Oh, boo hoo. So *I* have to pay for the career choice of a professional athlete who probably made more in one season than I’ll make in a lifetime? Here’s an idea–become a plumber.
No, the consumer should not have to pay at all — tne NFL needs to be responsible for the injuries of its players. Insurance simply cannot be priced to cover early dementia and/or permanent cripling.
I agree with you Celtica. The NFL should take care of their employees, just like any other employer. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar per year business and yet the league is unwilling to take care of their employees? That’s shameful.
I wonder what the rate for pro football player would be to buy workers comp? This is just another case of states writing the WC laws where anybody that gets hurt anywhere can collect something, regardless if they were on anyone’s payroll or in the country legally. Maybe WC should be lumped into Obamacare and then the federal government will show us all how well they can run everything, just like a good communist country should.
Actually, these guys should be considered Contractors and have to fund their own coverage. I wonder how they would like having to have 29% of their gross pay deducted from their pay check to pay for medical? That should be the price of a guaranteed contract.
This may be naïve, but I thought the state of the contract of hire governed the state where a claimant could recover damages. Why should a player working for a team in Colorado get California benefits?
Workers’ compensation is generally written to allow benefits for state of hire/employment OR state of injury. Normally, the two are the same but in today’s marketplace, sometimes injuries occur while “on the road”. That is the reason for this “ability” under the system. If you work for an employer in Pennsylvania, for example, but are injured doing business for that employer in California, most likely, the more lucrative benefits will be under California statute. Not saying it’s right…just saying that’s the way it is until “the system” is legislated otherwise.
Oh, boo hoo. So *I* have to pay for the career choice of a professional athlete who probably made more in one season than I’ll make in a lifetime? Here’s an idea–become a plumber.
No, the consumer should not have to pay at all — tne NFL needs to be responsible for the injuries of its players. Insurance simply cannot be priced to cover early dementia and/or permanent cripling.
I agree with you Celtica. The NFL should take care of their employees, just like any other employer. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar per year business and yet the league is unwilling to take care of their employees? That’s shameful.
Like I’ve said before: Only in California……..
I wonder what the rate for pro football player would be to buy workers comp? This is just another case of states writing the WC laws where anybody that gets hurt anywhere can collect something, regardless if they were on anyone’s payroll or in the country legally. Maybe WC should be lumped into Obamacare and then the federal government will show us all how well they can run everything, just like a good communist country should.
Good point Dave. Let every tax payer take on the cost.
insurance companies pay for it not tax payers……
Seriously?? You think the insurance company is going to absorb these charges? They are going to take rate hikes and pass them on to their insured’s…
Wouldn’t the insured be the team? Or, would it be the league? Either way, you’re right, the rates would have to be enough to cover the many injuries.
I don’t think NCCI could come up with a lost cost for this one. ;)
Actually, these guys should be considered Contractors and have to fund their own coverage. I wonder how they would like having to have 29% of their gross pay deducted from their pay check to pay for medical? That should be the price of a guaranteed contract.
This may be naïve, but I thought the state of the contract of hire governed the state where a claimant could recover damages. Why should a player working for a team in Colorado get California benefits?
Workers’ compensation is generally written to allow benefits for state of hire/employment OR state of injury. Normally, the two are the same but in today’s marketplace, sometimes injuries occur while “on the road”. That is the reason for this “ability” under the system. If you work for an employer in Pennsylvania, for example, but are injured doing business for that employer in California, most likely, the more lucrative benefits will be under California statute. Not saying it’s right…just saying that’s the way it is until “the system” is legislated otherwise.