Health care plan for workers worries mayor

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom reiterated his concerns Wednesday about pending legislation that would require businesses in the city with 20 or more employees to provide health benefits to their employees.

In a two-page letter to members of the Board of Supervisors, Newsom said that while he remained open-minded about expanding health care access to the uninsured, he was concerned that the legislation by Supervisor Tom Ammiano would hurt small businesses and nonprofit organizations. The potential economic burden on those employers, the mayor said, threatens to "decrease local jobs, diminish community services and weaken our neighborhood commercial districts.''

Newsom asked the supervisors to conduct an impartial and comprehensive analysis of the proposal's economic impact on small businesses and nonprofits.

...snip...

Ammiano's ordinance would require businesses that now do not offer medical coverage to their employees to set up health savings accounts and pay into them $345 a month per employee to purchase health insurance for the workers. Businesses also would have the option of reimbursing their employees directly for health care-related expenses.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/22/BAGA7GBQFG1.DTL&type=health

The sole purpose of government is to maintain the health and welfare of the nation. Business is hard enough without having to do the government's job also....The USA is the only country I can think of that does not provide health care for it's citizens. In some ways we are very barbaric..

and the rest of the work done by hired sub contractors.

Health care should NOT be an employment issue. It should be a right afforded citizens of the nation.

Employment-tied healthcare sets up an indentured servitude of a sorts. For 8 years my husband wanted to, but could not change jobs because of a pre-existing medical condition of our son.

The US should just be a very large group..with oone "group policy".. Price would certainly be better, and so would the care :)..

people could change jobs when they felt like it, and employers would be freed from massive paperwork, and could pay people for work done and could give real raises again.

April 20 -
Press Advisory: For Immediate Release
Contact: Tomás Lee 554-5148

Supervisor Ammiano Calls For Plan To Provide Health Insurance to San Francisco’s 38,000 Uninsured Workers and Protect Local Businesses From Unfair Competition

Between $8 and $24 Million in Potential Costs Savings to Tax Payers

San Francisco Board of Supervisor Tom Ammiano will convene a special Finance Committee this Wednesday to investigate the feasibility of requiring San Francisco-based businesses to provide health insurance to its employees. The statewide version, known as Proposition 72, was defeated in November 2004 by California voters, but San Francisco voters passed supported the measure by a 70% margin. Ammiano plans to introduce a local version of Prop 72 that could save taxpayers up to $24 million annually.

One in six Californians lack health coverage and of those who are uninsured, an estimated 1.1 million Californians are employed. According to a 2005 survey conducted by the City Controller, one in eight San Franciscans are without medical coverage. Of those without health coverage, 50% are full time workers while 66% worked at least 15 hours per week.

<snip>

Gregg Sass, Chief Financial Officer for the San Francisco Department of Public Health, confirmed the potential cost savings to taxpayers by saying that "The Health Department conducted a review of uninsured patients treated at San Francisco General Hospital and our Community Clinics during the seven months ending on January, 2005. The review identified over 21,000 accounts comprising $14M in services that were provided to uninsured patients who identified an employer at the time of registration. This annualizes to $24 million in services, the majority of which was not collectable."

<more>

http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=31395