Court rejects San Francisco insurance mandates; Governor's plan next?
By Neil Stevens Posted in Arnold Schwarzenegger | California | courts | ERISA | Law | Medical Insurance | San Francisco — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
US District Judge Jeffrey White threw out part of a San Francisco law this afternoon, one that required employers to provide or pay for medical insurance for employers. White ruled that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts and prohibits the states from imposing such requirements on employers.
Ordinarily I wouldn't care, because San Francisco is such a freaky place, and if a conservative worried about every bad bill passed there, he'd never sleep. But this is important because Governor Schwarzenegger's plan for all of California includes a similar requirement, and thus could also be illegal under ERISA.
Read on...
To be honest, I'd never heard of ERISA before today. I have an opinion neither on whether it's a good law or a bad law, nor whether the law is correctly interpreted here. Judge White was appointed by President Bush in 2002, for what it's worth. He's also the judge that put two San Francisco Chronicle reporters in jail for failing to reveal their source of Barry Bonds' secret grand jury testimony. That all sounds good, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's right here in interpreting ERISA.
If he's right, then AB1X, the Schwarzenegger/Democratic HillaryCare-lite bill that passed this month and will be debated in the Senate come January, could also be in trouble. Says the Chronicle:
The requirement that all employers either provide insurance for their workers or pay into a new state purchasing pool on a sliding scale of 1 percent to 6.5 percent of payroll based on company size is a key funding element of the plan and the one that may provide biggest obstacle to passage in light of White's ruling, which San Francisco intends to appeal.
Not that AB1X is even guaranteed to get out of committee in the Senate:
But there are other issues that could spell trouble for the bill in a hearing set for Jan. 16 before the Senate's health committee, which is chaired by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, a longtime advocate of a single-payer health system that would eliminate private insurance.
...."There's a lot to consider here," Kuehl said. "I think you can assume that we will hold the world's longest hearing because I want to have every bit of this bill looked at."
So I'm still not worried about our state economy being trashed. Governor Schwarzenegger may be trying to do his best to link arms with Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez (D-Los Angeles) to block job creation in this state, but Senate Democrats or the courts may yet save us from this monster we nominated and elected.
« Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse in California [Updated] — Comments (11) | Schwarzenegger Considering Release of 12% of California's Prison Population — Comments (12) »
Court rejects San Francisco insurance mandates; Governor's plan next? 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
1. Is this similar to the Walmart bill passed in MD that was rejected by the courts. The bill was officially called the Fair Share Heath bill, it basically required large corporations ( the only one it applied to was Wallmart) to pay more health care to their employers. I believe it was struck down for a similar reason but Im not sure.
2. Also, while i realize many people here are strongly against this bill, do most people support it being struck down by the courts? Seems to me that strict federalism would allow the states to pass such a law, but I could very well be wrong on this.
Your point #2 is precisely why I mention I don't know whether I agree with the law or not :-)
California should be free to pass whatever laws like this it wants as long as it doesn't interfere with national security, interstate commerce, and other areas that are defined in the Constitution.
The end result in any state that goes too far with entitlement programs and taxes to pay for them will be that working people and successful businesses will move out and people who want the entitlements will move in, forcing the state eventually to come to a more realistic balance -- else they'll bankrupt themselves.
Maybe financially-sound states should be able to buy-out bankrupt states, reorganize the leadership, and fire bad management!
What is the chain of appeals on this case ?
Is it one stop or two away from the ninth circuit ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I would assume the next step from here is indeed a three judge panel at the the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, since San Francisco's definitely going to appeal this.
However I'm somewhat supportive of left-wing legislatures passing these monstrosities, so long as it is statewide, and not a federal program. Then, since states compete against each other, we'll see how well a socialized scheme does in California relative to, say, Nevada. I would love to witness the exodus of doctors and business in the event that happened. Then it would be on full display to disaster that is socialized medicine, especially when juxtaposed to more sane systems in neighboring states.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
See Democracy-Project.com for more: http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/003586.html
Bruce Kesler
...people demonize any attempt at government funded health insurance. I live in Oregon which has had a public insurance plan in place for years. It has never made private insurance harder to get, more expensive or limited peoples choices. Its just a safety net for people who can't get insurance elsewhere. I took advantage of it a few years back before I got a full time job that offered insurance and if it had not been there I probably would not be here.
Seriously, someone please explain to me what the big deal is and why some many liken public health insurance plants to the next step towards soviet style communism!
Check your email. Thanks.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Note that it's still Thursday here in California, regardless of what Red State's server thinks :-)