37 replies to this topic

[HubcapDave]

Nonny, on Aug 21 2004, 01:16 PM, said:

HubcapDave, on Aug 21 2004, 08:05 PM, said:

Again, you guys are giving Ahnuld the short shrift.

I just read where thanks to Ahnuld working with the legislature on Workman's comp reform, the rates for workman's comp insurance is dropping by as much as 20%, and that the SCIF is recovering rather nicely.

Not bad for someone who is incompetent and unqualified!

That's because everybody got what they wanted EXCEPT the qualified injured workers.  Employers will be able to continue to provide unsafe workplaces, insurance companies will be able to continue to wear a qualified injured worker down until the qualified injured worker gives up or dies, the State of California continues to pretend that "No Fault" Workers Comp was a good idea way back whenever that outrage was foisted upon the poor working stiffs of this state.  

Ahnuld gets the short shrift because he deserves it.  He enabled this further erosion of the right to a safe workplace in my state.  And unsafe workplaces continue to pour disabled former workers into the crappy social services system that Ahnuld is aiming to undermine as well.  

Nonny

Do you have a source to back that up?

I doubt that the SF Chronicle would be praising Ahnuld were that true.

I can tell you that high workman's comp rates is one of the main things that has kept me from hiring anyone to work for me.

The man has also come up with a plan to fundamentally change the way this state does business, and save the taxpayers a few bucks in the bargain. He's the first politician in Ca. I've seen who is actually trying to change this government so it works more effectively. That earns him big points in my book.

[Nonny]

[quote name='HubcapDave' date='Aug 21 2004, 08:23 PM'] That's because everybody got what they wanted EXCEPT the qualified injured workers.  Employers will be able to continue to provide unsafe workplaces, insurance companies will be able to continue to wear a qualified injured worker down until the qualified injured worker gives up or dies, the State of California continues to pretend that "No Fault" Workers Comp was a good idea way back whenever that outrage was foisted upon the poor working stiffs of this state.  

Ahnuld gets the short shrift because he deserves it.  He enabled this further erosion of the right to a safe workplace in my state.  And unsafe workplaces continue to pour disabled former workers into the crappy social services system that Ahnuld is aiming to undermine as well.  

Nonny [/QUOTE]
Do you have a source to back that up? [/quote]
Anecdotal.  People with personal experience of Workers Comp who are talking and finding very few listening.  

Nonny

[Hambil]

Nonny, on Aug 21 2004, 01:38 PM, said:

Anecdotal.  People with personal experience of Workers Comp who are talking and finding very few listening.  

Nonny

Just to throw my 2 cents in, I think the real problem is the system doesn't strictly enough judge, or appropriately punish, frivolous law suits. I think almost all Americans, including most employers, are happy - and even desire - to pay for workers legitimately injured on the job.

[HubcapDave]

Sorry, but the problem with anecdotes is they don't necessarily add up to data.

The simple fact of the matter is workman's comp insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last few years, even on businesses who haven't had a claim in years. That equates to a bad business climate.

Could someone here find the text of the wokman's comp reform bill? I'd like to see how exactly it changed the law for myself.

[Nonny]

Hambil, on Aug 21 2004, 08:51 PM, said:

Nonny, on Aug 21 2004, 01:38 PM, said:

Anecdotal.  People with personal experience of Workers Comp who are talking and finding very few listening. 

Nonny

Just to throw my 2 cents in, I think the real problem is the system doesn't strictly enough judge, or appropriately punish, frivolous law suits. I think almost all Americans, including most employers, are happy - and even desire - to pay for workers legitimately injured on the job.

I wish you were right, but too many employers will fight a qualified injured worker, and even if that qualified injured worker wins benefits, will not pay.  And they will get away with not paying.  The real fraud in the Workers Comp system is the backdoor deals the lawyers make, but nobody's addressing that.  

California, tragically for qualified injured workers, has a No Fault Workers Comp system, and it is not unknown for the qualified injured worker's boss to agree under oath that it was the company's negligence that led to the injury, and follow up by contemptuously saying, "So what?" and taunting the qualified injured worker right there at the hearing.  

I'm not taking about people bringing frivolous lawsuits, just people whose injuries can be proven to be the fault of their employer's negligence.  A common method of dealing with qualified injured workers who are awarded benefits by a judge is to drag them back to court over and over and over over frivolous issues and phony "reports" by non-treating doctors (who provide this lucrative service to the employers for hefty fees while the qualified injured worker's doctors are paid on a lien basis, if at all), until their lawyers negotiate deals that not only do not cover their medical expenses, but do not provide vocational rehab to allow them to not only continue care until their condition is at least stabilized, but severely limit their chances of getting employment elsewhere.  And, of course, there is no compensation, so they lose their homes, since they've run out their savings during the proceedings.  

The problem is that our "justice" system is not about justice, or even truth.  It is adversarial, and that puts the victim at a distinct disadvantage.  Adversarial systems are about winning, not about getting to the truth of the matter.  

The voters of California wisely rejected a proposition in favor of No Fault car insurance some years ago.  The failure of No Fault Workers Comp was one of the reasons we rejected it.  

Nonny

[Nonny]

HubcapDave, on Aug 21 2004, 09:20 PM, said:

Sorry, but the problem with anecdotes is they don't necessarily add up to data.

The simple fact of the matter is workman's comp insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last few years, even on businesses who haven't had a claim in years. That equates to a bad business climate.

Could someone here find the text of the wokman's comp reform bill? I'd like to see how exactly it changed the law for myself.

What an admirable, absolutely excellent, totally primo excuse for not listening to the marginalized.                

The problem with ignoring anecdotal evidence is that a large, in some cases the largest, portion of the whole picture is ignored in favor of a tight focus on the portion that is politically and financially expedient.  Why collect actual data from the folks you don't want to listen to anyway?  

The simple fact is that the insurance companies have got everybody by the balls (should I have asterisked that?) and employers would rather play Blame the Victim than take on that particular behemoth, and they find plenty of doctors and lawyers willing to play their way, at the cost of the human suffering of those injured on the job.  

Nonny

[Rhea]

Nonny, on Aug 21 2004, 11:29 AM, said:

Rhea, on Aug 19 2004, 08:51 PM, said:

Arnie, on the other hand, has NOT spent any time in politics (although he has great business contacts), he's not qualified to run this state, and he's only just beginning to realize that it's not all that easy.
He is, however, a good businessman, so one can only hope that he learns as he goes. 

No kidding!  He is not qualified to run this state, and I'm glad that his efforts to trash our already insufficient social services system came to naught.  So far.  Though I've been rescued from the hell that is state and county services, I still have friends stuck there with no way out but death.  

Nonny

Good point.
His efforts (and success, to some degree) to cut funding for disabled persons is scary. For a guy who swore not to do it, he ran right for it when push came to shove.

There isn't going to be funding for many severely impaired people who need home aid. The school district in the town in which I live is going to lose $1 million in funding this year. If it weren't for a concerned group of parents who raised some money to help out, our grade schools and high schools would have no art or music programs this year.    

We were already down to bare bones in this state before Arnie was elected in terms of educational funding - we have seen years of cuts.

Bottom line is that unless taxes are raised we're never going to get out of the hole we're in, and Arnie promised not to raise taxes, so there you go.

Anyway, the point is that except for allowing the Indians to build  a ridiculously huge casino, Arnie has already broken a lot of his campaign promises - cuts to education and the disabled proceed apace.

Oh, and for the record - although I still would not have voted for him for Governor (I'm afraid the 70's Ahnuld and his boorish and sometimes obscene behavior are still firmly implanted in my brain), I would have felt much more sanguine about it if he had more experience in local politics - and no, marrying a Kennedy doesn't count.  

Edited by Rhea, 22 August 2004 - 01:36 PM.

[HubcapDave]

Nonny, on Aug 22 2004, 09:53 AM, said:

HubcapDave, on Aug 21 2004, 09:20 PM, said:

Sorry, but the problem with anecdotes is they don't necessarily add up to data.

The simple fact of the matter is workman's comp insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last few years, even on businesses who haven't had a claim in years. That equates to a bad business climate.

Could someone here find the text of the wokman's comp reform bill? I'd like to see how exactly it changed the law for myself.

What an admirable, absolutely excellent, totally primo excuse for not listening to the marginalized.                

The problem with ignoring anecdotal evidence is that a large, in some cases the largest, portion of the whole picture is ignored in favor of a tight focus on the portion that is politically and financially expedient.  Why collect actual data from the folks you don't want to listen to anyway?  

The simple fact is that the insurance companies have got everybody by the balls (should I have asterisked that?) and employers would rather play Blame the Victim than take on that particular behemoth, and they find plenty of doctors and lawyers willing to play their way, at the cost of the human suffering of those injured on the job.  

Nonny

My point was that anecdotal evidence does not add up to statistical data, so please don't give my statements false motivation.

Besides, I know of stories where a roofer was getting money from a workman's comp claim for falling off a roof, meanwhile taking up a roofing job for another contractor (while still collecting his claim) and getting hurt on that job by falling off a roof.

Now, from that story, am I to extrapolate that all workers who file workman's comp claims are just trying to screw the system out of some "free money"? Not without investigating further to find out how widespread such activity is!

It's like when I hear people saying, "Well, things aren't getting better because a lot of my friends are having a hard time getting work!" Well, all my friends have managed to stay employed these last few years, so things must be cheeky! The problem is, neither group is large enough statistically to reflect the national trend.

So, please show me something more substantial before you go and claim that a few anecdotes reflects accurately the broader picture.

[Nonny]

HubcapDave, on Aug 22 2004, 07:13 PM, said:

My point was that anecdotal evidence does not add up to statistical data, so please don't give my statements false motivation.

Besides, I know of stories where a roofer was getting money from a workman's comp claim for falling off a roof, meanwhile taking up a roofing job for another contractor (while still collecting his claim) and getting hurt on that job by falling off a roof.

Now, from that story, am I to extrapolate that all workers who file workman's comp claims are just trying to screw the system out of some "free money"? Not without investigating further to find out how widespread such activity is!

It's like when I hear people saying, "Well, things aren't getting better because a lot of my friends are having a hard time getting work!" Well, all my friends have managed to stay employed these last few years, so things must be cheeky! The problem is, neither group is large enough statistically to reflect the national trend.

So, please show me something more substantial before you go and claim that a few anecdotes reflects accurately the broader picture.

When did I say "a few" anecdotes?  There are thousands upon thousands of people who are not contributing to the statistical data because the data collectors are not including them.  Anecdotal evidence puts faces on human misery that the bean counters don't want to see, and puts flesh on the stories that make the stereotype of the workers comp ripoff artist a lie.    

So how can I show you something more substantial when you won't consider anecdotal evidence and when so much of the story is only available by anecdotal evidence?  

Adding a thug like Ahnuld to the mix is not helping anybody who needs help.  

And while people like you stand back waiting for empirical proof that nobody's ever going to gather, people in desperate need will be suffering even more.  

You "know of stories"?  Well, I know actual people who are trapped in Workers Comp hell.  

Those stories that you "know of" BTW, aren't they anecdotal?  Can you cite them?  Can you quote statistics on them?  Do you accept anecdotal evidence when it supports your pov and not when it doesn't?  

Nonny

[Nonny]

Rhea, on Aug 22 2004, 06:31 PM, said:

Oh, and for the record - although I still would not have voted for him for Governor (I'm afraid the 70's Ahnuld and his boorish and sometimes obscene behavior are still firmly implanted in my brain), I would have felt much more sanguine about it if he had more experience in local politics - and no, marrying a Kennedy doesn't count.  

Especially not THAT Kennedy!           

Nonny

[Hambil]

Nonny, on Aug 22 2004, 09:40 AM, said:

The voters of California wisely rejected a proposition in favor of No Fault car insurance some years ago.  The failure of No Fault Workers Comp was one of the reasons we rejected it.

I have rather strong feelings about no fault insurance and insurance companies in general. When someone backs into my car (which makes it legally impossible for it to be my fault), and my insurance goes up anyway, that is - in my mind - a crime.

No fault insurance is a game played by politicians and business that is about money and not people. It sickens me.

[Nonny]

Hambil, on Aug 22 2004, 08:21 PM, said:

Nonny, on Aug 22 2004, 09:40 AM, said:

The voters of California wisely rejected a proposition in favor of No Fault car insurance some years ago.  The failure of No Fault Workers Comp was one of the reasons we rejected it.

I have rather strong feelings about no fault insurance and insurance companies in general. When someone backs into my car (which makes it legally impossible for it to be my fault), and my insurance goes up anyway, that is - in my mind - a crime.

No fault insurance is a game played by politicians and business that is about money and not people. It sickens me.

Yes, as many of their games are.  

It sickens me too.  

Nonny

[HubcapDave]

Nonny, on Aug 22 2004, 01:12 PM, said:

When did I say "a few" anecdotes?  There are thousands upon thousands of people who are not contributing to the statistical data because the data collectors are not including them.  Anecdotal evidence puts faces on human misery that the bean counters don't want to see, and puts flesh on the stories that make the stereotype of the workers comp ripoff artist a lie.    

So how can I show you something more substantial when you won't consider anecdotal evidence and when so much of the story is only available by anecdotal evidence?  

Adding a thug like Ahnuld to the mix is not helping anybody who needs help.  

And while people like you stand back waiting for empirical proof that nobody's ever going to gather, people in desperate need will be suffering even more.  

You "know of stories"?  Well, I know actual people who are trapped in Workers Comp hell.  

Those stories that you "know of" BTW, aren't they anecdotal?  Can you cite them?  Can you quote statistics on them?  Do you accept anecdotal evidence when it supports your pov and not when it doesn't?  

Nonny

Well, you didn't say just how many anecdotes you have. If you have thousands, then I imagine you must spend a great deal of time collecting them.

I never said I wouldn't consider anecdotal evidence, I said that anecdotes by themselves don't create the whole story. Anecdotes in concert with statistical data make for the strongest cases.

As for the story I cited:

1) It came from an episode of the Montel Williams show. Montel was interviewing private investigators and showing video footage of their investigations. One investigator was doing surveillance on the guy who was collecting workman's comp from his earlier job while working for another roofer. The video showed this guy hammering on a roof, slipping and falling off the roof.

2) Where did I use that to bolster any other point than to say that there are all different kinds of stories about workman's comp?

3) I also know a guy who experienced workman's comp hell. He hurt his shoulder working as a tow truck driver. Rather than put him in for surgery, the workman's comp doctor had him rehab the shoulder, which ultimatly proved ineffective.

What do the stories I've heard tell me? They tell me that there are people who screw the system, and there are people who get screwed by the system. To what degree either happens, I do not know.

But the whole crux of this thing is that you were certain that the way workman's comp was restructured screws the screwed. All I want is for you (or anyone else) to point to the language of the law and say, "because it says this here, such-and-so will happen." Even better, show me the language of the law, and I will read it for myself and make up my own mind.

[Delvo]

I'll bet most people really don't hate stars becoming politicians, not even the ones who say things that would make you think so. They just say stuff like that because it's a convenient kind of attack to make against someone that they have a problem with anyway for some other reason.

[Hambil]

Delvo, on Aug 22 2004, 06:41 PM, said:

I'll bet most people really don't hate stars becoming politicians, not even the ones who say things that would make you think so. They just say stuff like that because it's a convenient kind of attack to make against someone that they have a problem with anyway for some other reason.

I wonder if there is commonality between people hating stars who become politicians, and people hating stars who speak out politically, like Tim Robbins or Charleston Heston?

[Nonny]

HubcapDave, on Aug 22 2004, 09:51 PM, said:

Nonny, on Aug 22 2004, 01:12 PM, said:

When did I say "a few" anecdotes?  There are thousands upon thousands of people who are not contributing to the statistical data because the data collectors are not including them.  Anecdotal evidence puts faces on human misery that the bean counters don't want to see, and puts flesh on the stories that make the stereotype of the workers comp ripoff artist a lie.   

So how can I show you something more substantial when you won't consider anecdotal evidence and when so much of the story is only available by anecdotal evidence? 

Adding a thug like Ahnuld to the mix is not helping anybody who needs help. 

And while people like you stand back waiting for empirical proof that nobody's ever going to gather, people in desperate need will be suffering even more. 

You "know of stories"?  Well, I know actual people who are trapped in Workers Comp hell. 

Those stories that you "know of" BTW, aren't they anecdotal?  Can you cite them?  Can you quote statistics on them?  Do you accept anecdotal evidence when it supports your pov and not when it doesn't? 

Nonny

Well, you didn't say just how many anecdotes you have. If you have thousands, then I imagine you must spend a great deal of time collecting them.

I never said I wouldn't consider anecdotal evidence, I said that anecdotes by themselves don't create the whole story. Anecdotes in concert with statistical data make for the strongest cases.

As for the story I cited:

1) It came from an episode of the Montel Williams show. Montel was interviewing private investigators and showing video footage of their investigations. One investigator was doing surveillance on the guy who was collecting workman's comp from his earlier job while working for another roofer. The video showed this guy hammering on a roof, slipping and falling off the roof.

2) Where did I use that to bolster any other point than to say that there are all different kinds of stories about workman's comp?

3) I also know a guy who experienced workman's comp hell. He hurt his shoulder working as a tow truck driver. Rather than put him in for surgery, the workman's comp doctor had him rehab the shoulder, which ultimatly proved ineffective.

What do the stories I've heard tell me? They tell me that there are people who screw the system, and there are people who get screwed by the system. To what degree either happens, I do not know.

But the whole crux of this thing is that you were certain that the way workman's comp was restructured screws the screwed. All I want is for you (or anyone else) to point to the language of the law and say, "because it says this here, such-and-so will happen." Even better, show me the language of the law, and I will read it for myself and make up my own mind.

Congratulations!  You receive the gold medal in conclusion jumping!  I said that I have anecdotal evidence, I also said there are thousands upon thousands of people not contributing to the statistical data because the data collectors are not including them, and your imagination runs wild!  Geez!  

My anecdotes number in the dozens, possibly low hundreds, and they are first hand accounts, heard over the two decades I spent trying to survive the hell of social services.  What do you think we do as we sit for hours waiting for the next social worker/health care professional/whatever whose job is to make us go away and stop trying to get help to get well and back to work?  We trade accounts of what happened to us, what we're trying to do about it, who's helping, who's not.  That's the kind of anecdotal evidence I have, not second, third, fourth hand stories about somebody who's supposed to be ripping off the system, spread by some neighbor or relative who thinks that disabled people have it easy.  In addition to what I've been told firsthand, I know of thousands upon thousands of others who spend time trying to deal with a system already stacked against them.  If you consider twenty years a great deal of time, then yes, I spent a great deal of time kicking my heels in lobbies, waiting to be insulted and denied help, and I'd be there still, had I not been rescued by the VA.  

Your roofer story is not anecdotal evidence BTW, and it has nothing to do with any qualified injured worker, now does it?  

If you want to see the language of the law, find it yourself.  I don't care that you're too frightened to hire somebody to share your workload because of the hordes of evil people just waiting to rip you off.  I do care about the qualified injured workers who are being ripped off because their voices are not getting heard.  

Nonny

Edited by Nonny, 24 August 2004 - 10:15 AM.

[HubcapDave]

Quote

If you want to see the language of the law, find it yourself. I don't care that you're too frightened to hire somebody to share your workload because of the hordes of evil people just waiting to rip you off. I do care about the qualified injured workers who are being ripped off because their voices are not getting heard.

Nonny

Now who is conclusion jumping? Pots and kettles, all the same color!

I never used that story to justify not hiring anyone. And you're right, that wasn't an anecdote, that was a documented case of workman's comp fraud. Are you trying to tell me workman's comp fraud has nothing to do with the rising costs of the insurance?

You may have missed where I talked about my friend with the injured shoulder.

But we are getting WAY off track here. The original point of all this was YOU said that the new workman's comp law hurts people even more, yet you can't give me any kind of analysis that proves that other than stories you've been trading with people for the past 20 odd years. How would you know what the law does if you yourself have not read it?

[Nonny]

HubcapDave, on Aug 24 2004, 06:40 PM, said:

Now who is conclusion jumping? Pots and kettles, all the same color!

Thank you!  I did it on purpose to demonstrate that turnabout is fair play.  I used your technique and twisted your words back upon you in a manner as breathlessly unfair as anything you've done to me, just to see how fast you'd yell foul.  So by naming the both of us pots and kettles, you are naming yourself.  I have no problem with that.  I know that I don't make a habit of it, as you do.  

The rising cost of Workers Comp is due more to the rising cost of fighting qualified injured workers, as I have detailed in previous posts.  It costs more money to find and hire "prostitute" doctors willing to write phony reports to drag qualified injured workers who have been awarded benefits back into court over and over and over than it would cost to pay out the benefits the first time they are awarded.  Lawyers make big bucks "defending" corporations, and so do doctors who play along with them.  That's what has been  forcing up the costs.  

You want to read the letters of the law?  Find them your own self!  I honestly don't care what letters have been put down on paper, because the people who are happy with the changes are the people who have been the problem all along, not the qualified injured workers who desperately need changes to help them get the assistance they need to recover and get back to work.  Some awfully nice people I know are more suicidal than ever, and that grieves me more than I can say.  Spare me the snarky comments about how enough suicides would keep costs down, because such things have already been said to my face when I was at the most vulnerable place in my life.  

Now to get back on track with this thread: I didn't like the man when he was a body builder, I don't like him as an actor, and I really hate having him as the governor of my state.  The only good side I can see to this horror is that at least it's keeping him from making another stupid movie.  

Nonny