It is time Washington employers and workers have the same choices that those in 46 other states have. Vote Yes on I-1082 and bring competition to the workers’ compensation insurance in Washington State.

Time for choice

Competition a key part of workers’ compensation reform

BY MATTHEW CLARKSON Building Industry Association of Washington

It’s been working successfully in Oregon for 20 years… so why not bring reform to Washington state’s workers’ compensation program?

That’s the reasoning behind Initiative 1082, scheduled to appear on this November’s ballot, which would allow private insurers to compete with the state Department of Labor and Industries and sell workers’ compensation insurance to employers in Washington state.

There has been a growing frustration in the business community because of ever-increasing workers’ compensation costs – with rates rising 54 percent since 2000. And employers are bracing for a possible double-digit increase next year to prop up a program that even the state auditor has warned is facing insolvency in the near future.

If you look across the U.S., you’ll find that Washington is only one of four states left in the country that still has a government monopoly on providing workers’ compensation. 46 other states give employers the choice to purchase workers’ compensation coverage from whichever insurer offers them the best product at the best price.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of business knows that a lack of competition leads to complacency, increasing costs and consumer frustration.

Employers in Washington state pay the second-highest cost per employee in the nation for workers’ compensation. Injured workers stay off the job more than twice as long as the national average. And Washington is one of only a handful of states that increased workers’ compensation taxes this year.

Higher costs of doing business are exactly what Washington employers do not need in the current economic climate.

By contrast, employers in Oregon haven’t had a rate increase in 20 years-in fact, their rates have decreased 18 percent during that time. And this year Oregon’s state fund handed out $100 million in dividend payments to participating employers. The benefits of competition haven’t just been for employers – Oregon’s injured workers enjoy some of the best claims management and care of any state.

Fears of a reduction in worker benefits or fears that more worker claims will be denied if privatization is allowed have not played out in Oregon or in states like West Virginia or Nevada, two states that most recently allowed competition.

I-1082 would create a workers’ comp system similar to Oregon’s and bring Washington in line with almost every other state. These states have already figured out allowing competition in the workers’ comp marketplace yields lower workers’ comp rates for employers and better care for employees. That’s why more and more states have moved away from a government monopoly on workers’ comp and embraced competition from private insurers.

Like our neighbors to the south figured out 20 years ago, it’s time to give businesses that need coverage to protect their workers a choice when it comes to providing workers’ compensation.

Clarkson, a principal in Soaring Eagle Homes, a local custom builder based in Camas, is president of the Building Industry Association of Washington.

Bullet Points:

• I have no idea how many attended, over 500 I would guess
• I estimate 65% – 70% were against ObamaCare, an easy majority
• The questions were civil, pointed and well thought-out
• I did not get to ask my question
• I knew over 30 people there and only one person I knew got to ask a question (great question Dave)

I have now personally heard Baird speak to the Health Care bill 3 times and here is what I have learned

He agrees that tort reform and background checks should be part of any health care reform out of congress, but he will support the bill even if neither are included. To him the importance of getting a bill done takes precedence over these desires.

Baird also says that he will not support a bill that is not revenue neutral, forces citizens into the government option and must be firewalled from “alternate” federal revenue.

The obvious problem with this statement is that the CBO states clearly that HR 3200 will not be revenue neutral and will in-fact add $239 billion to the deficit. It also states that the bill will force citizens out of private insurance and into the government “option”. He dismisses the CBO numbers.

Baird is very well spoken and will answers questions politely  and attentively often beginning the answer with “good points” and “I agree with x”. He is very good at speaking to the other side of the critics point, he does not however complete the linear logic of questions, follow-up is necessary.

Make no mistake, despite his INCESSANT use of “center-right” buzz words,  Baird is in favor of and wants to pass health care reform that guarantees insurance to all Americans, regardless of desire, income or need.  He does want to pay for it (how???) and does want some freedom in the market, but dismisses the eventual outcome the American people are very aware of.

He dismisses any problems with the government option (like subsidization, rationing, forced participation) with the quip that all those problems exist in the current system and 45 million are uninsured.

He also dismisses the argument that government does a poor job of managing and delivering services, claiming that Medicare does a good job, as does other agencies like the CDC.  Beside, the private sector does a poor job as well, just look at AIG and GM!

Baird only claims the “Commerce Clause” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) as the power necessary for congress to regulate all health care and provide a tax subsidized government option, the same power that allows congress to manage and fund SS, Medicare and VA care.

I believe Baird has  blurred the lines of logic and common sense that the average American sees clearly. While not as bad as other members of Congress, Baird has lost touch with his constituents.

Here’s a Link that shows another issue that pervades the small business survival problem:

Poll: 25% of small businesses fear they won’t survive

As the legislature prepares to start in about 30 days we should be clear about the problems of state government and the solutions available. The majority party has a long record of refusing to look at cutting established programs. Mentally and politically it goes back to the old Don Talley quote which is, “I’ll tell you what a cut is, I’ll cut your program, not mine.” The result is a standoff of inaction!

In a nutshell the only cutback to expect is a slight reduction in the requests made by the departments. This always results in an increase!

Thus, the solution will be to cause something to happen to increase revenue. Without ‘raising taxes,’ unfunded mandates will be sent to businesses in the State of Washington. Let’s look at the obvious unfunded mandate of paid family leave; mandatory increase in minimum wage; then an adjustment in Labor & Industries rates; increase in unemployment benefits; and then an adjustment in B & O taxes will be in the future.

Many of the Large to medium size businesses will find a way to weather this storm. Then comes Small Business who employ the majority of the people in the state. How are they going to survive? Many attempt to pay above minimum wage yet when sales slow they cut hours with a net decrease in payroll.

In talking with businesses who have seen a decrease in sales during the 4th quarter, they are clearly anxious. This anxiety results in lower morale. This spiral will affect every consumer.

One just has to guess the cycle that the Hilander Bowl had to go through! We saw the result of their anxiety.

So how do we get the majority party to actually cut programs of low value? Will it be enough to stop the predicted Bow Wave? Having sat in a seat in the legislature it is clear to me that this task will be
like climbing Mt. Rainier barefoot in the winter.