Health Service Board blamed for SF's rising costs

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/16/11 | Heather Knight,Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writers

[SmithL]

Eye-popping pension costs are the issue du jour at City Hall these days, but city officials say skyrocketing health care benefits are a far bigger concern - and some of them blame a little known group of seven for exacerbating the problem.

They're the members of the obscure Health Service Board, which meets monthly to select the medical and dental plans for employees and retirees, set the amount members pay for each plan, and set policy for the plans' administration.

It sounds innocuous enough, but the City Charter requires that four of the seven be employees or retirees who are elected to their posts by the rest of the city's employees and retirees. Two members are appointed by the mayor and one by the Board of Supervisors.

That means the majority of the board ensures that the 109,000 employees, retirees and family members who receive health care from the city have the best possible benefits - regardless of the effect on the city's bottom line. It's an extreme case of the fox guarding the henhouse, say some city officials who believe the setup has directly cost the city millions.

"It's so much money, and it's money nobody thinks about," said Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who served on the board for three years before quitting in frustration. "It felt like banging my head against a wall."

Elsbernd is participating in talks led by financier Warren Hellman that also include city officials and labor representatives to craft a measure reforming the city's pension and health care systems for the November ballot.

[mlocher]

"It's so much money, and it's money nobody thinks about,"

Nobody ever thinks about OPM. They just assume it will be there forever.

[dblshot]

Wonder what it costs that city to cover HIV/AIDS.

[chickadee]

Oh, goody - let SF get some of what WI is getting from the public sector unions:)

[WOBBLY BOB]

CALIFORNIA: Democratic strategist Maviglio hired to fight pension overhaul

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2686095/posts

“Lawmaker Introduces $165 Billion Union Pension Bailout Bill”

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/05/24/lawmaker-introduces-b-union-pension-bailout/

$165 billion is just for starters...

“Unions want to dump pensions on taxpayers”

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/06/troubled-labor-looks-to-federal-government-for-help-on-pensions/

Reform advocates are spotlighting those with extravagant pensions
— $100,000 or more — as a way to get the public’s attention and
emphasize that the current system is unsustainable.
http://www.modbee.com/editorials/story/803636.html

Perhaps the real reason why public-sector pension costs have not been tackled is that the full bill has never been revealed to taxpayers.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13988606

http://www.pensiontsunami.com/public.php

[benewton]

In regards to California:

We all have to do our daily salutes to the zero, but somebody forgot to flush.

[wac3rd]

San Francisco has a population of 815,000 and probably 100,000 illegal immigrants, who qualify for ALL of the cities social services, including food, housing, medical care and schooling.

Use the math that 109,000 people are on the official dole of government employee (not counting State or Federal workers...at least 100,000 of them, too) and the illegals, most of which are on public subsidy...

You have literally 20-30% of the city’s population on the Government teat, including illegals and the homeless.

I wonder why San Fran Nan and the lunatics are trying to tax everything they can...there is no more money to steal for Government, they taxed, gave away and regulated and killed businesses that paid the freight for the eternal programs they endorse, for union and Lefty votes.

The carousel is about to stop, I wonder who will survive?

[oyez]

The government does not have the power to make fairy tales to come true. SF is simply waiting for Tinker Belle.