Subsidized healthcare added to my restaurant bill
comme...@yahoo.com
Well, this is new to me...
At lunch, I discovered an item on my bill named "S.F. Health". Funny,
I didn't remember ordering that. It is a $1.00 surcharge for every
person at the table to help cover the restaurant's implementation of
San Francisco's mandatory healthcare plan.
When I asked, the waitress whipped out a flyer for me, which explained
the whole thing.
Who know's how long I've been paying this w/o noticing.
Guy Bannis
<ececfaeb-04f8-4a63...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
comme...@yahoo.com wrote:
> When I asked, the waitress whipped out a flyer for me, which explained
> the whole thing.
> Who know's how long I've been paying this w/o noticing.
The law went into effect in 2006 but employers are apparently only now
realizing that the law won't be overturned.
It's a good thing. The restaurant could have just raised its prices
instead.
SMS
I assume that this was mentioned on the menu, along with whatever other
surcharges they were adding for this week. I've seen surcharges for the
high cost of dairy products too. I'm surprised that there haven't been
surcharges for the higher prices of cooking oil, rice, wheat, produce,
and meat, as well as some for the increased cost of the restaurant
owner's kid's private school tuition. Maybe they could change prices
daily based on the futures prices for staple products.
Golden California Girls
SMS
Right, every item could have a market price. If HFCS goes up, then sodas
should increase in price. If wheat goes up, then any item with bread
should increase in price. Besides the fee for health care, there should
be one for the sick leave that is now required as well, after all, you
don't want restaurant workers coming to work sick.
Steve Pope
>Right, every item could have a market price. If HFCS goes up, then sodas
>should increase in price. If wheat goes up, then any item with bread
>should increase in price. Besides the fee for health care, there should
>be one for the sick leave that is now required as well, after all, you
>don't want restaurant workers coming to work sick.
I think the "surcharge" for healthcare is sour grapes from
restaurant owners who lobbied against the measure and lost,
and they are somehow imagining that customers will feel
sympathy for these tightwads.
You can bet restaurants that already previously had health
plans do not have this "surcharge".
Steve
Ciccio
> I think the "surcharge" for healthcare is sour grapes from
> restaurant owners who lobbied against the measure and lost,
> and they are somehow imagining that customers will feel
> sympathy for these tightwads.
Tightwads? That's easy for you to say, when it's not YOUR money.
Moreover, even though I have always paid, and do pay, full full boat
for my employees', heatlth, dental, and optical, insurance, all of
which are top drawer, I vehemently oppose such Communistic laws. The
government, especially San Francisco, can't even even run the
government effectively, I sure as hell don't want the government
running businesses. I say that, even though if government mandated
all businesses to do as I do, then I would save money by lowering the
premiums I pay. Nevertheless, minimizing governmental intrusion into
business is a far greater benefit to me and business as a whole.
Ciccio
Al Eisner
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Right, every item could have a market price. If HFCS goes up, then sodas
>> should increase in price. If wheat goes up, then any item with bread
>> should increase in price. Besides the fee for health care, there should
>> be one for the sick leave that is now required as well, after all, you
>> don't want restaurant workers coming to work sick.
The most rapid fluctuations would of course reflect the price of oil.
> I think the "surcharge" for healthcare is sour grapes from
> restaurant owners who lobbied against the measure and lost,
> and they are somehow imagining that customers will feel
> sympathy for these tightwads.
>
> You can bet restaurants that already previously had health
> plans do not have this "surcharge".
There's a rumor (okay, I just made it up) that United Airlines will be
taking over several of the main chains. There will not only be
by-the-glass charges for water, but charges for salt packets and chairs.
Just don't ask for an extra napkin.
--
Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA
Steve Pope
>On Jun 22, 7:04 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> I think the "surcharge" for healthcare is sour grapes from
>> restaurant owners who lobbied against the measure and lost,
>> and they are somehow imagining that customers will feel
>> sympathy for these tightwads.
>Tightwads? That's easy for you to say, when it's not YOUR money.
>Moreover, even though I have always paid, and do pay, full full boat
>for my employees', heatlth, dental, and optical, insurance, all of
>which are top drawer,
Yeah, yeah, anytime I've had employees I've paid for their
healthcare too.
>I vehemently oppose such Communistic laws.
Yes, we know.
>The
>government, especially San Francisco, can't even even run the
>government effectively, I sure as hell don't want the government
>running businesses. I say that, even though if government mandated
>all businesses to do as I do, then I would save money by lowering the
>premiums I pay. Nevertheless, minimizing governmental intrusion into
>business is a far greater benefit to me and business as a whole.
There is no question that U.S. policies of encouraging/requiring
many employers to pay for employee healthcare are flawed.
Unfortunately, due to the "you can't get there from here" problem
of providing healthcare in the U.S., such requirements are
presently the lesser of evils. Laws such as those in SF,
Austin, and Massachisettes are valid prototypes of the pieced-
together universal healthcare we may see within the next
decade.
Steve
Michael Sierchio
> On Jun 22, 7:04 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> I think the "surcharge" for healthcare is sour grapes from
>> restaurant owners who lobbied against the measure and lost,
>> and they are somehow imagining that customers will feel
>> sympathy for these tightwads.
>
> Tightwads? That's easy for you to say, when it's not YOUR money.
It *is* my money, since I'm the patron of the establishment.
I agree (gasp!) with the Pope -- I think it's an attempt to
make a statement rather than recover cost. It would be
trivial to allocate the same amount across the menu.
> ... I vehemently oppose such Communistic laws. ...
Oh, get a grip. Do you live in the City and County of SF?
Democracy is not necessarily pretty (Tom Ammiano in a
dress comes to mind). Minimum wage, mandatory overtime,
etc. are, I suppose "Communistic", but contribute to
a more civil and prosperous society.
Al Eisner
Whatever you may think about such regulations (and you've made that
clear), the one thing which can be said with certainty is that they
are not Communistic. What Communist country do you think provided
healthcare through employers, assuming that private employment at
the relevant scale was even allowed? Whatever credibility your case
may have isn't helped by statements like that.
Steve Pope
>Whatever you may think about such regulations (and you've made that
>clear), the one thing which can be said with certainty is that they
>are not Communistic. What Communist country do you think provided
>healthcare through employers, assuming that private employment at
>the relevant scale was even allowed? Whatever credibility your case
>may have isn't helped by statements like that.
I'm not sure I agree with this logic. Communism can mean, among
other things, state ownership of business enterprises. The
reason a city government in the U.S. can legally impose such
regulations is that the city does have some ownership interest
in the buinesses. They are not outside the city's sovereign powers.
Steve
Ciccio
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yeah, yeah, anytime I've had employees I've paid for their
> healthcare too.
Oh, that means that you don't now? Let me tell you, many employers
recently have stopped paying ALL to cost of the premiums, because of
the double digit increases up to last year, when it was only about
TWICE the rate of inflation. Oh yeah, let's throw government into
that. It will cost the taxpayers five times more than it costs now,
and the services will be half as good, as it typical when government
takes up a program.
> Yes, we know.
Good, it bears repeating.
> There is no question that U.S. policies of encouraging/requiring
> many employers to pay for employee healthcare are flawed.
> Unfortunately, due to the "you can't get there from here" problem
> of providing healthcare in the U.S., such requirements are
Please don't couch it in the passive voice. You must mean, the
GOVERNMENT providing health care. No thanks, it can't provide
effectively what government is meant to provide.
> presently the lesser of evils.
Sorry, no sale. What SF is doing, is very evil.
> Laws such as those in SF, Austin, and Massachisettes are valid prototypes of the pieced-
> together universal healthcare we may see within the next
> decade.
Actually, it's going to be worse.
Ciccio
George Grapman
If a restaurant serves 200 meals a day I doubt if health care costs
them $200 more per day.
Before Sf enacted a minimum wage there was a higher minimum for
business leasing city property. One of the larger wharf restaurants said
they had two dish washers on each shift and to recoup the cost they
would have to either fire one or raise prices. The new minimum was
$1 higher than they were paying meaning a whopping $16 increase in costs
per shift.
George Grapman
I recently booked a flight and specifically avoided American
Airlines because of the $15 charge for the first piece of checked
baggage. I was not so much the charge as the facts that there is no way
that my suitcase adds $15 to their cost and that the added number of
people with carry on stuff will delay boarding and unboarding.
By the way, Continental has figure out that it is faster to have
coach passengers board from the rear to the front.
Steve Pope
>On Jun 23, 11:01 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> Yeah, yeah, anytime I've had employees I've paid for their
>> healthcare too.
>Oh, that means that you don't now?
Right, but if you do, that doesn't give you any more of a vote
than me, capische?
>Let me tell you, many employers
>recently have stopped paying ALL to cost of the premiums, because of
>the double digit increases up to last year, when it was only about
>TWICE the rate of inflation.
A problem that can only be solved by downsizing the medical industry.
>> There is no question that U.S. policies of encouraging/requiring
>> many employers to pay for employee healthcare are flawed.
>> Unfortunately, due to the "you can't get there from here" problem
>> of providing healthcare in the U.S., such requirements are
>Please don't couch it in the passive voice. You must mean, the
>GOVERNMENT providing health care. No thanks, it can't provide
>effectively what government is meant to provide.
How do you explain all the counterexamples around the world wherein the
government provides reasonable healthcare?
>Sorry, no sale. What SF is doing, is very evil.
I like it. "Evil" healthcare.
Steve
Al Eisner
This doesn't make sense to me. The power to make laws and regulations
affecting individuals and businesses has nothing to do with "ownership".
Does the government somehow "own" you if it requires that you carry
automobile insurance, or that you not smoke in public places? Is
it exercizing ownership to require that a restaurant not poison its
customers? There is not even a whiff of Communism in any of this, nor
in the example cited above. It's just obfuscating rhetoric.
Steve Pope
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Steve Pope wrote:
>> I'm not sure I agree with this logic. Communism can mean, among
>> other things, state ownership of business enterprises. The
>> reason a city government in the U.S. can legally impose such
>> regulations is that the city does have some ownership interest
>> in the buinesses. They are not outside the city's sovereign powers.
>This doesn't make sense to me. The power to make laws and regulations
>affecting individuals and businesses has nothing to do with "ownership".
>Does the government somehow "own" you if it requires that you carry
>automobile insurance, or that you not smoke in public places? Is
>it exercizing ownership to require that a restaurant not poison its
>customers?
I don't know if a concept of a state ownership interest in property
and businesses is *necessary* for this sort of regulation, but
it sure helps.
Steve
Golden California Girls
> A problem that can only be solved by downsizing the medical industry.
No. You have to downsize the legal industry. It all flows from there.
Golden California Girls
> I don't know if a concept of a state ownership interest in property
> and businesses is *necessary* for this sort of regulation, but
> it sure helps.
Ah, yes. Everything is owned by King George Bush II.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
A common misconception. Tort costs are about 2% of total economy;
medical tort costs are only about 1.5% of the medical industry.
Not insignificant, but not the main factor in rising healthcosts.
Steve
George Grapman
then the arbiter for your needs is a bean counter rather than a doctor.
Chester
> In article
> <ececfaeb-04f8-4a63-8721-66fe4f95d...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> commers...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > When I asked, the waitress whipped out a flyer for me, which explained
> > the whole thing.
> > Who know's how long I've been paying this w/o noticing.
>
> The law went into effect in 2006 but employers are apparently only now
> realizing that the law won't be overturned.
I think the thing is that the state Appeals Court upheld the initial
ruling.
Like others have said, including it as a line item on the check is 1)
recouping the costs of compliance, and 2) complaining about the need
to comply. Personally, I find the practice problematic because, if
they make it a line item, then that line item should very strictly go
only toward the costs of health care/minimum wage increases and such.
They can't possibly calculate those costs as a strict percentage or
flat fee related to the amount or number of customer checks. I guess
they might be "undercharging" customers for those costs, but if they
are, in fact, overcharging customers then I find that problematic as a
point of principle.
I also think it's kind of childish.
As someone involved in a small/medium-sized family business, I can
sympathize with the restaurants' gripes, but I think it's unseemly to
be airing such complaints in front of customers (*to* customers, in
this case). That said, I can understand the need to increase prices
and the desire to let customers know that price increases are due to
governmental policy. So, as a compromise, I think it's reasonable to
maybe put a note somewhere on the menu letting customers know that
prices, in general, have gone up to account for those increased costs.
It's interesting how restaurants have been the most vocal opponent to
these laws. By virtue of the product they provide, they are best
situated to being able to pass along the cost to customers without
adverse desertion of customers to businesses in other cities. It's not
as if they are, for example, a merchandise retailer whose clientele
can very easily purchase goods in different city or through the
internet. I doubt if people are going to forego SF restaurants to dine
in South San Francisco or Oakland just because of higher prices due to
higher benefits costs. Even Ciccio, I imagine, will still eat out in
San Francisco.
But it's obviously a struggle for restaurants to meet these costs. And
I think the problems they are having stem from how weird the economics
of restaurant payrolls are. It'll be interesting to see how the
industry adapts...
"Chefs' high hopes, low pay leave S.F. restaurants starved for help"
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/12/
MN1DSNR7D.DTL&type=food>
Chester
Todd Michel McComb
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>There is something wrong then the arbiter for your needs is a bean
>counter rather than a doctor.
How can a physician be even slightly objective about the situation?
What is a reasonable level of care needs to be determined by a group
of people with sufficient distance from the situation. It's certainly
not a power that should be handed to the medical industry itself on
a silver platter.
Golden California Girls
1.5% may be what they have to pay out, but that isn't the cost. The cost is all
the hours spent papering their collective rears to document that they aren't
guilty of malpractice. It is all the unnecessary tests done to prove the
obvious diagnosis. It is the rise in malpractice insurance costs, which is of
course based on actuarial data. Want your proof? Why does the same drug made
in the same plant cost so much less in any country but the United States? Legal
fees. There just isn't any other difference.
P.S. Usenet goes away tomorrow. NY AG sucks!
George Grapman
to keep costs down should determine the outcome?
George Grapman
post at this time tomorrow.
George Grapman
suggest they consult with their CPA to see if they should do it.
Todd Michel McComb
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>Do you think someone far removed fro m the patient whose function is
>to keep costs down should determine the outcome?
I think that someone "far removed from the patient" who is following
objective standards of what constitutes appropriate medical care,
including cost, should be making the decision after reviewing the
diagnosis and other relevant facts, yes. The key is developing
those objective standards of appropriate care, which this country
refuses to even begin to do. That dialog is in its infancy, if
even that far along, derailed by emotional hype from the billion
dollar medical companies. Your previous statement is a good example.
Steve Pope
Ciccio
wrote:
> Ciccio wrote:
> It *is* my money, since I'm the patron of the establishment.
You really can't make that simple distinction. Here, let me help
you...The government isn't FORCING YOU to pay it in order to pursue
YOUR livelihood.
> I agree (gasp!) with the Pope -- I think it's an attempt to
> make a statement rather than recover cost. It would be
> trivial to allocate the same amount across the menu.
Sure, "trivia"l for you, as YOU are not being FORCED to pay it.
> Democracy is not necessarily pretty
That's why, it is best to minimize governmental intrusions to
governmental functions, like police, fire, streets, schools...You
know, those matters at which SF is failing miserably. Yeah, have
those same fuck-ups start being health care providers.
> Minimum wage, mandatory overtime,
> etc. are, I suppose "Communistic",
>but contribute to a more civil and prosperous society.
Oh, so there shouldn't be an end to it? Have the employers pay for all
the employees' necessities, food, housing, fuel, transportation costs,
*on top* of their salary? I'm sure you'll say yes, so long as YOU
aren't FORCED to pay for such with YOUR money.
See, all that touchy-feely communist crap... "From each according how
much risk he takes; to each how safe he wants life," doesn't work.
That's why, there's only a few countries left where communism is alive
and well like Cuba, China, and the USA...Though China has been getting
hip.
Ciccio
Ciccio
You're right, I stand corrected...It's worse than communism.
Ciccio
Ciccio
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 23, 11:01 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Right, but if you do, that doesn't give you any more of a vote
> than me, capische?
Your effort at [mis]spelling Italian aside, nobody was talking about
voting. I was addressing your statement that somehow you feel you are
equal to me in currently experiencing the issue as an employer, which
you admit you're not. Thus, again, you're advocating spending OTHER
people's money.
> A problem that can only be solved by downsizing the medical industry.
Oh yeah, more government regulation into an industry...No thanks.
> How do you explain all the counterexamples around the world wherein the
> government provides reasonable healthcare?
Oh, you mean the countries with insane tax rates, not just income, but
fuel, VAT, etc.?...Again, no thanks.
> I like it. "Evil" healthcare.
"Evil" government intervention. Like the old saw...The road to hell is
paved with good intentions.
Ciccio
Steve Pope
>On Jun 23, 12:42 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> Right, but if you do, that doesn't give you any more of a vote
>> than me, capische?
>Your effort at [mis]spelling Italian aside, nobody was talking about
>voting. I was addressing your statement that somehow you feel you are
>equal to me in currently experiencing the issue as an employer, which
>you admit you're not.
What you do does not give your opinion on public policy any
more weight than anybody elses.
And, my spelling is correct.
>> A problem that can only be solved by downsizing the medical industry.
>Oh yeah, more government regulation into an industry...No thanks.
Maybe more regulation is not needed if we simply yank all the
public funding for unneeded medical research... NIH, Stem Cells,
etc. That would achieve quite a bit of downsizing right there.
(Or is spending OPM okay with you in these instances?)
>> How do you explain all the counterexamples around the world wherein the
>> government provides reasonable healthcare?
>Oh, you mean the countries with insane tax rates, not just income, but
>fuel, VAT, etc.?...Again, no thanks.
I have no disagreement that countries like Sweden have tax
burdens that are too heavy, but universal healthcare can be
accomplished without those levels of taxation... IF you control
costs.
If you do not control costs, it can't be done.
Steve
Steve Fenwick
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
A huge part of the costs, of course, is paying the insurance industry
for three things: cost containment, malpractice insurance, and their
profit margins. Eliminate the need for those three by going to
single-payer with tight caps on malpractice suits, less overhead
maintaining records to protect the doctors against suits, the profit
incentive, and the cost containment problem becomes more tractable just
between patient and doctor.
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Ciccio
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What you do does not give your opinion on public policy any
> more weight than anybody elses.
To you, and maybe some others it may not. To some, however, it may. In
any event, I never said it does. I related my current experience with
the issue and you asserted that yours was tantamount to mine, which it
isn't. I was offering a voice from the trenches, instead of from the
armchair, give it whatever weight you want.
> And, my spelling is correct.
Not for that word in Italian.
> Maybe more regulation is not needed if we simply yank all the
> public funding for unneeded medical research... NIH, Stem Cells,
> etc. That would achieve quite a bit of downsizing right there.
I agree with minimizing the government spending, and if downsizing is
the result, so be it. I, however, oppose the government foisting laws/
regulations upon an industry for the purpose of downsizing the
industry.
> I have no disagreement that countries like Sweden have tax
> burdens that are too heavy, but universal healthcare can be
> accomplished without those levels of taxation... IF you control
> costs.
> If you do not control costs, it can't be done.
We're talking the U.S. government, so applying your premise, it can't
be done.
Ciccio
spamtr...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Why does the same drug made
> in the same plant cost so much less in any country but the United States? Legal
> fees. There just isn't any other difference.
The drug industry recoups their R&D expenses from the US market.
Overseas sales are gravy.
Ciccio
Also, other countries assert price control on the prescription drugs.
Also, in many countries, the market won't bear American prices.
Ciccio
Steve Pope
>On Jun 24, 11:56 am, spamtrap1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 2:16 pm, Golden California Girls <gldncag...@aol.com.mil>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Why does the same drug made
>> > in the same plant cost so much less in any country but the United
>States? Legal
>> > fees. There just isn't any other difference.
You keep saying this but the numbers do not back you up.
You are wrong.
>> The drug industry recoups their R&D expenses from the US market.
>> Overseas sales are gravy.
Yep
>Also, other countries assert price control on the prescription drugs.
>Also, in many countries, the market won't bear American prices.
Yep
Plus the drug-companies manipulate Congress into paying far
too much through VA and Medicaid/Medicare.
Steve
Todd Michel McComb
Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>... the insurance industry ...
>the profit incentive ....
Yes, it certainly doesn't help matters that there's a second industry
in there wanting to take their cut too.
jswa...@yahoo.com
employer?
I'm just wondering how they decided it was exactly $1 to charge
everyone
(no matter what was ordered?).
I'd be curious if the collect more or less than they actually need ...
unless they charge way more than they need, it doesn't seem like
a great way of doing business.
On Jun 22, 4:14 pm, commers...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Well, this is new to me...
>
> At lunch, I discovered an item on my bill named "S.F. Health". Funny,
> I didn't remember ordering that. It is a $1.00 surcharge for every
> person at the table to help cover the restaurant's implementation of
> San Francisco's mandatory healthcare plan.
Geoff Miller
Golden California Girls <gldnc...@aol.com.mil> writes:
> Ah, yes. Everything is owned by King George Bush II.
Ah, you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome! That's
of a piece with all the other (double redundancy alert)
addlepated leftist claptrap that you spew. You've probably
drunk the "global warming" Kool-Aid, too.
Tell you what spud: rather than rebutting your endless,
agitated posts point by point and issue by issue, it
would be simpler and far less time consuming for both
of us just to inform you that everything you think you
know is wrong, and then "pith" you like a laboratory frog.
Geoff
--
"What do you suppose the waiter will do when you tell him his
Chianti tastes as though a platoon of Togolese askari have
used it to wash their pits before straining it back into the
bottle through a freshly skinned civet's rectum?" -- AA Gill
comme...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
don't recall how they arrived at the $1 figure, the note was more of a
soft apology than a detailed explanation.
But it is a flat $1 per person, regardless of the total bill.
bar...@amnia.com
Then it is obviously not a reflection on their actual cost.
By the way,did you only learn about this when you got the bill or was
it made clear ahead of time?
Tim
> Well, this is new to me...
>
> At lunch, I discovered an item on my bill named "S.F. Health". Funny,
> I didn't remember ordering that. It is a $1.00 surcharge for every
> person at the table to help cover the restaurant's implementation of
> San Francisco's mandatory healthcare plan.
>
> When I asked, the waitress whipped out a flyer for me, which explained
> the whole thing.
> Who know's how long I've been paying this w/o noticing.
I did some checking on this and found NOTHING that allows a restaurant
to add things to the bill that are not _taxes_ specifically mandated
by specific laws (for example, the local sales tax rate laws).
While a restaurant can _try_ to add various "surcharges" for various
things, including world peace, saving the baby seals, paying for drugs
for homeless people--these surcharges have no force of law. A
restaurant is free to adjust its prices to reflect its various costs,
desires for profit margins, etc., but a customer is only obligated to
pay the specified price for an item and any _mandated_ sales tax. He
is not obligated to pay "surcharges" tacked on at the time the bill is
presented.
But thanks for the heads-up. If I ever am hit with this $1/head
surcharge, I'll just skip the tip completely.
--Tim May