Workman’s comp isn’t just covering hospital bills, it also covers lost wages while recovering or retaining if you can’t go back to your old profession.
Unemployment is a no-fault general fund for a regular result of an economy. Workman’s comp is (as in its name) is compensatory. They’re giving workman’s comp because otherwise you might be able to sue for damages due to an unsafe workplace.
I’m saying if you can’t work it makes more sense for that to be centralized into one thing instead of two. The reason for why matters far less than the reason for that one can’t work.
They’re giving workman’s comp because otherwise you might be able to sue for damages due to an unsafe workplace.
No, you can still sue even if you take workman’s comp. Workman’s comp exists because regular insurance decided that it doesn’t cover you at work just like they decided they didn’t cover preexisting conditions, injuries due to accidents, or any other stupid thing they came up.
And there’s a good reason to make the business foot the bill in some form: because it motivates them to not have an unsafe workplace. Whether that’s due to increase premiums, direct suits, or governmental punishment, unsafe businesses should pay for their failures rather than being subsidized by the general public.
They certainly do need to foot the bill for unsafe workplaces, but that does not need to be tied directly to injuries. They should be paying for the unsafe workplace even if no one is injured, and even more if someone is injured.
No, then you allow employers to export their job risk cost to others. Employers should pay for injuries and illness caused by work (if care was required it would be great if universal existed).
That said, yes lots of WC is shitty insurers trying toinimize care/cost and get the person back to work.
Workers comp insurance fights about as hard as other insurance companies to fuck you over. My girlfriend ended up rather disabled after an incident at her job and their workman’s comp fight like hell to blame a previously unknown health condition, and the LTD people managed to get out of paying once STD ran out and she didn’t have the money to fight it.
Again in theiry the difference is workman’s comp still provides a service whereas other than rent seeking I am not sure what us health insurers do.
In theory regular insurance provides the same benefits as worker’s comp and the cost of both come out of paychecks one way or the other.
Worker’s comp is just insurance with even more steps.
Workman’s comp wouldn’t be necessary if we had universal healthcare.
Workman’s comp isn’t just covering hospital bills, it also covers lost wages while recovering or retaining if you can’t go back to your old profession.
That would more logically be handled by unemployment.
deleted by creator
Unemployment is a no-fault general fund for a regular result of an economy. Workman’s comp is (as in its name) is compensatory. They’re giving workman’s comp because otherwise you might be able to sue for damages due to an unsafe workplace.
I’m saying if you can’t work it makes more sense for that to be centralized into one thing instead of two. The reason for why matters far less than the reason for that one can’t work.
No, you can still sue even if you take workman’s comp. Workman’s comp exists because regular insurance decided that it doesn’t cover you at work just like they decided they didn’t cover preexisting conditions, injuries due to accidents, or any other stupid thing they came up.
That’s generally not true. Only in very few instances can you sue your employer after taking workman’s comp.
https://www.hhrlaw.com/blog/2024/february/does-accepting-workers-comp-mean-i-cant-file-a-l/
And there’s a good reason to make the business foot the bill in some form: because it motivates them to not have an unsafe workplace. Whether that’s due to increase premiums, direct suits, or governmental punishment, unsafe businesses should pay for their failures rather than being subsidized by the general public.
They certainly do need to foot the bill for unsafe workplaces, but that does not need to be tied directly to injuries. They should be paying for the unsafe workplace even if no one is injured, and even more if someone is injured.
No, then you allow employers to export their job risk cost to others. Employers should pay for injuries and illness caused by work (if care was required it would be great if universal existed).
That said, yes lots of WC is shitty insurers trying toinimize care/cost and get the person back to work.
Automobile insurance would be drastically less as well.
Everything would be far less complicated and expensive if we did universal healthcare.
Workers comp insurance fights about as hard as other insurance companies to fuck you over. My girlfriend ended up rather disabled after an incident at her job and their workman’s comp fight like hell to blame a previously unknown health condition, and the LTD people managed to get out of paying once STD ran out and she didn’t have the money to fight it.
Insurance is insurance, and fuck them all.