Court asks for Obama's stance on Healthy S.F.
Bob Egelko, Chronicle
Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 6, 2009, San Francisco Gate
(10-05) 20:12 PDT -- The U.S. Supreme Court delayed action
Monday on employer fees in San Francisco's groundbreaking health care program
and instead sought advice from the Obama administration, even as the president
struggles to overhaul health coverage nationwide.
The president has made health care reform a top domestic priority, yet his
administration has been noticeably quiet during the legal fight over San
Francisco's program - one touted by some experts as a potential model for the
nation. The Bush administration had urged two federal courts to overturn the
city law, which requires companies with more than 20 employees to provide health
insurance benefits or pay fees that cover the employees' health care at city
hospitals and clinics.
The question of whether employers should be required to provide health
insurance or pay into a public pot is a central dispute in the national
debate.
Obama has supported employer contributions to health coverage for the
uninsured, without endorsing a specific plan. Provisions requiring employers who
don't offer health insurance to help subsidize coverage of the uninsured are
part of a bill backed by House Democratic leaders, and a milder version in the
Senate Health Committee.
The Golden Gate Restaurant Association sued over the city program, which
started in 2007 and now covers 45,000 people - or about three-quarters of the
city's uninsured residents. Across the city, most restaurants have coped with
the new requirement by adding surcharges to diners' bills.
The association argues that the city is regulating workplace benefits in
violation of a 1974 law, which gives the federal government exclusive control
over employee benefit plans. A federal appeals court disagreed last year, saying
the city does not regulate benefits and instead lets employers decide how to
provide health care.
The Supreme Court refused the association's request in March for an emergency
order blocking the employer fees while its appeal was pending.
The justices' action Monday is not unusual. The court regularly asks the
federal government for its position in important cases, particularly those that
involve a possible conflict between federal and state or local laws. Such
requests indicate that one or more justices are undecided about granting review,
which requires four votes on the nine-member court.
In February, President Obama generally praised San Francisco's program, which
the city calls Healthy San Francisco, in a White House speech before an audience
of mayors. "Instead of talking about health care, mayors like Gavin Newsom in
San Francisco have been ensuring that those in need receive it," Obama said.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera said Monday he hopes Obama's Justice Department
will "mirror the president's belief ... that we need health care reform as
quickly as possible."
Kevin Westlye, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association,
said the 800-member organization supports health care reform, but wants it
funded locally by a sales tax increase instead of employer fees. The group
ultimately favors uniform national legislation, he said.
Westlye said Monday's order was encouraging because "it indicates the Supreme
Court is interested in the case."
None of the pending bills in Congress would prohibit a local government from
enforcing its own health coverage program, said Ken Jacobs, chairman of UC
Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education and a member of the task
force that drafted the city's ordinance.
"If you're going to keep job-based coverage, you're going to need some type
of requirement like this," Jacobs said.
The case is Golden Gate Restaurant Association vs. San Francisco,
08-1515.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/06/MNK01A1FVU.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the
San Francisco Chronicle