Glad to see that speeder and Rodeo still have the old ad hominem attack style down pat.

BTW, Rodeo, when you say God forbid, it's usually spelled with a capital G.

If you're ever wondering how a C- student can become President and have supporters think he's smart, look no further than this thread for clarification.

And FWIW, I think that it sucks when anyone scams the system and rips off the public, whether it's a fake Workers Comp claim or Halliburton over-charging for fuel in Iraq. One is a little more expensive than the other, however.

Yeah we be dumb because we disagree wid you! (not Mensa or english teacher approved);)

PS. Let's start a thread where only people w/IQ's greater than 120 are allowed to vote and reproduce.....

Not because you disagree w/ me. Because you cannot put together a cohesive argument that even agrees w/ itself. There are plenty of intelligent people around here with whom I have disagreements.

Denis, give the daddy credit for designing a beautiful, streamlined, and efficient dispute resolution system for workers!

The only catch is, it only works if there is no actual dispute to resolve :)


"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" :)

Who said I was trying to streamline the system? Oh I get it, you never understood the premise. I should have known:)

Well, if your goal was to add an additional and useless layer of complexity to the workers comp system, you did a fantastic job! :)

For those holding fourth grade or greater comprehension skills:

My suggestion earlier simply provided the employer with an avenue for dispute of negligence and therefore financial responsibility where one does not currently exist. But then those of you that get it..........already got it:D

Brace yourself, this is going to be a shock.

We essentially have no personal liability claim (industry) in the way you do. Get hurt at work - bad luck, here is some money from the govt. Have car accident - can't sue the other party, as far as I am aware.

It may be different if health and safety rules aren't followed, but I think there'd have to be gross negligence, not some techincal breach, before anything could get through the courts.

Even if you can sue, you're not going to get damages, only costs, and only what the govt won't pay.

Cam you shouldn't have told Rodeo that...I think the idea of a person not getting cold hard cashola for an injury will make his head pop off like a 20 year old barbie doll...

I'm guessing the market for gaudy male jewelry and mens haircare products is significantly less over there as a result.:D

Well maybe, oh great smart one, you can point out how the arguments presented are neither "cohesive nor agrees with itself" (a double statement BTW). Your intelligence is showing.

On the other hand, since we're back to attacking the messenger (something which you won't find me doing unless in, I admit, retaliation), who cares what you think.

I tell my clients that if I do my job well, I will work myself out of a job as quickly and inexpensively as possible.

Advice prior to making employment-related decisions is absolutely critical. A 15 minute phone call can save an employer years of headaches and tens of thousands of dollars. So can detailed employee manuals and good record keeping, particularly in personnel files.

I looked it up, you have a true "no-fault" system. Which, believe it or not, is the same as our Workers Comp system (the one daddy wants to switch to a "fault" or negligence system, because even though he hates the negligence-based system, he lost in the no fault system, so why not switch over?)

Your "no fault" covers everything, workers claims, car accidents, products liability, medical malpractice. It has its benefits, but it also has substantial drawbacks.

daddy, who wants everything in America to be fault-based, is advocating a system the mirror opposite of New Zealand's, although he doesn't know it :)

About two/thirds of state legislatures are comprised of lawyers, the rest are mostly school teachers and others who routinely speak before audiences.

The fed is approximately the same.

You guys need to move!

Beacon Mutual Seeks 16% Workers Comp Price Drop in R.I.

By Andrew G. Simpson, Jr.
June 12, 2006

Beacon Mutual insurance Co., which writes workers compensation for about 90 percent of the businesses in Rhode Island, has filed for a 16 percent reduction in rates to cover its workers compensation loss costs.

A company spokesman said that if approved by state officials the reductions would begin in September and produce about $9.2 million in premium savings for its 14,500 customers.

The pricing move comes after last month's withdrawal by the insurer of a separate filing for a 27 percent loss cost cut and ends at least temporarily a stalemate between the company and state regulators.

The Department of Business Regulation, which must approve any filing, has been battling with Beacon Mutual over rate filings. DBR officials want Beacon Mutual to file along with the National Council on Compensation Insurers, which represents all other insurers in the state in rate proceedings.

But Beacon Mutual has balked at using NCCI advisory filings, arguing that it should be able to utilize its own loss costs.

Now the insurer, which has come under increasing scrutiny for its governance following public attacks by the Governor and the release of an outside audit that revealed questionable business practices, has decided to go along with the DBR. It has filed a loss cost multiplier and agreed to adopt the most recent NCCI approved advisory loss costs.

DBR officials have approved NCCI loss cost reductions of 4.2 percent and 20.2 percent within the past year. Beacon Mutual had declined to be a party in those NCCI rate proceedings but has now adopted them.

After adjusting these most recent NCCI filings for its own business and classifications, the result for Beacon is the16 percent reduction from current loss costs. If approved, the change would be the first for Beacon Mutual since March 1999.

"It was important to get a rate filing adopted this year," said Bill Fischer, spokesman for the company which has been operating under mostly new senior management since the April audit report was released.

Fischer maintained that the company management is "moving forward" in the wake of the controversies. He said the insurer now has "good relations" with DBR and is cooperating with a DBR audit of the firm.

In April, an audit released by a committee headed by former Governor Lincoln Almond said the company had given improper price breaks to favored policyholders at the expense of other customers.

Shortly after the audit became public, the board fired its CEO, Joseph Solomon, and its vice president for underwriting.

Gov. Don Carcieri has been waging a campaign in the press and courts to remove board members. Several have heeded the Governor's call to resign but two are fighting to retain their positions.

A statewide grand jury has subpoenaed company records and the DBR and state attorney general are reviewing the company's rate-setting practices, including whether certain brokers and clients received favorable treatement.

Indeed, I have a rep I consult and an employment attorney when things get or are about to get ugly. The main thing they have taught me is that it doesn't pay to be the nice guy. Do business at business and your charity outside that. In business, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm learning that lesson now.

I appreciate you stating my position, but please be accurate. New Zealand does not (as Cam stated) charge the employer for workplace injuries) they are shared by the population. My main point this whole time has been that the employer should not have to shoulder the whole load for non negligent injuries and illnesses. It appears in New Zealand they do not, the exact opposite of our system.

Much as I advocated for our system, they appear to treat workplace injuries /illness from within their standard health care system.........what did I say? Oh yea, treat non negligent workplace injuries from within our standard health care system.

Fin.

Len I think everyone on the thread understands your position with the exception of Rodeo. Actually, I think he understands it, he's just being difficult for the sake of arguing.

In other words, transfer the cost out of the business and into the fund of stolen tax money?

No, I think I'll reject that. Workers need to be able to sue to collect damages as a result of owner negligence, of course we need to end both corporations and unions, but that's not going to happen soon. Employers need to be able to sue employees for negligent damage to equipment and materials.