what's going on in CA?? - see DU disc of new worker's 'compensation'

[bobbieinok]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141x7

I think we all need to know that this is happening in CA. Next state(s)???

[Mountainman]

1. I think it may be too early to tell what the results of this bill are.

Maybe it is not good and maybe it is the best that could be done for all concerned given the circumstances.

In the past, doctors and lawyers would get as much money as they could out of a case. That forced premiums up. At least that is the story told. Now they can't do that as well. Maybe it will save money for employers and maybe it won't.

There are two sides to every story and I don't think we often get all the facts here at DU.


I am not going to say that what has been said here is not true. But I work for a company that employs around 3000 farm workers. The cost for our workers comp insurance for the last for months was $1.2 million. Now after all expensed our company made $700,000 last year. We are not in business to make anyone rich. We do have jobs for people. They are not the best or highest paying jobs but they do give money to people who lived much worse. If insurance premiums would have gone higher we would have had to close the business. The owner almost did that last December.

The workers could have gone to work for another labor provider but one who could not pay even what we paid in insurance.

I wish we could get all the facts out on the table so all of us could see what is going on.

I am no expert here and I do not know all sides of this story. I do know that employers do not have unlimited funds. It would be great if every worker got the best care possible but someone has to pay for it.

Professional people must create a need for their services in order to make money. The old workers comp rules let insurance companies, doctors and lawyers make money at the expense of the employer and the employee.

Most likely the ones who will lose out here will be the employees and doctors and lawyers. They will not get as good as they got but at least the system still exists.

We need to see all sides of an issue here I think.

[Cleita]

2. If you had universal health care like in Canada,

companies would save immensely on health insurance and worker's comp. But of course this would cut out the insurance companies and the huge profits being made by them, so they will fight tooth and nail against it. If every company banded together to get national health care, then there would be a big enough of a goliath to fight the for profit health insurance industry and pave the way for meaningful legislation.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Bullfucking shit and I mean that with all due respect

Maybe it is not good and maybe it is the best that could be done for all concerned given the circumstances

It does NOTHING to relieve SMALL employers who are the LARGEST source of employment in California. It completely puts the control of care for others in the hands of insurance carrier doctors who think that no matter what body part is missing, it isn't disabled.

It mandates NO REDUCTION of premiums whatsoever...

In the past, doctors and lawyers would get as much money as they could out of a case. That forced premiums up. At least that is the story told. Now they can't do that as well. Maybe it will save money for employers and maybe it won't.


Wrong AGAIN. Doctors were limited by the fee schedule which was tied to what they could bill for medicare but required FAR more documentation than medicare. Lawyers typically make 12% but no MORE than 15% of what they recover while insurance carrier lawyers were NOT limited by law by what they could charge.

I am not going to say that what has been said here is not true. But I work for a company that employs around 3000 farm workers. The cost for our workers comp insurance for the last for months was $1.2 million. Now after all expensed our company made $700,000 last year. We are not in business to make anyone rich. We do have jobs for people. They are not the best or highest paying jobs but they do give money to people who lived much worse. If insurance premiums would have gone higher we would have had to close the business. The owner almost did that last December.

So then why favor a law that gives you no guarantees? BTW, farm labor is an injurious line of work so no doubt your premiums were tied to your losses.

I have BIG FAT PROBLEMS with a DEMOCRAT claiming to be a democrat and claiming this legislation will lead to any good...the best you can hope for is a temporary reduction in premiums that will not last long term...why???? because history is on MY SIDE in this argument..the ONLY time ANY insurance premiums went down and stayed down in the state is when INSURANCE REFORM WAS PASSED by ballot initiative.




Most likely the ones who will lose out here will be the employees and doctors and lawyers. They will not get as good as they got but at least the system still exists.


No people who GAME the system will always find a way to GAME the system.

Who loses is the employee every way around. Lawyers never were even involved in Workers Comp in the state until the 1950's after insurance carriers repeatedly demonstrated they could not be trusted to fairly administrate claims in a no-fault system.


What happened was after comp was deregulated in 94, carriers began charging LESS than what they SHOULD have charged just to write the contracts...within a few years, they went broke...partly due to their failure to properly set aside monies in reserves consistent with the degree of injury and partly due to their investments in the stock market taking a dive...as it did in 85 then they began screaming for reforms and got a 500 billion dollar windfall in 1989.

I FEEL for employers that get screwed by their carriers, but since employers have NOT screamed for insurance reform, they deserve what they get...the carriers are NOT acting in your interests.

[Cleita]

3. I noticed that the post is by NSMA.

As a lawyer who specializes in Worker's Compensation, I trust her analysis of the situation.