The Supreme Court declined to review a case in which a restaurant owners group attempted to invalidate a San Francisco requirement that local businesses either offer health insurance benefits to their employees or pay the city a fee that is used to fund a program offering medical services to low-income restaurants. In Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, the Court apparently agreed with a Justice Department brief that the long-running debate over whether ERISA preempts such pay-or-play programs has been effectively mooted by the new federal health reform law. No surprises.
- Sure enough, Supreme Court denies cert in ERISA case
- Meanwhile, back at the Supreme Court, the pay or play debate continues (but maybe not for long)
- Battle in the Bureaucracy: An Interview with James Morone, Part II
- Battle in the Bureaucracy: An Interview with James Morone, Part I
- “Rationing”: An Interview with David Orentlicher
Tags3962 abortion amendment authority benefits bill committee congress constitution constitutional coverage democrats employer erisa exchange exchanges federal government health house income individual individuals insurance insurer issues legal legislation litigation mandate medicaid medicare parliamentarian policy private provisions public reconciliation reform regulation senate state states taxes Tort