San Francisco leaders OK universal health-care plan

[Little-Acorn]

Good news. If I ever develop some long, lingering health problem that my present insurance doesn't cover, I know where I'm moving to. Some might accuse me of taking unfair advantage of laws that weren't meant to do what I intend. But if it's a choice between that or going through long, miserable years of suffering, who can really blame me?

Course, next time I'm in the market to buy widgets, I'll probably have to bypass the widget producers of San Francisco, and buy them from Colorado or someplace. The SF producers don't have money trees, and so they'll have to pass the costs of their extra health care payments on to the only source of funds they DO have: customers who buy their stuff. All else being equal, their prices will obviously be higher for the same items. And if I buy from them, I'll be undercut by my competitors who buy THEIR widgets from Colorado, and mayber even run out of business. I really don't have a choice here: I MUST reject the San Fran widget companies.

I must thank the SF'ers, though, for so thoughtfully providing me a safety net for when I need it. And it they try to make some law saying it's only for longtime SF residents, not Johnny-come-latelies newly arrived from Southern Cal like myself, the Supreme Court will be on them like Barry Bonds' fingers on a syringe. They'll find out quick enough that they can't withhold government services from people based on length of residence - which would violate people's freedom to move around in the U.S. without hindrance.

I'm set for life... yahoo!!!!

P.S. more good news: They say this plan is for everyone, regardless of employment OR IMMIGRATION STATUS. Who can blame the bums and illegals for moving out of southern California in droves, up to San Francisco? Pretty soon I won't even have to press 1 for English down here any more... :^)

------------------------------------

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/state/15071664.htm

S.F. leaders OK universal health-care plan

By LISA LEFF
Associated Press
Posted on Wed, Jul. 19, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO - The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to make the city the nation's first to provide all residents with health care, approving a plan that would give adults access to medical services regardless of their immigration or employment status.

Financed by local government, mandatory contributions from employers and income-adjusted premiums, the universal care plan would cover the cost of everything from checkups, prescription drugs and X-rays to ambulance rides, blood tests and operations.

With backing from Mayor Gavin Newsom and all 11 supervisors, the so-called Health Access Plan proved to be a politically popular concept in San Francisco despite unmitigated opposition from the business community.

''What feels very good is the full board and the mayor getting on board,'' said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who first championed the idea of making employers pay for some part of their workers' medical costs. ''That says the political will is there to make it happen.''

To offset the estimated annual price tag of $200 million, firms with 20 or more workers would be required to spend $1.06 for each hour worked by an employee, and those with more than 100 workers would have to pay $1.60 per hour up to a monthly maximum of $180 per worker. Companies that already offer health coverage would still have to pay if their insurance contributions did not meet the city's funding levels.

The Board of Supervisors still needs to vote on the plan once more for it to become final. The ordinance adopted Tuesday calls for businesses with more than 50 employees to start participating starting July 2007, while it would take effect for enterprises with 20 or more workers in April 2008.

Michael O'Connor, a nightclub owner who serves on the San Francisco Small Business Commission, predicted that the ''noble burden'' of the mandate would keep businesses from locating in the city and make goods and services more expensive as employers pass on the costs to customers.

O'Connor said many business owners were disappointed by Newsom's backing of the plan because the mayor got his start in business as the owner of a wine shop and several restaurants.

''One would think that someone who has owned and opened restaurants would be pretty clear on what the profit margin is, and how hard it is to get them open. A $5,000 licensing fee is difficult. A new $60,000 (health care) fee is disabling,'' he said.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Hey do you think they'll mind if we send our bums and chronically lazy over to SF? If we do that then the problem is solved.... Long as the actual real residence of SF don't get tired of paying for other peoples sh.it. But there an enlightened smug hippy type bunch, I have no doubt they'll relish the oppotunity

 

[Little-Acorn]

..... Long as the actual real residence of SF don't get tired of paying for other peoples sh.it.

We get the government we deserve.

So does San Francisco.

:rofl

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Hey do you think they'll mind if we send our bums and chronically lazy over to SF? If we do that then the problem is solved.... Long as the actual real residence of SF don't get tired of paying for other peoples sh.it. But there an enlightened smug hippy type bunch, I have no doubt they'll relish the oppotunity

Sounds like another episode of South Park in the making.

"Send us your poor, we're very socially conscious over here in SF, THANKS!"

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Sounds like another episode of South Park in the making.

"Send us your poor, we're very socially conscious over here in SF, THANKS!"

Well a smug storm has already wiped SF out once.....:rofl

 

[Little-Acorn]

Is there any indication that San Fran's new program will have any safeguards against the kind of things I described? People with chronic (and expensive) illnesses moving there while healthy people who must pay anyway, move out? And the problem of companies going out of business because of the additional fees their non-SF competitors don't have to pay?

Is it even possible for the program to prevent such things? Most measure they migh consider, are against one law or another, as the preface pointed out.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Is there any indication that San Fran's new program will have any safeguards against the kind of things I described? People with chronic (and expensive) illnesses moving there while healthy people who must pay anyway, move out? And the problem of companies going out of business because of the additional fees their non-SF competitors don't have to pay?

Is it even possible for the program to prevent such things? Most measure they migh consider, are against one law or another, as the preface pointed out.

If someone has a chronic and expensive illness that they are unable to pay for, then how on earth could they even begin to afford to move the San Fransisco, with what is quite litterally one of the highest costs of living on earth?

As to your companies "going out of business" argument, its equally absurd. Because of the extraordinarily high cost of living in San Fransisco, the cost of doing business in the San Fransisco area is exponentially higher than the vast majority of metros in the United States and Canada.

 

[Little-Acorn]

how on earth could they even begin to afford to move the San Fransisco, with what is quite litterally one of the highest costs of living on earth?

You are unaware of ANY of the methods people have always used to cut down the cost of living? Would any college students here, or bicycle commuters, or illegal aliens like to explain a few of them to this poor fellow?

Because of the extraordinarily high cost of living in San Fransisco, the cost of doing business in the San Fransisco area is exponentially higher than the vast majority of metros in the United States and Canada.

You seem to be trying to argue here, that business conditions in San Fran are already so bad, that businesses will go bankrupt anyway. But the last time I checked, most of them hadn't. (All though in truth, more and more ARE going bankrupt for that very reason. Raisng their taxes as this plan does is unlikely to help, to say the least.)

To get back to the subject: All of those businesses are about to get sizable additional fees tacked on to their expense sheets... fees that competitors outside the city don't have to pay. Why should customers who have a choice between the SF firm whose prices just went up, and competitors whose prices didn't, patronize the SF firms?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You are unaware of ANY of the methods people have always used to cut down the cost of living? Would any college students here, or bicycle commuters, or illegal aliens like to explain a few of them to this poor fellow?

Well, yeah, but when you are looking at paying 4 to 5 times the amount for housing that you would in almost any other major city, coupon saving only gets you so far.

You seem to be trying to argue here, that business conditions in San Fran are already so bad, that businesses will go bankrupt anyway. But the last time I checked, most of them hadn't. (All though in truth, more and more ARE going bankrupt for that very reason. Raisng their taxes as this plan does is unlikely to help, to say the least.)

Taxation has little to do with where white collar businesses locate. If it did, San Fransisco and New York would be devoid of them. The central deciding factor as to where most white collar companies locate is whether they will be able to attract the talent necessary for them to be competitive. For example, Apple Computer could easily relocate to Jackson, MS. It would certainly save them a lot of money in taxation and salaries, but could they attract the kind of talent in Jackson, MS, that they can in Cupertino? Of course not. San Fransisco companies already face extremely higher operating expenses than their compeditors in most other metros. The increased taxation would have to be quite substantial to create an environment where they would no longer be competitive.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

If someone has a chronic and expensive illness that they are unable to pay for, then how on earth could they even begin to afford to move the San Fransisco, with what is quite litterally one of the highest costs of living on earth?

As to your companies "going out of business" argument, its equally absurd. Because of the extraordinarily high cost of living in San Fransisco, the cost of doing business in the San Fransisco area is exponentially higher than the vast majority of metros in the United States and Canada.

So you think that this exttra cost is going to have no effect?

I doubt that seriously....
And since it's universal healthcare they really don't have to have a $3000dollar a month apt. They can be living in a box and still get the healthcare. It's open to immigrants of any status so obviously permentant addresses or dollar amounts aren't an issue.

I'm betting your going to have a fall off in business growth and increase in illegals and lazy then a decrease in Homegrown San Franr's....LOL

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Well, yeah, but when you are looking at paying 4 to 5 times the amount for housing that you would in almost any other major city, coupon saving only gets you so far.




Taxation has little to do with where white collar businesses locate. If it did, San Fransisco and New York would be devoid of them. The central deciding factor as to where most white collar companies locate is whether they will be able to attract the talent necessary for them to be competitive. For example, Apple Computer could easily relocate to Jackson, MS. It would certainly save them a lot of money in taxation and salaries, but could they attract the kind of talent in Jackson, MS, that they can in Cupertino? Of course not. San Fransisco companies already face extremely higher operating expenses than their compeditors in most other metros. The increased taxation would have to be quite substantial to create an environment where they would no longer be competitive.

Do you or have you ever lived in san fran? It's no more difficult then living in any other city in the country. There plenty of affordable housing. Might not be in the best districts, but there are plenty of people there not making a fortune that still afford to live.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So you think that this exttra cost is going to have no effect?

I doubt that seriously....
And since it's universal healthcare they really don't have to have a $3000dollar a month apt. They can be living in a box and still get the healthcare. It's open to immigrants of any status so obviously permentant addresses or dollar amounts aren't an issue.

I'm betting your going to have a fall off in business growth and increase in illegals and lazy then a decrease in Homegrown San Franr's....LOL

I am merely stating that Little Acorn's logic is flawed. Of course increased costs are going to have the be absorbed some how. More than likely, if the costs were prohibitive it would just be in labor costs by lower raises, or reductions in benefits.

However, when one considers the cost of doing business in the Bay Area now, an increase in taxes would be a drop in the bucket. Moreover, arguably, by moving the chronically ill off of the uninsured rolls, healthcare premiums in the private sector could very well go down and thus offset the costs of a tax increase.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Do you or have you ever lived in san fran? It's no more difficult then living in any other city in the country. There plenty of affordable housing. Might not be in the best districts, but there are plenty of people there not making a fortune that still afford to live.

Never lived there, but I worked for a corporate recruiting company for 5 years so I know how it works. Bay area companies like Apple Computer are not attracting senior Objective C developers to live in some dump. They have to pay salary rates where a senior developer can live as comfortably in San Fransisco, as say a Dell developer can live in Austin, Texas.

 

[faithful_servant]

If someone has a chronic and expensive illness that they are unable to pay for, then how on earth could they even begin to afford to move the San Fransisco, with what is quite litterally one of the highest costs of living on earth?

As to your companies "going out of business" argument, its equally absurd. Because of the extraordinarily high cost of living in San Fransisco, the cost of doing business in the San Fransisco area is exponentially higher than the vast majority of metros in the United States and Canada.

It's simple, some smart guy just needs to build long term care centers all over the SF area which provide for all costs and bill them to the city. It would be a money-maker of epic proportions until the city goes bankrupt.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Never lived there, but I worked for a corporate recruiting company for 5 years so I know how it works. Bay area companies like Apple Computer are not attracting senior Objective C developers to live in some dump. They have to pay salary rates where a senior developer can live as comfortably in San Fransisco, as say a Dell developer can live in Austin, Texas.

Unfortunately the vast majority of this city are not those people. They are the 5 day a week joe six pack hand to mouth crowd. And less raises or higher cost are going to cost jos and decrease growth. And there will be most definetly a large upswing in homeless and critically ill..

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Unfortunately the vast majority of this city are not those people. They are the 5 day a week joe six pack hand to mouth crowd. And less raises or higher cost are going to cost jos and decrease growth. And there will be most definetly a large upswing in homeless and critically ill..

It is possible that would be the case. The other possibility is that universal coverage would reduce provider costs, and thus reduce the costs that private insurers pass on to their customers. In that case, it would be a net reduction in costs for companies, not an increase. You have to remember that the single largest labor cost increase for United States companies over the past 5 years has been healthcare benefits costs.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

It is possible that would be the case. The other possibility is that universal coverage would reduce provider costs, and thus reduce the costs that private insurers pass on to their customers. In that case, it would be a net reduction in costs for companies, not an increase. You have to remember that the single largest labor cost increase for United States companies over the past 5 years has been healthcare benefits costs.

I guess we'll call it a waiting game.. But I am not going ot be very optimistic about it's chances. At some point the influx is going to overwhelm the mechanism. It's going to be hippy haven, except for the homeless and transiant

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I guess we'll call it a waiting game.. But I am not going ot be very optimistic about it's chances. At some point the influx is going to overwhelm the mechanism. It's going to be hippy haven, except for the homeless and transiant

You may well end up being right. My only point is that if an uninsured HIV infected transient shows up in San Fransisco emergency rooms for medical care the costs will be passed on to the insured. If he is insured by some public sector program, the cost is passed on to the taxpayer. The cost is the same either way. Now, if all of a sudden, a bunch of bums start showing up in San Fransisco just for the free coverage, it will be a different story alltogether.