• snooggums
    link
    English
    2821 hours ago

    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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1820 hours ago

        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.

        • snooggums
          link
          English
          219 hours ago

          That would more logically be handled by unemployment.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            719 hours ago

            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.

            • snooggums
              link
              English
              0
              edit-2
              11 hours ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                211 hours ago

                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.

                • snooggums
                  link
                  English
                  111 hours ago

                  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.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    2
                    edit-2
                    10 hours ago

                    They should be paying for the unsafe workplace even if no one is injured, and even more if someone is injured.

                    You just described the purpose of both OSHA and workman’s comp.

      • @pdxfed
        link
        716 hours ago

        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.

      • snooggums
        link
        English
        9
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Automobile insurance would be drastically less as well.

        Everything would be far less complicated and expensive if we did universal healthcare.