Category Archives: progressives

Disaster Averted

Yesterday’s crushing defeat of the so-called “American Health Care Act” or AHCA, signals the end of the seven-year long attempt by the Republican Party to legislatively kill the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Yet, as was pointed out on one cable news network last night, it won’t stop the health insurance industry from getting the Republicans in Congress to kill parts of the law slowly by eliminating the taxes that go to pay for the coverage.

Call it “genocide by stealth”, since millions of Americans will die, as per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO’s) scoring of AHCA. If they can’t kill the law outright, the so-called “Freedom Caucus”, actually the Congressional version of the Tea Party, will kill it slowly.

Why do you think they keep saying it is a disaster and it is crumbling? It’s because they are dead set against anyone getting health care unless someone else can make a profit from selling a policy.

Then there is the other question, the one usually raised by liberals and progressives, especially those who supported Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders last year in the primaries, as to why we are the only Western country without universal coverage.

The answer is complex, but not complicated (“who knew health care was so complicated?). First, everything the government of the US has ever implemented for the benefit of people has had to pass muster with the Constitution. It either has to be covered by the Constitution directly, or implied through the taxing mechanism.

Second, the Founding Fathers never mentioned or promoted the right to health care, as the prevailing political and social philosophy of the day was concerned with freedom, liberty, and private property. It has been unclear what, if anything, was meant by the phrase, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, let alone, the phrase, “promote the general welfare.”

Why they never mentioned health care and why other nations have it, is due to the fact that the US was founded during the first half of the period historians call, “the Enlightenment”, when the right to private property, liberty, and freedom were the topics of discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. Basically, the difference between Classical Liberalism (Conservatism) and Modern Liberalism (Liberalism) is between negative rights (the right not to be killed) versus positive rights (the right to a job, education, housing, health care, etc.)

Canada gained its limited independence from Britain nearly a hundred years after we did, and therefore was influenced by the philosophy of the second half of the Enlightenment, which stressed involvement by government in the economy.

The only time the Founders cared about providing some kind of health care plan was directed towards a particular group of citizens in the late eighteenth century, as I wrote about in this post.

What is now called the Public Health Service began as a government-sponsored, health plan for merchant sailors on ships entering and leaving US ports and on inland waterways. It was never challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, nor was it ever attacked by members of the opposition party. In fact, it was supported by both Federalists and Anti-Federalist politicians of the day.

The third reason why we don’t have universal, single-payer is because the government allowed employers to provide coverage during WWII to attract women into the workplace when the men went overseas. The UK is often cited as an example for single-payer, but what most supporters of this type of plan do not realize is that because of the devastation the UK suffered at the hands of German bombs, their health care system needed to be re-built from scratch, so the government stepped in with the NHS. Even Churchill supported it.

Fourth, we have always provided health care to certain at risk groups like the poor (Medicaid), the elderly (Medicare), and to children (CHIP), as well as to former service persons and their families (Tricare), etc. Perhaps the way to begin to get universal coverage is to merge all of these programs into one, then expand it to cover everyone else.

But for the time being, a major disaster was averted, but we should not think this is the end of the debate, nor is there victory. The battle lines are drawn, and the enemy is not surrendering. This is not a time for congratulation, but for vigilance and resolve.

 

Deaf, Dumb and Blind

It’s time once again for a rant. This rant is courtesy of my fellow blogger, Joe Paduda, who wrote an article today that criticizes members of the workers’ comp industry for not publicizing the positive things they do, but complain about all the negative press they have been getting.

As Joe writes, “Yep, it’s your fault that the popular press smacks you around, citing a few examples of alleged insurer screw-ups as proof that you’re all a bunch of cold-hearted, nasty, lazy incompetents motivated only by profit.

Joe was referring to reports from ProPublica, NPR, plaintiff lawyers, muckraking journalists and bloggers (including yours truly, as well as two women I have previously written about, and who are injured workers themselves), and calls for the industry to stop their bitching.

Most industry professionals may not realize that workers’ comp came into existence due to the writing of early twentieth century muckrakers as Upton Sinclair (The Jungle), Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, and many others.

He takes them to task for not publishing a case of the month, sending out a press release honoring an employee for going above-and-beyond in helping out an injured worker.

Joe says it is their fault because the reasons they don’t promote their good works are short-sighted, ignorant, and indefensible; in short, you are deaf, dumb and blind to reality.

From the day Edward Lloyd opened his coffee house in London in the 17th century, the insurance industry, and specifically, the workers’ comp industry has been dominated by Lloyd’s fellow countrymen and co-religionists.

The same holds true here in the US, but American pluralism (of a kind) has allowed some minorities to make it in the industry, but it is still mostly a white male, majority religion club (certain exceptions such as Saul Steinberg and Maurice Greenberg notwithstanding).

I know people in my family and in our extended social circle who have worked for insurance companies, and the highest level they have attained has been below that of the top executives. My first job in workers’ comp was with a company whose executives were not members of that club, but my boss was, and that was a reason some of us claims people were mistreated by him. Sheer resentment that he was not a member of the tribe and thus the board of directors. Let’s not pretend it does not exist. Why do you think some companies are called, “white shoe” companies?

Here is my take on this:

  1. You are resistant to change unless the change comes slowly, and from sources you trust and can control or dominate.
  2. As evidenced by Joe’s writing, you are unwilling to accept criticism from anyone who is not a member of the club or is from the lower ranks, or even someone who is on the outside looking in, as I am.
  3. You refuse to offer those with a passion for making workers’ comp better and opportunity to do so, and have laid off the best, brightest and hardest working people to save money on employee benefits, to cut payroll, costs, or because everyone else is laying people off, so why should you be any different. One of my LinkedIn connects writes a lot about millennials going into insurance, and many of you have complained online that you can’t find talented people. That’s because they are out looking for work.
  4. You refuse to accept any new idea, no matter who gives it, no matter what it is, and even have the nerve to criticize the idea and the person who promotes it. You continue to do the same things over and over again, and expect different results.
  5. You have elevated the laws, regulations, rules and statutes to the level of sacrosanctity, and that has frozen the industry in time, if not in place.
  6. Not one of my LinkedIn connections in the industry or in the insurance and risk management arena, who are hiring managers or executives have ever complimented me personally, save Joe, on my knowledge, my writing, or my passion for improving workers’ compensation. Crickets…
  7. You must dump the adversarial attitude pervasive among carriers, TPA’s, service providers, physicians, and employers. Not all injured workers are crooks. Treat them accordingly, and help those who really need help. Get emotional when you hear a sad story and work to fix it.
  8. STOP USING MEDICAL PROVIDERS WHO DELIBERATELY INJURE WORKERS, BOTH MEDICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY BY LYING TO THEM, DENYING THEM TREATMENT, OR JUST BEING GREEDY. Punish them by refusing to pay them or turning them into the legal authorities.
  9. Lastly, listen to the outsiders, even though they don’t have a job title, or are publishing anecdotal evidence of how bad some workers have been treated. Resist the snake-oil salesmen of opt-out like ARAWC and ALEC, whose agenda is both political and economic. They believe in an economy much like that when Edward Lloyd opened the coffee house. Ever wonder why Texas, and now Oklahoma are the only two states with opt-out? Because they are both states whose leaders in business and politics believe in laissez-faire, free market (free to the capitalist) capitalism. Don’t believe me? Here’s what Dwight Eisenhower said to his brother in a letter in 1954:

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

The Koch Brothers are just like the Hunts were back then, so be careful about opt-out expansion. It is a ploy to abolish the progressive reforms the muckrakers helped to create.

That’s all I have to say. It’s up to you to change course and make things better, but know this, we are not your enemies. We want to help, and I want to help you now.  Don’t be deaf, dumb an blind to us.


I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

I am also looking for a partner who shares my vision of global health care for injured workers.

I am also willing to work with any health care provider, medical tourism facilitator or facility to help you take advantage of a market segment treating workers injured on the job. Workers’ compensation is going through dramatic changes, and may one day be folded into general health care. Injured workers needing surgery for compensable injuries will need to seek alternatives that provide quality medical care at lower cost to their employers. Caribbean and Latin America region preferred.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Will accept invitations to speak or attend conferences.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com.

Transforming Workers’ Comp Blog is now viewed all over the world in over 250 countries and political entities. I have published nearly 300 articles, many of them re-published in newsletters and other blogs.

Share this article, or leave a comment below.

What’s At Stake for Workers Should the GOP Win in November

LynchRyan published today an excellent article in WorkersCompInsider.com about what life was like for American workers in 1915.

The article, by Julie Ferguson, discusses a report published by the Monthly Labor Review, to commemorate their centennial.

The report chronicles the news of the day for 1915, and discusses the demographics of the day, as well as providing a portrait of daily life in the US of 1915.

Then the report describes some not so pleasant and mundane issues, such as workplace injuries whereby a woman lost her arm and continued to work because back then there was no workers’ comp laws, and as the follow excerpt says, she either could lose her job or assume the risk. Here is the excerpt:

Theodore Roosevelt, arguing in favor of workers’ compensation (then known as workmen’s compensation) laws in 1913, offered the story of an injured worker that summed up the legal recourse available for workplace injuries at the time. A woman’s arm was ripped off by the uncovered gears of a grinding machine. She had complained earlier to her employer that state law required the gears be covered. Her employer responded that she could either do her job or leave. Under the prevailing common-law rules of negligence, because she continued working she had assumed the risk of the dangerous condition and was not entitled to compensation for her injury.

Unfortunately, many Americans are convinced that the best days this country ever had was before Theodore Roosevelt became President. Grover Norquist, the author of the anti-tax pledge GOP Senators, Congressmen and other officials took some years back, said that he wanted to take the country back before Roosevelt, before the “Socialists” took over.

The Koch Brothers and men like Art Pope in NC believe in the right of businesses to do anything they want, and have been responsible for advocating such things as opt-out legislation and even attacks on the exclusive remedy clause of workers’ comp laws.

Yet, as I wrote the other day in “Trends and Issues In Workers’ Comp 2016“, the Koch Brothers drew up a bill defending exclusive remedy so that businesses would be spared the prospect of tort liability.

But I suspect that there are many others who do not share the Koch Brothers view of exclusive remedy, and do seek to overturn it so that we go back to the bad old days of 1915.

One other excerpt from the report discusses workplace safety, and what steps were taken back then to address them. Pay close attention to the name, Frances Perkins, not only was she the first woman cabinet member (FDR), she was also the first Secretary of Labor, as the excerpt states.

Although working in mines was notoriously dangerous, mill work could also be quite hazardous. BLS reported about 23,000 industrial deaths in 1913 among a workforce of 38 million, equivalent to a rate of 61 deaths per 100,000 workers. In contrast, the most recent data on overall occupational fatalities show a rate of 3.3 deaths per 100,000 workers. Regarding on-the-job safety, Green notes, “There was virtually no regulation, no insurance, and no company fear of a lawsuit when someone was injured or killed.” Frances Perkins, who went on to become the first Secretary of Labor (1933–45), lobbied for better working conditions and hours in 1910 as head of the New York Consumers League. After witnessing the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which caused the death of 146 mainly young, immigrant female garment workers in New York’s Greenwich Village, Perkins left her job to become the head of the Committee on Public Safety, where she became an even stronger advocate for workplace safety. From 1911 to 1913, the New York State legislature passed 60 new safety laws recommended by the committee. Workplaces have become safer, and technology has been used in place of workers for some especially dangerous tasks.

So lest you think that the Donald will make America great again, that Cruz can be trusted, that Marco is the real deal, or whatever the hell his slogan is, none of them care about the American worker, none of them care what happens to them and none of them will be able to stop their fellow Republicans from carrying out Norquist’s commandment to take the country back.

Unfortunately, it is not 1915 they want to go back to, but before 1901, the year that “Socialist” Roosevelt became president. They want to repeal the 20th century. That’s what’s at stake.