealthySF heading to top jurist’s desk"

Examiner Reader said:
“We wish them luck, but we hope they lose,” Newsom said. Such audacity to lead!

54 agree | 59 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:42 PM MST on Sun., Dec. 30, 2007 re: "Judge: SF employers don't have to pay for health care"

Examiner Reader said:
As can be the case with any politician, including our mayor, long before their legislation is brought forth, voted on and perhaps approved, they are fully aware it might not or will not withstand legal review. However, in spite of that, the electorate has been persuaded the politician's effort was a good deed, done wrong by the judiciary doing their job, and reward the politician with their support and a vote.

41 agree | 44 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:01 PM MST on Sat., Dec. 29, 2007 re: "Judge: SF employers don't have to pay for health care"

Examiner Reader said:
Well, that's a good decision El Judgo, but you won't help in deporting illegals so the citizens don't have to pay for thier health care, will you? Black robed phonies.

48 agree | 41 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:02 AM MST on Fri., Dec. 28, 2007 re: "Judge: SF employers don't have to pay for health care"

chuck in st paul said:
Once again the airheads and hippies of the Left Coast attack individual responsibility with more inane, failed, socialist 'fixes' for a non problem. The crux of this that some people don't want to have to spend their money on easily available health insurance - they want to spend your money. Just about anyone can buy personal health insurance anywhere in the U.S. There is no need for an employer or anyone else to buy it for you. This is just one more reason NOT to live in San Fran Cissy.

42 agree | 49 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:47 AM MST on Fri., Dec. 28, 2007 re: "Judge: SF employers don't have to pay for health care"

BostonRay said:
No one has a constitutional 'right' to free health care and an employer has a right not to offer it. You don't like it, then work for someone who does - no one forces you to work for them. You have that right. Mandating employer funded health care by government edict is socialism and communistic. An employer has the right to run the business as they see fit. Government has no business in the free market economy.

41 agree | 41 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:49 PM MST on Thu., Dec. 27, 2007 re: "Judge: SF employers don't have to pay for health care"

Examiner Reader said:
They could have invoked those and preempted the states from enforcing these laws. They didn't do that. In fact, Congress has made it clear it's always been the intents for the states. When do not states have a constitutional responsibility for their citizens for the economic harm, the crime and damage and the cost to the taxpayers, the legal citizens? We have a constitutional responsibility. The citizens have a constitutional right and it's time for our politicians and our policy makers to quit hiding and put America first, put the American citizens first and enforce the law. " No links are allowed but for the unrestricted truth, even in American newspapers go to these sites AmericanPatrol, fairus, LibertyPost, Dark Side of Illegal Immigration and ImmigrationCounters.

40 agree | 43 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:58 PM MST on Thu., Dec. 27, 2007 re: "Part of S.F. Health Care Plan Tossed Out"

Examiner Reader said:
Employers shouldn't have to provide health coverage - we need a new system. This places a burden on our employers that creates problems when trying to compete internationally with companies in other countries with national health care systems that are not stuck with these same costs. It is no wonder we have a trade deficit.

38 agree | 38 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:44 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 27, 2007 re: "Part of S.F. Health Care Plan Tossed Out"

Examiner Reader said:
Herrera is just grandstanding. This decision does not give or take away any coverage. It simply leaves things as they were.

40 agree | 42 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:55 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 27, 2007 re: "Judge: SF employers don't have to pay for health care"

Examiner Reader said:
They can just go to the Hospital the tax payers already pay for the Illegals to be here. Time to seal our borders

53 agree | 38 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
 
 

(page generated in 0.09 seconds)