Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Key element of SF's landmark health insurance law struck down
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 12/26/7 | Bob Egelko,Heather Knight

Posted on 12/26/2007 6:26:06 PM PST by SmithL

San Francisco - A federal judge today overturned a central feature of San Francisco's ground-breaking health insurance law, which would require employers to help pay for coverage of the city's 82,000 uninsured adult residents.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White described San Francisco's goal as "laudable" but said its ordinance - the first of its kind in the nation, and a potential model for other California cities and the state - conflicted with a 1974 federal law that prohibits state and local governments from regulating employees' benefits.

The ruling, if it stands, will require the city to scale back plans to extend health coverage to all uninsured residents who aren't already covered by the Medi-Cal program for the poor or by Medicare for the elderly.

...White's ruling could impede other state and local efforts to cover the uninsured in the absence of a national law. A state health care bill endorsed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and approved by the Assembly would be partly funded by employer fees, subject to state voters' approval.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he would ask the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday for an emergency stay that would allow the employer fee to take effect as scheduled Jan. 2 while the city appealed White's ruling. Without a stay, Herrera said, "tens of thousands of San Francisco residents and workers will be deprived of critically necessary health care services."

...Under the challenged provision, private employers with at least 20 employees and nonprofits with at least 50 employees were to be given two choices: provide health coverage, at spending levels set by the ordinance, or pay a fee to support the city health program,

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: nannystate; sanfranciscovalues
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White described San Francisco's goal as "laudable" but said its ordinance - ... - conflicted with a 1974 federal law that prohibits state and local governments from regulating employees' benefits.

But, but, they meant well!

1 posted on 12/26/2007 6:26:07 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

White, Jeffrey Steven
Born 1945 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by George W. Bush on July 25, 2002, to a seat vacated by Charles E. Legge; Confirmed by the Senate on November 14, 2002, and received commission on November 15, 2002.

Education:
Queens College of City University of New York, B.A., 1967

State University of New York, J.D., 1970

Professional Career:
Attorney, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1970-1971
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of Maryland, 1971-1977
Attorney, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1977-1978
Private practice, San Francisco, California, 1978-2002

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

2 posted on 12/26/2007 6:26:29 PM PST by SmithL (Merry Christmas and Happy Holy Days to you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

He struck it down, what more do you want?


3 posted on 12/26/2007 6:28:41 PM PST by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This will be turned by the left into a call for new federal regulations allowing this sort of thing.

Remember, “it takes a pillage!”


4 posted on 12/26/2007 6:28:55 PM PST by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The Massachusetts plan should be DOA, then.


5 posted on 12/26/2007 6:29:38 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Employers are forced to PAY for un-insured non-employees' Medical Insurance?

Is this a great country, or what?

6 posted on 12/26/2007 6:30:31 PM PST by traditional1 (Thompson/Hunter '08 OR Hunter/Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

In Massachusetts, it doesn’t have anything to do with employee benefits, I don’t think.


7 posted on 12/26/2007 6:30:54 PM PST by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Employers are forced to PAY for un-insured non-employees' Medical Insurance?

Is this a great country, or what?

8 posted on 12/26/2007 6:30:58 PM PST by traditional1 (Thompson/Hunter '08 OR Hunter/Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify

I’m delighted that he struck it down. What’s behind your question?


9 posted on 12/26/2007 6:31:52 PM PST by SmithL (Merry Christmas and Happy Holy Days to you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I had to read that first paragraph four times! Employers paying for health benefits for uninsured residents? Is California trying to drive businesses away intentionally now? Wow.


10 posted on 12/26/2007 6:32:44 PM PST by Normal4me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he would ask the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday for an emergency stay that would allow the employer fee to take effect as scheduled Jan. 2 while the city appealed White's ruling.

I always assumed a "stay" would stop a law from going into effect until all appeals have been made, not the other way around.

11 posted on 12/26/2007 6:34:03 PM PST by OCC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I guess at this point I’m just sitting back and watching to see whether California can turn itself into a third world country.


12 posted on 12/26/2007 6:35:03 PM PST by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Normal4me
This ruling only directly limits the City of San Francisco's program, but it does have implications for the State Monstrosity being foisted on us by the Democrat Legislature and the Governor:

A state health care bill endorsed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and approved by the Assembly would be partly funded by employer fees, subject to state voters' approval.

San Francisco will have to find a new way to punish business in the Special City.

13 posted on 12/26/2007 6:38:43 PM PST by SmithL (Merry Christmas and Happy Holy Days to you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I get that. I am just sitting here wondering to myself; if the employers/businesses were to raise the prices of everything to include all the entitlements the people expect, what their reaction would be. How could they complain?


14 posted on 12/26/2007 6:45:50 PM PST by Normal4me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: squidly

Probably because they route it through your personal income tax.


15 posted on 12/26/2007 6:49:06 PM PST by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
San Francisco will have to find a new way to punish business in the Special City.

Their cigarette taxes will have to go thru the roof to pay for this.

16 posted on 12/26/2007 6:49:14 PM PST by umgud (no more subprime politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: squidly
In Massachusetts, it doesn’t have anything to do with employee benefits, I don’t think.

See Gee, What A Surprise... (Firms find ways around Mass. state health law)

17 posted on 12/26/2007 6:53:17 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Missed it by THAT much chief.


18 posted on 12/26/2007 7:04:27 PM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Normal4me
...if the employers/businesses were to raise the prices of everything to include all the entitlements the people expect...

How could they not? Someone has to pay for it. Not only businesses but also consumers are going to have to leave in order to not have all their money spent by the state and local governments.

19 posted on 12/26/2007 7:14:10 PM PST by skr (How majestic is Thy Name, O Lord, and how mighty are Thy Works!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
That ruling has implications for ArnoldCare... which embraces similar employer mandates. Its DOA, Jim.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

20 posted on 12/26/2007 7:19:12 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson