It strikes me as especially cynical that a push like this would come from the same bent that objects so strongly to state-sponsored healthcare, but is perfectly happy to pass the coverage buck to whoever's down the line--be it insurance or ultimately Medicare/Medicaid.
As if they even need this. Having worked at a small construction company for a year, I've seen multiple worker's comp claims denied even when the injury is our fault. Worker's comp in general is flawed, but this scheme shows that the United States really don't care what happens to our nation's laborers as long as the lobbyists are happy.
No, it shows that federalism is not yet dead. That the principle of 50 Petri dishes still holds, that Texas and now Oklahoma can try out this experience, which, as you yourself note, isn't ideal in the old government run model, and wasn't exactly great in the one time I used it myself.
Am I concerned about this? Yep (we'll ignore that I'm retired by non-workplace disability and living in Missouri, albeit very, very close to Oklahoma). But I also believe it might become a better system, with, of course, suitable government oversight.
ADDED: slapshot pointed out something else in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10394007, this adds another set of players, the plaintiff's bar (which is traditionally healthy in Texas) and of course the judicial system they're a part of. No sovereign immunity for the bureaucrats to hide behind.
Odd, in that worker's comp sets a ceiling on damages, which many companies prefer. In major workplace injury cases you often see the company arguing that it's a worker's comp injury and the employee arguing that it's not.
The limits on damages under worker's comp are notoriously low -- for example, in most states a loss of a finger is a fixed payment of 16 weeks wages. Most juries would award much higher.
Plaintiffs lawyers (who normally take 33% of settlements) hate worker's comp because there's no lawsuit -- it's just a paperwork filing with no evidence required other than that the injury happened at work. It doesn't matter who is at fault, how the equipment was designed, etc.
This feels like there's another agenda at play that's not well explained in TFA. It sounds like a bit of a bootleggers and baptists coalition if plaintiffs' attorneys and companies are both in favor of something.
6 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 22.9 ms ] threadIt strikes me as especially cynical that a push like this would come from the same bent that objects so strongly to state-sponsored healthcare, but is perfectly happy to pass the coverage buck to whoever's down the line--be it insurance or ultimately Medicare/Medicaid.
Am I concerned about this? Yep (we'll ignore that I'm retired by non-workplace disability and living in Missouri, albeit very, very close to Oklahoma). But I also believe it might become a better system, with, of course, suitable government oversight.
ADDED: slapshot pointed out something else in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10394007, this adds another set of players, the plaintiff's bar (which is traditionally healthy in Texas) and of course the judicial system they're a part of. No sovereign immunity for the bureaucrats to hide behind.
The limits on damages under worker's comp are notoriously low -- for example, in most states a loss of a finger is a fixed payment of 16 weeks wages. Most juries would award much higher.
Plaintiffs lawyers (who normally take 33% of settlements) hate worker's comp because there's no lawsuit -- it's just a paperwork filing with no evidence required other than that the injury happened at work. It doesn't matter who is at fault, how the equipment was designed, etc.
This feels like there's another agenda at play that's not well explained in TFA. It sounds like a bit of a bootleggers and baptists coalition if plaintiffs' attorneys and companies are both in favor of something.