jump to navigation

Sanford To Announce New Workers’ Comp Guidelines September 19, 2007

Posted by fitsnews in SC Politics.

state house above


FITSNews – September 19, 2007 – S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford will hold a press conference tomorrow announcing that his office will now require South Carolina’s workers’ compensation commissioners to begin implementing cost-saving American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines in future rulings.

The move, which is expected to save Palmetto State businesses millions annually (as well as royally piss off the state legislature), was first announced here on FITSNews last month. You can read more about South Carolina’s workers’ comp situation here, which we highly recommend if you’re having trouble falling asleep and don’t want to take anything over the counter.

Mind you, the burning question in all of this has nothing to do with workers’ comp, it’s all about whether or not we’re a month smarter than everybody else in the state. And of course the answer to that question is “No,” people. We’re several centuries smarter than the rest of the state.



1. Tom - September 20, 2007

Mark Sanford obviously skipped Constitutional Law while attending Furman. Otherwise, he would have known about the doctrine of “separation of powers”. In fact, most high school Civics students learn that the “legislative branch” makes the laws and the “executive branch” executes the laws. Mark’s attempt to make new law today by Executive Order is clearly a violation of the separation of powers.
The General Assembly considered and rejected the AMA guides.
It shouldn’t take our Supreme Court long to invalidate this publicity stunt. Speaking of “publicity stunts”, Governor Sanford made a point back in July of praising the recently passed “Workers’ Compensation Reform Bill” which he signed into law as being “good for our state’s business community”. The real reason comp premiums have increased dramatically in our state over the past several years is because the insurance industry has been setting their own rates without any oversight from the Insurance Commission. The recently passed bill now requires the insurance industry to justify their premium increases based on rate filings with the Insurance Dept.

2. Silence Dogood - September 20, 2007

Ditto Tom. Futhermore, S.C. used to have one of the best W.C. % increases in the country back in 1998. Now, when we have less accidents per 1000 workers than we did back then it is almost the highest. REASON?????? In 2003 we stopped regulating the lost cost multiplier, which without explaining this boring actuarial device, it effects the increase in worker’s comp. rate increases. Not surprisingly, the lost cost multiplier and hence rates in S.C. went through the roof. The #1 best thing for W.C. in S.C. is that we will now be regulating rates again – not setting them mind you, but regulating what data gets put into adjusting the increases.

Note: Federal increase for federal employees living in S.C. under 6%. S.C.’s increase request over 30%…Hmmmm???

3. refer... - September 20, 2007

Sanford’s will is Sanfords law. The rest of our govermental process is for peasants.

4. punish the monkey - September 21, 2007

Lost Cost Multiplier = Grassy Knoll. Get a grip, guys. Tom, Silence: have you even read the EO? Your comments betray ignorance of what is actually going on.

5. Silence Dogood - September 21, 2007

Punish the monkey, thanks for the advice, not only have I read the executive order, but also I realize the order itself doesn’t have to do with the LCM – it is an attempt in Sanford’s mind to lesses W.C. rates in S.C. The reason I brought the LCM into the picture is because that is the real reason rates in S.C. have gone sky high.

My comments “betray ingnorance?” – portray, bespeak, whatever. If you think the LCM = Grassy Knoll when it comes to worker’s comp. rates then no wonder your lost. For the record I wasn’t even attempting to blame Sanford for the increase in rates.

Oh, and just so you know I am not ‘bluffing’ you re-read (or read for the first time) paragraph 6 of the Executive Order i.e. the bread and butter of the order… and see if you find it interesting that it, the premise of the order itself, is the only paragraph besides the conclusion that is absent of citing references to theS.C. constitution, Case Law, a statute, administrative guidlines or regulations or even an objective fact? I sorta did. Does the word tautology mean anything to you?

I guess legislating from the bench, or here the gov’s mansion are your cup of tea – not mine though.

6. punish the monkey - September 24, 2007

Silence, apparently basic grammar and rational argument aren’t your cup of tea, either. My second-grade daughter could have done better. Typos, random capitalizations — hell, this reads like a cut-and-paste ransom note. All this on top of a poorly-reasoned “argument.” The average AWARD made by a SC commissioner is 181% of the average award by commissioners in states where objective guides are mandated. The amount of the award, along with the LCM, is part of the calculus used in setting WC insurance rates — and yet you blindly chase the LCM rabbit as the reason for our spiraling rates. Silence, are you Brad Hutto or John Land?

7. Silence Dogood - September 24, 2007

Punish the Monkey, your noting of my grammatical errors and typos does thwart the thrust of my argument. Did you look back at paragraphy six of the order and note there is not authority for this? Also, I never said this move would not possibly lower W.C. premiums in S.C.? Also the Loss Cost Multiplier = Grassy Knoll has turned into, the LCM is one of the factors that goes into setting W.C. rates. And Velocity, as well as mass are both compenents of calculating momentum (you multiply them) so I am not sure how lessening either one, esp. when you know it is artificially inflated would be “blindly chasing” a rabbit. I will try not to type so fast as to seem smarter. I didn’t catch where my rational came off the spokes, but I guess if was just from the bad grammar, but I will agree with you that bad grammar and typos can, but don’t necessarily ‘betray ingonorace.’

8. punish the monkey - September 27, 2007

typing slower helped. C minus this time for grammar; still an F for content.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: