Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: I-1082 would benefit big insurers

Letter by Jennifer M. Euteneier, Fife on Oct. 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm with 15 Comments »
October 11, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: “Yes on 1082″ (editorial, 10,8).

We all know that the state Department of Labor & Industries is not perfect; however, Initiative 1082 is not the answer. An independent economic analysis establishes that I-1082 would result in substantial costs to Washington businesses with little to no benefit for people injured on the job.

Premiums will move from an hour- and risk-based system to a payroll-based system with no payroll limitation or caps. This increase in premiums will go into effect immediately and permanently, and business owners would pay regardless of whether they stay in the state system or go with a private carrier. The sponsors of I-1082 admit that this “shift” will cost businesses $315 million per year.

I-1082 would scrap our state’s current workers’ comp system and hand over control to a largely unregulated insurance industry. Think about moving from a not-for-profit to a for-profit insurance scheme. Private companies must pay CEO salaries and marketing budgets. And to be worth it all, they must make excessive profits.

Things will only get worse if we have to deal with a huge insurance company like AIG. Vote no on I-1082.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 15
  1. eagle_beak says:

    i am not sure if money could be saved and a better job done by companies other than the state doing it. i worked for workers comp in ohio for several years for a company other than the state. always the policy was to take care of the injured worker’s needs first. however, if I-1082 will provide for AIG to manage worker’s comp in this state, i will not vote for it. AIG was bailed out by the federal government and i do not wish for that company to get any bigger. i will need to read the entire initiative when i vote to make a decision.

    God bless America and help us keep our country strong!

  2. I don’t trust the government, but I don’t trust big insurance companies either. Better to stick with the devil I know and keep the premiums in state. No on I-1082

  3. truthbusterguy says:

    Works for all other states but 4. Why are we one of the states that thinks state government is the only one that can provide service, teach our kids, sell booze and build roads. Do you think the unions have a say in all of these failed policies.

    Go to the PDC website and look who is funding this election for the dems and passing an income tax and overturn ideas that reduce the size of state government. You’ll see the unions, teachers, tribes, and trial lawyers don’t want to change anything. Follow the money trail.

  4. Question for truthbusterguy:

    How well did the privatization of retirement accounts worked for you?
    And how caring and understanding is your for profit insurance company?

    Think I would rather take my chances with Washington State.

  5. quiller4 says:

    Our state systems works far better than the private system in place in so many states and it places a lighter burden on small businesses. The proposed “reform” would be a major gift to big insurance companies paid for by small, struggling businesses.

  6. MadTaxpayer says:

    Believe me, I have seen and been thru the process of a private insured OTI Insuance Company.
    What a joke. They do all they can to screw the crap out of you!

    The Company loves it, they payout less money.

    The State needs their Arse kicked, butt it’s better than any Insurance Company headquartered in the State of Connecticut where the laws allow no prosecution for dening benefits or Civil suites for lack of payment.

  7. MadTaxpayer makes a good point. However, it seems unless we back the legislators into a corner, a few hold up any meaningful reforms. And that’s why the Tribune says go ahead a vote for the initiative.

    “Go to the PDC website and look who is funding this election for the dems and passing an income tax and overturn ideas that reduce the size of state government.”

    And look who is funding the liquor, candy tax, and workman’s compensation initiatives.

  8. The idea of opening the door to big insurance, and all the associated problems, to send a message to the state, is akin to cutting off ones nose to spite ones face; a lose, lose for everyone.

    Once that door is open, we can not go back.

  9. iamjimbo says:

    That’s how I feel about a state income tax P…

  10. nwcolorist says:

    What a choice!. Have the program run by the bloated and inefficient government, or by the predatory insurance companies.

  11. With a private company, we know their motive. Profits. With a bloated inefficient government agency we know their motive. Job security.

    Which do you think will serve the needs of claimants better?

  12. The reasons given for a state income tax make sense, iammjimmbo; to help pay the state’s debts and offset our regressive sales tax.

    Win, win.

    The News Tribune’s reason for supporting I-1082 would leave Washington in a lurch, with big insurance calling the shots, assuming that it even accomplished the News Tribune’s stated objective.

    Ruining workers comp doesn’t make it better.

  13. LIBS- please weigh in on this issue so I can determine how to vote on this one. Thanks.

  14. Sumner401 says:

    Privatization and deregulation never work, never.
    When will some people figure that out and stop trying it?
    The rightwing agenda is one of known failure, on every count, they have nothing that works, not a single thing, the question why does anyone support them?

  15. If I understand I-1082 correctly the state would not be out of the worker comp business but in competition with private industry. AIG could be one of the companies to bid for the business but not the only one. Now if I go back a couple of months and compare this to to health insurance issues put forth by Obama it sounds like the same but in reverse
    The government would compete with private industry to drive down prices and this is good says the Democrats
    Now today private industry will compete with the government to drive down prices and this is bad say the Democrats
    As for AIG (whom I didn’t want to bail out) why did the government bail them out if they are so bad the government thinks they should be allowed to do business with us.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0