If ALL Americans had Health Care would business still have to carry

[Winterblues]

Workman's Comp? It seems redundant to me and it is approximately 10% of my payroll.

[PDJane]

1. In most places, yes.

Workman's comp is meant to buffer the worker from employer carelessness.

[Winterblues]

2. It is meant to cover any injuries occured on the job

If everyone has Health Care why would there be any concern? It would free business up of a tremendous amount of money to use as pay increases and covering other expenses such as insurance which also should come down if EVERYONE was fully covered at all times. It would be one more way for American business to be more competetive in world markets and even at home. Health Care gets into many areas where it shouldn't and doesn't in most business throughout the world.

[PDJane]

18. Yes, it's meant to cover injuries incurred on the job.

It's also meant to pay the associated expenses when a worker is injured on the job, and ensure that the employer pays for carelessness. The upside is that the employee can't sue the employer for carelessness, danger, and outright stupidity, and enough employers are out there to make it necessary.

It's a quid pro quo.

[yellowdogintexas]

3. from Wikipedia: benefit varies per jurisdiction.

can provide disability income
can provide economic loss compensation
benefits to survivors if employee is killed

in addition to medical coverage.

Workers' compensation (colloquially known as workers' comp in North America or compo in Australia) a form of insurance that provides compensation medical care for employees who are injured in the course of employment, in exchange for mandatory relinquishment of the employee's right to sue his or her employer for the tort of negligence. The tradeoff between assured, limited coverage and lack of recourse outside the worker compensation system is known as "the compensation bargain." While plans differ between jurisdictions, provision can be made for weekly payments in place of wages (functioning in this case as a form of disability insurance), compensation for economic loss (past and future), reimbursement or payment of medical and like expenses (functioning in this case as a form of health insurance), and benefits payable to the dependents of workers killed during employment (functioning in this case as a form of life insurance). General damages for pain and suffering, and punitive damages for employer negligence, are generally not available in worker compensation plans.

[eShirl]

4. what does workman's compensation compensate for?

not wages?

[Oregone]

5. Workers Comp is provided by the government here

I don't know much about it, but I imagine with a UHC system they save tons on it.

[2speak]

6. There are many countries that have collective health systems

and some of our businesses move out of this country to go there. They do not have to pay for the medical insurance for their employees and save a ton of money. Workmens Compensation is not just for the medical expenses when someone gets hurt on the job. It is also for pay when off the job and a settlement if they can no longer do their job from the work related injury.

[Oregone]

7. Thats not completely true...

"They do not have to pay for the medical insurance for their employees and save a ton of money."

In the US, they do not have to either.

The only necessity of doing so is because people cannot afford it otherwise. They receive tax benefits to do so though.

Now, some UHC systems do have premiums (in BC, where I am, its $108 a month per family, for example, unless you cannot afford it).

Employers here almost all cover this premium, as will as private supplementals. They also get a tax break and its cheap enough to do so. I would venture to say, more employers cover it here than in the US, being that it is much more affordable to small businesses. My wife is part time up here, so they do not cover her insurance, but they spend MORE giving her money in lieu of it ($2.00 extra an hour). A lot of other small, part-time jobs offer premiums coverage here though, and its simply a non issue at $108 dollars maximum per head.

[2speak]

15. Confusion

"They do not have to pay for the medical insurance for their employees and save a ton of money."

So you understand what I said. They don't have to pay since the government supplies it. Of course they don't have to pay in the US but they want to......Any large company supplies insurance for their employees so that they can count of their workforce being there to work. That is simple business.

[Oregone]

17. "They don't have to pay since the government supplies it." -- Partially

Here, there is still a premium for those not below the poverty line (just no deductible/co-pay/pre-existing conditions check). Businesses can and will pay by choice for employers because it is so cheap. Most employees do pay it as it is only $108 max for a family and they get tax incentives.

"Of course they don't have to pay in the US but they want to"

Well, in the US they also get tax benefits, so it isn't truly altruistic. If you repealed their deductions (as McCain wants to), most employers would no longer offer it unless they had to compete for workers.

[Fresh_Start]

8. no its not redundant

the healthcare component is redundant
but the loss wages part is not covered by healthcare

[Winterblues]

11. Why do I have to have Liability Insurance then?

What does that cover?

[Fresh_Start]

19. liability insurance protects you

workers compensation covers your employees

[Horse with no Name]

9. In Texas, businesses don't have to carry it

One of the little nuggets left behind from when bush was Governor. The caveat is that they just have to tell you when you go to work there that they don't have it so that you informed.

[riverdeep]

13. Kind of like when the dentist tells you, 'this may hurt a little'?

That's the Republican idea of choice. Like people are going to go to another state en masse to get employment.

[SidDithers]

10. We do in Canada...

I pay 3.06% of payroll into WSIB, which is our equivalent of Workman's Comp.

Sid

[RB TexLa]

12. Yes, why would the entity providing health care coverage be responsible for something the employer

is responsible for?

However expanded health care coverage can help reduce "Monday morning accidents" on the job.

[Winterblues]

14. It has absolutely nothing to do with fault

Anyone can get hurt on the job. It in no way means the employer was negligent.Or the employee for that matter. It only means an injury occured and Workman's Comp will pay for it.

[RB TexLa]

16. Wrong term on my part. responsible.