Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Ed Lee vetoes SF health care bill


Mayor Ed Lee on Tuesday released his first veto since taking office in January, describing the legislation to close a loophole in the law in San Francisco, requiring employers to provide some funding for their workers health care costs are bad for business.

"This law is aimed at solving an important problem, but it imposes overly broad approach to solving a discrete set of issues," Lee said in his veto message.

Board of Trustees approved a proposal to vote on 05/06 last week, creating a collision with Lee for several weeks until 8 November mayoral election, which polls show him as the favorite in the field of 16 candidates.

Four of his rivals, the head of John Avalos, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, City Judge-Recorder Phil Ting and state Sen. Leland Yee, made it clear that they will veto Lee campaign, having rallied on the steps of City Hall this month urging him to support the plan.

It is unlikely that legislation will sponsor eight votes to overcome a veto. But director David Campos, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said Lee, "San Francisco takes a wrong direction" by limiting the financing of uninsured workers can gain access to pay for their health care needs.

Campos said he is considering the adoption of its proposals the electorate. It takes four executives to place the measure on the ballot.

Campos plan goal of providing the innovation of health care law, which allows employers to set up individual health reimbursement accounts for uninsured workers. Involvement of employers contributes up to $ 4252 annually per employee account, but any unused money at the end of the year may come back to the employer.

Last year 860 companies from about 4,000 are covered by the law contributed to a combined 62.5 million dollars in compensation accounts, but only $ 12.4 million employed workers. Employers pocket relaxation.

The amendment Campos, unspent money will be accumulated in the accounts. Only after the employee has been off salary for 18 months, the employer can get your money back.

Business owners and their trade associations said that it will force them to lay off workers, postpone expansion plans, get out of town or close by.

Lee says he is willing to offer would be bad for business, he believes changes are needed.

One of his goals, he said that the companies be less stringent, as money can be used. Some employers, for example, will not reimburse workers for health insurance premiums or to enroll in the plan of the city, making use of public clinics and hospitals.

Campos amendment, he said, will not increase access to health care or job protection. “Moreover, the money, pulled out of our local economy, will not be available for payment of wages or grow a business," Lee said supervisors.

The mayor has formed a working group, whether a compromise could be a mediator, and Lee said in his veto letter that he was "sure, there is a legal way forward."

Meanwhile, the Board of Trustees President David Chiu proposed various amendments to address a loophole. Under his version, at least a year worth of unused employer contributions should always be available to avoid the use-it-or-lose-it scenario.

The board was to vote on the plan Tszyu on Monday, but at his insistence, with a delay in consideration for one week.

Chiu, Campos, and Lee all agree that employers should work better, to tell the workers how to access recovery funds, and want to prevent restaurants from the placement for an additional fee to their patrons' accounts for health-care services, if money is actually used for this purpose.

"Once we past this week, I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a solution," said Chiu, who is also running for mayor 

No comments:

Post a Comment