about insurance. they don't even really want it. if they have it, they might use it. this is true. my books are open. i am not making this up. i was on the original meetings when we set this up. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am with service employees international local 1021. one of the points of light to make has been made. i will not go into great depth reiterating. a few points that i do want to point out again, i don't understand why we are debating why we should continue to subsidize 13% of businesses effectively gaining a law that was not intended to be pursued in the manner it is being pursued. the intent of legislation was to provide health care for workers. that has not been done. there have been abuses.

the percentage that the taxpayers pay on their bill is intended to go toward health care. this is funding that is supposed to be provided for workers, not businesses. the fear tactics that there are going to be increased damages to the economic situation more jobs will be driven out of the city, we have heard a time and again. it is not true. i want to point out, my colleague mentioned that premiums are not allowed to be covered under the legislation. employers are denying premiums. if the funds were allowed to accrue over multiple years and the loopholes were closed, there were be no incentive to deny premiums being provided. therefore, real, meaningful coverage could be pursued and purchased as a result of the loophole being closed and a larger pool of funds being provided to the workers.

those are my two main points. i thank you, supervisor campos, for introducing this legislation. the mayor's office's proposal kicks the can down the road. they have not put a whole lot of thought into this. relying on them that -- relying on them to perhaps investigate down the line is not what we deserve. the mentioning of the january problem on a rolling basis, that does not provide the amount of coverage the employees deserve. the money needs to be able to accrue over time so substantial funds are available for people to get access to health care. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you, sir. next speaker.

>> hi. >> i don't know that that is allowed. president chiu: we do have a policy that we provide translation when requested. hopefully she can speak quietly. >> someone speaking in my ear is very distracting for me. i have no problem with her doing it in the back. so, i'd like to say i am here to represent the small businesses plan by the rules. one thing that disturbs me is how businesses are being vilified in this room. i am the owner of escape from new york pizza. we have never charged a 4%. we try to be empathetic in the community we are in. we feed the tenderloin after-

school program. we do an enormous amount of charity and neighborhood work. what has not been discussed here, this discussion has been framed with and an all or nothing context. i think something has to be said. someone has to support david chiu's approach to this amendment, which solves the abuses without the significant impact on jobs and small businesses. i have been appear before and said that we have six businesses, two that make money, to the brick money -- breakeven, and two that lose money. -- two that break even, and two that lose money. we can support them now. this amendment would cost us $200,000 a year, which we cannot afford. as a consequence, we would lose

40 jobs. i don't see that being good for anybody. it is not a health care issue. i would like to emphasize that the amendment is thoughtful, deals with abuses without destroying the economic fiber of the city. thank you. supervisor campos: next speaker. >> supervisors, i am david, the owner of ameba music in san francisco. i agree about the fact that you are vilifying businesses. we have been taking care of our people for many years now. we have been open for 14 years. we have had health care all those years. we use the san francisco healthy program as a supplement to our blue shield program. blue shield would not be easily

economical for it to be that. most of our staff are covered that way. this program, you talk about the loophole like it is bringing in cocaine from salt america. it is enabling businesses to stay in business in an on healthy economic climate we are in. business has been down now -- record stores are not exactly the up-and-coming business in america. we still survive. we might not have that ability to survive if this adds another $100,000 to our cost. amoeba music is breaking even. people talk about it -- businesses like there is no breaking point, they can survive any kit and keep going. that is not true. there are breaking points. you cannot expect businesses to support everything indefinitely

to the point they cannot survive. we have to pay another $100,000 a year. the city will lose 100 jobs. i know you might not care about the 100 jobs, you are talking to each other, but i care about those jobs. i care about those 100 jobs. those people work for me. they have been with me for 14 years. i care a lot about those 100 jobs. you should come into -- you should, too. jobs like that are going to disappear and it will affect the fabric of the economy in the city. i agree with david chiu's proposal to mitigate this so that businesses can survive. the truth is, the proposal will not save anybody -- if this money is going into something where you something wherermi's an -- where you care about mri's, do that.

it is very on wheeled and -- un wieldy. 1000 people have to be carried when they have gone from an employee. we cannot afford that. ok? there is a lot of administrative cost you are not considering. what about somebody who has worked for 10 different people in san francisco? that is a lot to deal with. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, you know, we are always arguing for jobs ourselves. when we do, we're arguing for jobs with full and substantial health care benefits. let me give you a point of view on business i have not heard so far. supervisor campos' amendment is

pro-responsible business. all of our members work for businesses that provide full health care benefits. most of our workers are in the private sector. most of our work, 2/3 in the average year, is in the private sector, not the public sector. we are against competition with employers who have unrestricted wages and benefits. if they do not provide that, that is a threat to the benefits employers do provide. we struggle to obtain and retain. this lapel -- will pull represents a standing threat to benefits provided by other employees. i support supervisor campos' amendment. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of health

active california. we're an advocacy organization. first, i would like to thank the board for your commitment to providing meaningful access to health care to all who work and live in san francisco. since the passage of the health care security ordinance, we recognize san francisco as a leader in health care reform. we hope you will continue to live up -- we hope you will continue to live up to the promise of providing meaningful access to care. as i was drafting my statement, i could not help but think, why is this a debate? workers collect between $1,400 up to $4,000 in the accounts. anyone who has had an emergency or chronic illness knows that is not enough money for long-term health issues. workers are one medical

emergency or serious illness away from having an account wiped clean. david campos' amendment resolves this by allowing hra's to roll over from year to year. as a health care advocate, i have heard the stories of someone who went to the emergency room for a kitchen knife cut and walked out with a $1,200 bill. someone goes into the hospital, stays for three days, and walks out with $15,000 in medical debt. that is a problem. many workers who have hra's are low- to moderate-income. what happens to individuals when they run out of money because there were only accumulating up to $4,000 and are still sick? medical debt, as you are aware, is a growing problem in the united states. it accounts for 60% of all bankruptcies in the united states according to a harvard

medical study. the only way these hra's will provide meaningful access to health coverage is if workers are allowed to accumulate funds in their accounts year to year. i heard this earlier. this is not an entitlement program. we have to keep in mind these workers have worked and earned these benefits. they deserve to have access to them when they need them. we urge the board move forward with this and move it to the full board. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am an organizer with the alliance of california community empowerment and we work on issues of racial and economic justice. i appreciated your comments this morning that we have to think about the impact on real people the loophole has. it to encourages a race to the

bottom. businesses are incentivized to not provide health care for employees. access to basic medical treatment and preventative care is critical to support thing thriving communities in our city. finally, we don't want to put workers in the compromising position of having to fight for funds they have a legal right to. we support your legislation. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. that is it for speaker kurds. if there is any member of the public would like to speak, please come forward. you have three minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for finally starting to draft legislation based on "the wall street journal." i hope to see more of that. a couple of quick points. i don't have a surcharge on my menu. i have always provided insurance for 21 years for my full-time workers. insurance companies don't really

offer insurance for part-time workers. a lot of part-time workers have a second job where they have insurance. that is the case with mine. the interesting problem, the one element of want to focus on, -- i want to focus on, would be the escrow account you want us to hold, which would tie up the money for hra's for part-time employees that likely already have insurance and take that away from money would be spending on premiums for full- time employees. if you want to see the $250,000 loss that i had last year that forced me into bankruptcy, i will show it to you. there is no extra money sitting around. the occasional claim we get, we pay. we have no restrictions on the hra. we have actual insurance.

second, in fairness, insurance companies don't hold on to money for 18 months after you stop paying premiums. they don't hold onto it for a day. they don't respond to me the premiums i pay for insurance money is not paid for or health care not used. it seems you're putting a burden on hra you are not putting on an insurance company or on the city itself. second of all, when people say there has been no effect of the various anti-business legislation over the years, i would point out, supervisor campos, your district is booming. you should come over to a davidchiu's district. there are several empty spaces. most restaurants in the mission are 20 employees are less. most in the financial district are 21 employees areas --

employees or more. redwood park has been closed for nine years. this is a problem for us mid- sized businesses. we cannot afford to set money aside we don't have. i hope you could look just at the one aspect, the escrow account. all of the rest of the things, businesses are depriving -- false advertising, go after them all you want. we cannot afford to put aside money the insurance company is not asked to put aside. supervisor campos: thank you very much. if you have an employee already getting insurance from another employer, they can opt out of the hra's. i want to make sure that is clear. that is doable. >> there also offered insurance, but they may not take it.

supervisor campos: they can opt out of it. next speaker. >> good afternoon. ♪ doctor doctor oh, government oversight give us good news we have a bad case of health care blues those descriptions -- prescriptions you still are not cheap give us the answers that we seek because we work hard for the money so hard for the oversight and you had better treated retreat right she works hard for the money so hard for it you had better treat her right all right she works night and day and he does to for so little pay

and they don't see much of anything they work hard for the money so hard for it, oversight please give them the budget light ♪ >> thank you. supervisor campos: next speaker. >> you don't mind if i rap, do you? supervisor farrell has learned from supervisor elsbernd. he says, if i don't say anything, they cannot hold my words against me. you are not for talkative. let's do one thing. let's enjoy the forty-niners being in first place. i doubt that will last very long. what you have got here is obviously the battle between greed and the public need.

these guys are never going to quit. they have been to the supreme court already to keep from paying their fair share. how much is enough if you give it to them? there is no such thing as enough. $1 billion is not enough. $10 billion, not enough. they will always come back and try to screw the little guy, try to transfer the cost. another thought, these guys are running for mayor, ok? i have watched president chiu in parkmerced. he said, i have a 10-page thing and i'm convinced we will not lose units. he did the same thing. he is trying to do the same thing on healthy for st. -- healthy san francisco. the mayor, the lasting wants to do is go out -- last thing he wants to do is cry out and say,

you're trying to kill healthy san francisco. i know there's a loophole. the big number here is $850 million. if the average worker has health insurance and does not get sick that year, does blue shield's and the money back? i don't think so. not going to happen, you know? $850 million in how much legitimate companies are. the gangsters doing it on the backs of employees can get out of town. i doubt they will do that. $850 million. they're paying premiums. if their employees at the end up in the hospital, you would have good employers stand up and say, the broker legg and it cost $100,000, thank god i have insurance. this program should be dumped entirely. this was a side door in case

they did not win the supreme court decision, which they didn't. roadblocks to usage. one thing to close on, there is a guy back here, chris wright, are you aware, did you see in laguna honda where they have this little guy, mark, got right up in his face? there is personal space. he did this to me right back there. you will see him do it outside. supervisor campos: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm the executive director for the golden gate restaurant association. we have a little over 1000 member restaurants. i want to start off by correcting the record a little on the facts that have been stated. there continue to be this number

used of 13% of businesses use reimbursement accounts. that is inaccurate. 29% of businesses covered under healthy san francisco use some form of reimbursement account appears 65% of that are small businesses. to continue to use numbers that do not reflect that reality misstates the number of businesses that use reimbursement account. some of them may also provide health insurance. to say they will not be impacted by this legislation is incorrect. "the wall street journal" was mentioned and the idea around fees. you also probably saw my quotation in "the wall street journal." i said, if a business is misrepresenting their charging for health care costs and not providing it, that is wrong and we do not support that. however, i will use the one market example of the restaurant.

their fee did not say it was for help the san francisco. it was for employer-mandates like kelsey san francisco -- healthy san francisco. there was a little -- litany of new costs. he did not say costs created a 60% increase in the cost of labor for minimum wage employee that oakland does not have. now all the pastry shops, bakeries, are moving that way. the restaurants are outsourcing forces -- functions to other towns because of increased costs. this is a defining moment, as you have said. as to whether or not we want to find solutions are political wedge is, whether or not we want to find solutions or false choices. that is what is being presented here. there are other ways to solve the problems we have identified.

brighterchiu's efforts -- supervisor chiu's efforts have gone a long way in that. there has been the erroneous information regarding fees. do we agree with that language? i will not say we do. we will respect his efforts to try to address if it is a consumer fraud issue. that is language that addresses the issue you have been raising. this will cost thousands of jobs. it is not disputed that we are 30,000 jobs short where we were two years ago. don't do something that will hurt the economy when it could be solved without hurting the economy. supervisor campos: can i ask you a quick question? i appreciate comments. one thing that is reported as their companies -- is there are companies that are actually

accounting and marketing their services as a way of employers exploiting this loophole to make money. this is what "the wall street journal" reports. there's actually a brochure of this company has circulated that said the funds are not needed and the employer wins because the funds to stay with them, not the city. do you think that is right? do you think what that company is doing, specifically marketing itself to restaurants, to these businesses, for the purpose of using this loophole to make money of consumers, do you think that is correct? >> i would disagree that they're trying to make money of consumers by the statement you just made. what they are saying, my understanding is, and i am not familiar with the language they may be using, if they are saying there's an official way to meet

the mandates required on your thehcso, when an employee does not use the benefit, that the unused portion could return to the employer, i don't think that is an incorrect thing to say. supervisor campos: final question, because there are many authorities, people watching and will be looking at this issue, has the restaurant association referred people to beneflez? -- beneflex? just so we know. >> i don't know. i believe it is an associate member. we have many members who provide various types of human resources, third-party administrative consulting. i'm not familiar with their marketing in this regard, personally. supervisor campos: can you verify that they have had no

involvement with the efforts to market these things? >> what do you mean? supervisor campos: have you been associated with the efforts of beneflex and appealing to businesses to use the service? >> we provide a service to our members so they can communicate with our restaurants. whether it is a dishwater -- dishwasher, insurance and other products. i cannot say there has not been an e-mail that did go out. supervisor campos: that is fine. thank you. i want it to show that the record shows they have had some communication. >> i would not describe it that way, sir. it is up to your discretion. >> thank you, supervisors.

i am an employee at tenderloin housing clinic. i've worked in the tenderloin community as a rights organizer. i think we're all very clear that we're talking about hra's as the only option, not in addition to insurance. you have all been here the last several years. we have cut sf general to the bone. workers are constantly going to give up in order to fund our health care system. it is not fair. it is not a right to have consumers pay once and have taxpayers pay again for services that are supposed to be covered under the law. if the business community wants to promote and tell each other they need to provide full health insurance, wonderful. that is not a reason to delay. it is extremely important we

close this loophole. when i was working, the families i worked with, no one reported having health insurance except for folks who worked in union jobs that had contracts that guarantee it. everyone else, janitors, restaurant workers, room cleaners, they knew hra's existed, but had no idea how to access them and they were afraid to ask. many are afraid of retaliation. the reason they're afraid of retaliation is because they see intimidation every day, not when they're asking to have health care coverage paid for. to have people have to go, whether english or -- is or is not their first language, having to argue that is unfair to put on an employee.