talking about are said to be young and invulnerable. that's true but they break their arm. they have appendicitises, they have all sorts of different unforeseen expenses that pop up randomly. we need money in those accounts so they can use it. please, let us continue san francisco to build our san francisco with the values that we all honor and pass supervisor campos's legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is rebecca king murrow. i'm a registered health and public health nurse. i'm here on my own time. when i'm not here i work at san francisco general and la gunedia honda hospital and i'm part of that safety net where patients end up. i'm going to look at the safety net from a different perspective. the safety net is more expensive than the preventive care. 36 years as a nurse, so i have

worked on almost every unit there is. i haven't done burns and i haven't done psych. but every other unit i have been there and i have done it hands on. when a patient ends up in the emergency room, they're costs are so much greater which really sort of government and your excel spread sheets. but the costs are greater because they're subject to a bad outcome. because they waited for something that could have been prevented and now it's an emergency. and the reason i take my time to testify about the importance of this is because this is a patient that touched my heart. in 36 years, either you have a lot of patients, they come and go in your life. but i will never forget day after day after day the 24-year-old in the i.c.u. who had dental abscesses and ended up with a take off the mee on a ventilator. that woman will stick with me for the rest of my life. someone's sister, someone's mother, someone's daughter. lastly, i'm a district five

member. i pay that fee and pay the fee in pride and i expect it to go there. don't leave a loophole over to invite fraud into the future. thank you very much. i support your bill. >> thank you. let me read a few more names. paul gepner and dave prince. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is eileen botanna and i'm with the neighborhood center. we work closely with the health and public safety issues and immigrant rights and affordable housing and we are here to support soup irvisor campos's legislation. i wanted say this legislation makes it possible for employees to purchase their own health insurance plan because most of the time most employers exclude health insurance premiums and that, you know, they try to save the money at the end of the year so they can get that as well. employees deserve all of that they need to get. i'm also standing here in front

of you because the workers that we work with closely couldn't be here. my mother couldn't be here and they're actually in sfraunts, they work in sfraunts. if you think about it, san francisco is a destination city. if you think about it all of the money they get but the workers are the back bone but yet they're not being taken care of. so i want to make sure that they're taken care of and we pass this legislation. i get that the numbers and statistics are important to this matter but the workers and my mother and my kids are more than just numbers, they are human beings. they deserve all of the things they need to get, the utmost health care and so i hope this passes. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you very much. i'm going to read a few more names. michael perialt. next speaker, hello. >> hi, supervisor campos. supervisor farrell. i know -- you know i oppose the measure and i oppose the measure

due to the fact it increases the cost of private home care for seniors, disabled and terminally ill who all have to pay for this themselves. most of these clients are middle class and we do a lot of really creative things in order to keep them in their home versus alternatives. i also have given my h.r.a. to hillary so she can look at it showing, hey, look there's no restrictions. we also give quarterly notices and i've also been really thankful at the end of the year the money that was not used, i was abe to get back. i run a very small office now due to the high cost of delivering home care and high cost of labor. our shifting we made -- we also made available to every single person who works in san francisco $235 to say please, use this money and buy your own health care. they choose not to. this was the case before healthy san francisco was passed.

we made emergencies available to them and we said, please choose your own health care. i admire what you're doing with this saying it's a loophole but it's -- i don't see it as a loophole and i don't see it leveling the playing field because it does not provide health insurance to people. i see it as another entitlement program that people come to expect. they don't contribute to it and then that just becomes another huge expense. and this case for me looking at what's happened with our company, i can't even have companies that compete with me. i'm in daly city. i play by all of the rules. so i used to have 80 people working and taking care of seniors and disabled internally and ill in san francisco. i only have 30 now. i have 50 people working in other counties. so the 30, shifting those dollars that are not -- people choose not to use coming back to me he means i have to lay two people off in a five-person

office. that's a reality. that's a real -- it's a big -- i don't see the playing field as equal. there's two different prices, one for 20 -- people under 20 employees don't pay into it. people who have more than 100 employees pay almost twice. and i don't see that the key subjective you want it to achieve. you can't give health insurance to people if they choose not to contribute to that benefit themselves. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thank you, supervisor campos, chiu and farrell. i'm here with bernal heights community center. we are here to support supervisor campos's legislation. i want to say something today about some people that haven't been mentioned as a lot of them are the people who work in the

restaurant are immigrants, immigrants that work from, i'm not kidding 14 to 16 hours a day. most of these people are not informed about these benefits. the employers ignore them and so for the most part, they just don't want to tell them. i have been on both sides of the coin, where i have seen i know that the employers in some of the restaurants well known here in san francisco, they just want to ignore them. they just won't inform them because they want to grab that money. and on the other side, i have seen employers, these immigrants working hard and proud. they see and they want to be there and they want to ask about those benefits and they're afraid because the realation -- retaliation from their employer. i want to say please support this legislation by supervisor campos. and let's not forget about the people who are really working out there for them.

thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker. >> good afternoon. supervisor campos, president chiu and supervisor farrell. i am speaking -- i was the organizer of local 21 and also president of the apollo, asian-pacific american labor alliance in san francisco. i want to make a comment regarding the mayor's office representative today. i was a little bit concerned about his presentation. he spent about almost 45 minutes, he has lacked the understanding about the reality of low-wage workers. i support supervisor campos's legislation to remove the loophole from the health care security ordinance because this legislation will make it possible for employees to purchase their own individual health insurance.

many workers if they'remany wore opportunity to buy insurance, will use the reimbursement to help cover. now, the employer, they are not -- they are hoping to recover the money at the end of the year and exclude health insurance premiums, like dental, vision, like that, from services eligible for and reimbursement. i would like the three of you to support this legislation because it is good for san francisco. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you, sir. i have a couple more names. rose and aaron. next speaker. >> good afternoon. hunters point community member.

employees of the organization, they give every day, eight hours or more. my mother gave 40 years to her organization. one day, she got a brain aneurysm and a stroke. you know what the hospital did? they gave my father built for $1,800 and said, either pay it for you have to leave. 40 years and they don't value employees. they have a right to health care. they have a right to help. if people -- it is people's lives. they deserve that. it is important. the taxi driver cannot afford to get glasses, he cannot drive. he cannot pay his mortgage, his rent. he cannot send his children to score pierre -- to school. these are people's lives. we are representing people. this is very important to their day-to-day activities. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much for sharing of your personal story. to all of the individuals, all

the workers who have shared their painful stories, thank you. >> my name is chris. i'm the executive director of the committee on jobs. we represent many of the largest employers. some of these do use hra's as a component of health care they provide. let me say we do support the hc so and healthy san francisco. we think it is a good program. there are many problems, which a been identified. we are committed to being part of the solution to those problems and finding a solution. but as we work to improve, we need to be careful of unintended consequences, consequences that could be bad for the economy, for employers, and for employees. there are currently at least two sets of proposals out there, one of which i am familiar with

that we believe would mitigate the impact to the economy, and another one that we believe, the one before us today, that would have a very significant impact on the economy. at a $50 million cost to the economy, this would have the single largest impact of any measure coming forward. the $50 million that could be taken out of the economy, some of it will go into health care. much of it will remain out of the economy. it prevents businesses from hiring employees, from potentially keeping employees, given the current climate, and this would be bad for the city's economy. we believe that the current version that supervisor campos has put forward would actually create a financial incentive to laying off employees with the new amendment he has made to

his proposal. the unemployment is unacceptable. we need to be very mindful with legislation as it moves forward to carefully navigated so the solutions we do find will benefit hard-working employees and not shut doors to local businesses. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker? >> my name is steven. our family is a third-generation retailer in san francisco. the heartfelt initiatives that are here to take care of people exist -- you are only as strong as your weakest employee. and most good business owners recognize that. that being said, too much effort is being spent on punishing the good people and not taking care

of the problem-makers that are in the city of using employee laws and not taking care of employees in a host of the rina's. unspeaking as a retailer because we cannot add a $2, $3 charge to our ticket. if you buy air jordans from us, you know on the internet it costs $125. if you sell it for more, the customer goes to the internet. there is a real effect to this legislation that will affect retailers in san francisco. it will drive business dollars and tax revenues out. i want you to think long and hard. if you are paying $1.37 for employee, 10% payroll increase, better than half of the

retailer's wage budget, it is allocated to part-time employees. you do that, and what you have done is automatically lowered the bottom-line for a retailer that averages2% to 3% gross profit. the problem is how to implement the initiative without hurting business. that is what is in front of us right now. there are more businesses out there that care about employees that don't care about employees. san francisco would not be where it is today as a business community if we did not have that mentality. as a third generation business owner in the city, i can tell you this is real. i agree with taking care of employees. i agree with legislation to make sure it is the fair playing field. but, spend more time looking at what it will do to retail.

the other thing is, we have roughly 50 people on this program. they all can draw on it. they all do. we'll probably get 1 to 2 people a year drawing on it because most part-time employees are of new hampshire, they don't care 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