Calif. Injured Workers Protest at Schwarzenegger’s Offices in Five Cities

April 13, 2004

  • April 13, 2004 at 10:06 am
    Steven Shaw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think the person that posted the comment and signed it “disgusted” should have signed their opinion “confused”. Mr. Duncan was only providing some perspective to the Governor’s proposal. While limiting benefits may be necessary to stabilize California’s Worker’s Compensation system, if those cuts are not directly tied to premium relief what good are they? Using insurance rate regulation has provided far more effective results than across the board cuts, which only provide temporary fixes.

  • April 13, 2004 at 4:10 am
    Disgusted says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What does Mr. Duncan have to worry about? He injured himself in 1999. The new laws won’t effect him. How much did he get paid to show up today? Applicant’s attorney’s will do anything to save their hides. This System is in shambles and Gov. Schwartznegger will be the one to fix it. He won’t take away the benefits of those who are due the benefits, just the ones who are not due them. Mr. Duncan , you should be ashamed of yourself. You are already taken care of for the rest of your life. — Signed Disgusted

  • April 14, 2004 at 10:37 am
    Enrique Sanchez - Confused says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Perhaps someone could help me understand rate regulation…
    My understanding is this – About 60 percent of employers are now covered by the State Fund, another 20 percent are in JPA’s or some sort of self-funded pools, leaving us with 20 percent of employers/organizations not covered by State Fund or self-funded.

    There are over 260 insurers licensed to write Comp in California. Out of that number, less than a dozen are doing actually writing coverage. (here’s where my confusion comes in) Based on these assumptions – Rate regulation would effect 20 percent of employers/organizations and we would be regulating a handful of Insurers. Is this good “Bang for the Buck” legislation?

    Thanks for any help that you folks can provide.

    ES

  • April 14, 2004 at 11:23 am
    Charly Merrill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    These protestors have no concept of the cost to employers for fraudulent claims and malingering claimants. Insurance preium cuts have no effect on the direct claims cost to employers. There are normally 3 catagories of costs to an employer who utilizes an insurer rather than the state fund: 1) W/C premium 2) payment of claims costs within a deductible level(medical and indemnity) 3) cost of claim handling. It sounds as if the protestors feel that “the insurance company, or state fund” owe them a livlihood. Grow up! This is W/C coverage, not private medical coverage.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*