Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Why I am a Republican

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Also, can you say more about what you think makes a claim false.
    This is an important point. Using the chronic pain thing as an example: different people have different thresholds of pain, thus some will return to work more quickly and be able to concentrate in the midst of pain better than others.

    I mentioned in another thread an MRI I recently had. While the doctors did things to relieve my suffering, the pain in my back and left shoulder hasn't completely abated. I am in chronic pain which does not make me unable to work, but which might seriously incapacitate someone with a lower threshold of pain than mine. Is it fair to say that since I can return to work, so should everyone else with my same amount of chronic pain?
    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

    Comment


    • #17
      OK. Let's see there are a lot of threads going on here.

      Chronic pain: it was not my intention to make a judgement about it. My only point was that it is best for everyone involved for the injured worker to return to work as soon as possible. Now, please don't think that I am saying that that is before they are ready. I again reiterate the 6 month "rule". I was recently on a conference call discussing a paraplegic claim. The dr was reinforcing the need to get the man back to work. Now, keep in mind that this WILL NOT impact his benefits. If you have loss of use of 2 limbs, you are statutorily permanently and totally disabled in every jurisdiction that I am familiar with. It is best for the worker to get back into a productive life style.

      As far as the photographs, one photograph is not going to impact most cases. I've seen 20 minutes of good video tape not change a claim.

      It appears that there might be a philosphical difference. There are clearly some people who hate their jobs and see a WC claim as their way to retire. Whether they are hurt to that degree or not. Now, as I said in the above paragraph on chronic pain, that is in nobodies best interests including the worker.

      I don't mean to offend, but I think it is safe to assume that this is a left leaning board. There have been a number of posts about the corporations. And it seems to be the view that "well if the little guy can stick it the corporation, fine." I don't agree with that. We all need to work and be productive. As I said before, nobody thinks that injured workers shouldn't be taken care of. It is those who want to make a life out of it that cause the problem.

      Just one quick personal note, I was a lefty coming out of college and starting my job. I'm not anymore. One gets very cynical in the job that I have.

      Regarding political party affiliation, I agree with PWV except from the different end. What I would like to see is a viable third party (Liberatarian from my point of view) and a way to get the money out of politics. I don't know how to accomplish that, but it is needed.

      If McCain runs in '08, he will have my vote. I'm afraid that he might not run due to his age.

      If I missed anything, let me know.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Patrick
        ... We all need to work and be productive. ...
        Why? Some people, a minority, do nothing, except Own and make tens of millions. Isn't that part of "The American Dream"?

        Global Corporations now exploit cheap labour in the former East Blok and slave labour in many Third World countries. Automation is putting many blue collar workers out of work and IT is now doing the same to white collar workers.

        Many people live very comfortably off the profits from their investments and shares portfolios, without doing anything more strenuous than occasionally lifting a telephone to phone their investment advisor, or lawyer.

        Millions of workers are regularily dumped by their Global Coporation employers without raising an eyebrow, because products can be made more profitably by enslaved orphans in Mongolia, or Tibet. That workers might feel compelled to screw their employers, given the opportunity, before their employers screw them, shouldn't really surprise intelligent people. It's an integral part of the present belief system. Very little to do with Left/Right political beliefs.

        Stories of plucky amputees struggling to get back to work despite the loss of their limbs just put me in mind of the Black Knight from 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. "I can still fight, you coward!" He screams, as he bounces about on his legless, armless torso.

        There have been one, or two SF and horror stories about ways being found to re-animate dead corpses so that they can continue to serve their employer, even after their deaths. Come to think of it, that's one of the important warning subtexts of traditional Haitian zombie tales, which are based both on the history of the Caribbean slave economies and drug induced fact. But, I digress.

        The very idea that Global Capitalism is in some way about selfless hard work and the honest dignity of non-malingering, worthy, individuals and not about exploitation and the amassing of Capital, is somehow a denial of Western Values and possibly even anti-American.

        :lol:

        Comment


        • #19
          All that I can say is if you talk to a dr who deals with chronic pain patients or similarly significantly injured workers, that dr will tell you it is the best thing for the patient to return to work in some degree. That could be at the same employer, a different one, or charity work.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Patrick
            My only point was that it is best for everyone involved for the injured worker to return to work as soon as possible...

            All that I can say is if you talk to a dr who deals with chronic pain patients or similarly significantly injured workers, that dr will tell you it is the best thing for the patient to return to work in some degree.
            Okay, but in your opening post, you mentioned that Arnie was an example of one of the ones who got it "right." If you have the time, would you please read his bill and tell me how it supports your points on WC? I'm lost as to what it is you find great about the way Republicans handle this sort of thing. You don't have to post any links, just read the one I've posted and explain why you think it's a good plan.

            I'm specifically interested in your take on things like:

            "Existing law provides that when determining the percentages of permanent disability, account shall be taken of various factors, including the nature of the physical injury or disfigurement and with consideration being given to the diminished ability of the injured employee in the labor market.

            This bill would require that the nature of the physical injury or disfigurement be established... [with] consideration given to the injured employee's adaptability to perform a given job."
            (Emphasis mine.)

            I fail to see how this kind of buggery -- for the injured employee truly takes it in the pants here -- in any way motivates or helps the injured worker to return to the workplace.

            Originally posted by Patrick
            ...I think it is safe to assume that this is a left leaning board. There have been a number of posts about the corporations. And it seems to be the view that "well if the little guy can stick it the corporation, fine." I don't agree with that.
            You have it twisted around a bit. The liberal attitude is "focus on helping the little guy, not the huge corporation." Liberal thinkers don't condone "screwing" anyone, as badly as you want to believe it.

            Originally posted by Patrick
            Just one quick personal note, I was a lefty coming out of college and starting my job. I'm not anymore. One gets very cynical in the job that I have.
            So... the Republican in you was born out of cynicism -- specifically the cynicism created by the realization that life ain't fair? Wow. I suppose I'm glad I haven't allowed my age and experience to get in the way of my compassion. I don't think any amount of cynicism could ever make me support cheap-labor corporations over the hard-working lower class. It just won't happen.

            Consider this: How cynical would it make you to be a low-income laborer who gets hurt doing his difficult and dangerous job, only to be screwed from every direction on his WC claim simply because a bunch of stuffed-shirt insurance corporation fat cats are pissed off about a handful of people getting an undeserved free ride? Would it bother you that people whose wristwatches are worth more than you make in a month are adjusting law to make sure they get even more money at the worker's expense?
            "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
            --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

            Comment


            • #21
              PWV, you're a better man then me if you read through that whole bill. I really don't have the time.

              This bill would require that the nature of the physical injury or disfigurement be established... [with] consideration given to the injured employee's adaptability to perform a given job." (Emphasis mine.)

              I'm really trying to find a good way to phrase this. Keep in mind that I've been doing WC for a long time, and it is hard to avoid "insurance speak" at times.

              There are a number if different types of benefits that are owed. Lost time, medical and "permanency". Most states compute the permanency different than others. IL does not accept AMA ratings. It is all based on case law and what the ALJ might think it is worth. Is that necessarily fair? I really think you are seeing the CA changes as hugely detrimental to the workers when I don't think they are. There might be a disconnect between us. Being inside the industry, I see how WC is applied.

              Getting back to my initial point, I still say Arnie is good for CA from a WC standpoint. You will just have to trust me when I say that the WC system there was out of control: migrating injuries, rampant psych treatment, dr shopping (to name a few). I really think it would have imploded if no changes were made (now that is solely my opinion).

              Adlerian, I don't think that we are disagreeing to that great of a degree, if at all. As I said, return to work doesn't necessarily mean at the same employer or necessarily mean that the worker will get less benefits. It is best for the injured worker to be engaging in a productive lifestyle. I have seen it porfessionally and with a close family member.

              Also, I don't see that anybody responded to my carpal tunnel example. Why the disconnect between CA and other states?

              And please don't think that I became conservative just because of my job. There are other factor. I really don't want to get into them, because I'm sure most here disagree with me on them. But, the job I'm in does make one cynical.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Patrick
                PWV, you're a better man then me if you read through that whole bill. I really don't have the time.
                Then how can you say the following:

                Originally posted by Patrick
                I still say Arnie is good for CA from a WC standpoint.
                How can you think he was good for the state if you don't familiarize yourself with what he is doing? From that tack, it seems like you're saying the situation was so bad that any change is good.

                Also, what does your description of the different types of pay-outs have to do with the ridiculous limitations Arnie was proposing in the small quote I gave? They want to look at how well the injured party could do only in a certain job, as opposed to how they'd do in the entire job market; that's utterly screwing the workers, especially the legitimate ones! But you tell TheAdlerian that "return to work doesn't necessarily mean at the same employer" which is directly opposed to the quote I gave from Arnie's bill which you tried to defend.

                Originally posted by Patrick
                You will just have to trust me...
                Sorry, Patrick. Wish I could. But this is exactly what I get from almost every conservative I debate with: lots of solid opinions with no solid documentable data to back up those opinions. You're entitled to your beliefs, of course, but it will take more than your word to demonstrate that the Republican way is the right way.

                Originally posted by Patrick
                Also, I don't see that anybody responded to my carpal tunnel example. Why the disconnect between CA and other states?
                Sorry about that. Thought that question was rhetorical, since the answer is obvious: different state governments with different attitudes toward Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

                Iowa is a very Republican state (read pro-corporation/anti-employee), thus it makes sense that (according to you) the carpal tunnel sufferer would be treated and put back to work with no settlement. That's typical Right-Wing agenda: legitimately injured employee gets nothing for their trouble and employer avoids any financial burden from the employee's injury. Very convenient for the corporation; not so much for the employee.

                California is a liberal state. It sees the worker as the underdog and does its best to champion the lower class. Thus, when a worker is in chronic pain from a work-sustained injury, the employer is forced to own up.

                Do you hopnestly believe that the uncompensated Iowa employee happily goes back to work with no settlement?

                What I see is that you are so concerned about the handful of cheaters getting away with a free ride that you are willing to screw over every legitimate worker who gets injured on the job, just to stop that undeserving minority. You are more willing to allow corporations and government officials to unethically acquire the funds than you are a group of poor people doing the same thing. Why are you so willing to take money from the poor and give it to the rich?
                "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                Comment


                • #23
                  I think this will be my last post on this. I thought I did respond to the quote you provided PWV. I guess you really need to be in the industry to see what I'm saying. Also, while I have not read the bill, I know what it is regarding, and I know how compensation is applied. A lot of my work is with CA cases. Injured workers are not getting screwed. They will continue to receive their benefits and be compensated for their permanency.

                  I figured that would be the response I'd get on my "trust" statement. As I indicated previously, I have seen thousands of cases and I can't cite names. And if I could, there are privacy issues. This discussion is not worth losing my job over. Take it for what it's worth or ignore it. But I would encourage you to at least consider what I've said and not dismiss it all because I have provided individual's names.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by patrick
                    I guess you really need to be in the industry to see what I'm saying.
                    Do you mean PWV would become right-wing if social justice was bad for his business? Maybe. That wouldn't prove your point, though.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well, I would argue that social justice can be good for business. That's the European Social Model though. Maybe Patrick hasn't heard of it.
                      \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Do you mean PWV would become right-wing if social justice was bad for his business? Maybe. That wouldn't prove your point, though.

                        That is not at all what I was saying. I was discussing the bill in CA. I meant that someone who is not in the industry might not see what I am saying. My point is that there might be a disconnect between the way something reads to how it is applied.

                        Maybe Patrick hasn't heard of it.

                        Yes, all us conservatives are ignorant and all we care about is business and our pocket books. This is exactly the reason I was lothe to enter into a debate: statements like this. I have tried to address all the issues that were brought up in a respectful manner. Perhaps I didn't address them to everybodies satisfaction, but I tried. And this is the kind of response that is given.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          "I think that this kind of thing is a symptom of some greater problem."

                          I agree with you there. And I agree that some of it might be that workers feel that they are getting screwed. But I think in some instances it is that the workers just hate their jobs and don't want to go back.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Patrick
                            ...I think in some instances it is that the workers just hate their jobs and don't want to go back.
                            The desparity, then, is that you seem to believe these cheaters to be the majority whereas I am willing to bet -- were valid numbers to be scrutinized -- these lazy freeloaders which cause you so much cynical grief are actually the exception to the rule.

                            Originally posted by Patrick
                            I was discussing the bill in CA.
                            Which you haven't read.

                            Originally posted by Patrick
                            I meant that someone who is not in the industry might not see what I am saying. My point is that there might be a disconnect between the way something reads to how it is applied.
                            How could you know in this case, if you haven't even read the bill? You said Arnie 'had it right' without familiarizing yourself with his policies, then you expect me to 'take your word for it' that I have it all wrong? Do you even hear how ludicrous that sounds?

                            Originally posted by Patrick
                            This is exactly the reason I was lothe to enter into a debate: statements like this. I have tried to address all the issues that were brought up in a respectful manner. Perhaps I didn't address them to everybodies satisfaction, but I tried. And this is the kind of response that is given.
                            Please. You didn't provide one single source to back up your claims and you won't even read the sources I cite. Your arguments are all based, by your own admission, on cultivated cynicism. You'll forgive me if I break out my tiny violin in your honor.

                            Look, you think the majority of people on social programs are lazy jerks who simply don't want to work. Fine. You're wrong, but fine. If you're so worried that a handful of people are getting a free ride, then by all means, side with people whose policies you haven't read and keep voting for those who would put the money into the pockets of corporate suits. But don't expect to have a rational debate with informed opponents if you cannot back up your arguments with documentable facts. No one is going to let you off that easily, Patrick. I think you knew that coming in.
                            "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                            --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              "Look, you think the majority of people on social programs are lazy jerks who simply don't want to work."

                              I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

                              "But don't expect to have a rational debate with informed opponents if you cannot back up your arguments with documentable facts."

                              I have also said that since I cannot document for various reasons, i.e. I have seen thousands of cases and can't remember the names, there are privacy issues to deal with, and I am not willing to jeopardize my job for this.

                              My point, which I tried to make over and over again, is that I am aware of the bill and what the reform is. You are not. I deal with California work comp on a daily basis. I can assume that you don't. All you have done is pull out one bill and insinuated that you are now an expert. Sorry but this is not true. The are many aspects and nuances of the WC in CA that you know nothing about.

                              This is the reason why I tried to end this discussion. However, two of my last three posts were to respond to other posts that I felt were unfair characterizations.

                              I appreciate Adlerian's posts. Disagreement, fine: not calling someone ignorant or mischaracterizing statements.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                SB 899 LC section 5814

                                When payment of compensation has been unreasonably delayer or refused... the amount of the payment... shall be increased up to 25% or up to $10,000, which ever is less.

                                As you can see, the injured workers are still able to receive penalties based on the above.

                                LC 4658(d):

                                This subdivision shall apply to injuries occurring on or after the effective date of the revised pemanent disability schedule adopted by the administrative director pursanant to Section 4660. If the injury causes pemanent disability, the percentage of disability to total disability shall be determined... as follows:

                                You can look up to table if you want. Suffice it to say that it was slightly lowered for the smaller percentages and greatly increased for the higher percentages.

                                So, the injured workers will still get the permanent disability, and it was even increased for the most severly injured.

                                LC section 4600

                                Employer has 30 days of medical control unless the employer or the employer's insured establish a medical provider network.

                                As I said previously, I agree that the injured worker should see the dr of his/her choice. As I also said, many other states require the injured worker to treat with the company dr.

                                Any other questions? There is the documentation. It all coorelates with what I said before. Did I miss anything?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X