VOTE NO.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/building-a-better-cash-cow/Content?oid=4359158

Enter I-1082... If passed, it would end the state's monopoly on workers' compensation insurance—right now, all workers pay into one pot, and all workers stand to benefit from it if they get injured on the job—and instead allow private insurance companies like, say, Liberty Mutual (which has donated $300,000 to the initiative effort) to provide workers' comp insurance.

Already a going thread on it A

I have private L and I in oregon and it works just fine, and it will be a savings to businesses and the tac payer in the end if passed. Look at how much flood insurance costs because its a sole source provider item instead of being free market.

Anything Liberty Mutual wants, is beneficial to Liberty Mutual.
Please think about that. I am very restrained in what I can say.
I would vote No on this.

Most of the no on 1082 arguments spur from BIAWs political views. Also there are studies on both sides of the fence, none of the anti conclusioned studies have done a significant enough job to convince me that the state can do a better job than free enterprise.

Maybe a liberal association/organization should start a retro program? Seems like the real issue is just concern that someone is getting rich off of it. Not that it's going to cause workers problems

Maybe someone can set me straight on this...I know that private insurance companies stay in business because of the profit involved..........so is the State likewise profit-motivated?

So true. Seems we recently had the discussion concluding that those insurance companies (that are too big to fail) don't have the interests of their policy holders at heart.

Hank,

Suing insurance companies every time they deny a legitimate claim is something that a lot of people cannot do, and the insurance companies count on it, and that's no way to reduce the overall cost of L&I insurance.

If 30% of CA claims are fraudulent, that underscores why costs are high. WA L&I employs numerous inspectors and investigators to combat fraud, and still depends on citizen reports of abuse, which they do follow up on.

I agree that philosophically private L&I insurance should be less expensive than state L&I. But it won't be. The profit margin of private insurance will exceed the cost of state gov't inefficiency in this case. To the extent it doesn't, it will be from denying legitimate claims as an underlying business principle, and that's a principle I can do without.

Sg

Interesting read.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16702.html

yup--you got it

Nope the government is driven by atruistic motives. They never deny claims and never get sued.