Sunday October 2, 2011
Dear Editor,
In the article “Closing SF health care loophole debate heats up,” (San Francisco Chronicle, October 1, 2011) it was reported that the new proposed legislation “would hurt businesses that rely on the unused money to help keep their operations afloat.” But the last time I checked, the new legislation is to provide coverage for uninsured employees in San Francisco. The survival of whatever size businesses should not be the concern of this health care legislation.
What the city needs to do is regulate the funds that are being “recycled” back to those businesses. A lack of regulation has given businesses less incentive to notify their employees about their health care reimbursement accounts. Clearly, we need to prioritize health care coverage and ensure that we are not just providing a minimal coverage. Employers may only be spending the minimum on employee health care, as required by the Health Care Security Ordinance. It’s simple, maintain the funding to employee coverage or else we’ll realize that all of the surplus charges we see are only benefiting the businesses.
Sincerely,
Fay Saepharn
Berkeley, CA
Dear Editor,
In the article “Closing SF health care loophole debate heats up,” (San Francisco Chronicle, October 1, 2011) it was reported that the new proposed legislation “would hurt businesses that rely on the unused money to help keep their operations afloat.” But the last time I checked, the new legislation is to provide coverage for uninsured employees in San Francisco. The survival of whatever size businesses should not be the concern of this health care legislation.
What the city needs to do is regulate the funds that are being “recycled” back to those businesses. A lack of regulation has given businesses less incentive to notify their employees about their health care reimbursement accounts. Clearly, we need to prioritize health care coverage and ensure that we are not just providing a minimal coverage. Employers may only be spending the minimum on employee health care, as required by the Health Care Security Ordinance. It’s simple, maintain the funding to employee coverage or else we’ll realize that all of the surplus charges we see are only benefiting the businesses.
Sincerely,
Fay Saepharn
Berkeley, CA
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.