An article published last Wednesday in the Chicago Tribune talked about the possible "up for sale" sign Oklahoma's nonprofit CompSource could be using soon if the privatization of the state's workers compensation agency is approved through the state's House and Senate. Currently CompSource has about 26,000 policyholders, and as said in the article, writes 35 percent of the workers' compensation policies in the state of Oklahoma. The price tag on CompSource, based on last years study, could be up to $350 million.Those opposing the pending legislation, including Attorney General Edmondson (D), say that privatizing the agency is bad for small startup businesses and businesses that have dangerous jobs. Many private owned insurance companies already tend to give these types of businesses the boot due to the high risk of possible claims. Rates for workers' comp would raise and become too expensive for businesses to pay for. Created in 1933, this agency's purpose is "to keep workers' compensation prices competitive and to serve as a last resort for employers who could not afford private insurance." If this plan is passed, CompSource's rates would be regulated by the state Insurance Department to prevent employers from being outpriced.
Friedman, on the other hand, would be all for this legislation to pass. This would follow his idea that government should have little to do in the economy and anything that can be privatized should be privatized. While many are worried that prices for workers comp insurance will sky rocket, he would argue that the market would put it at its reasonable price.
I agree with your analysis of this article. Friedman would love something like this. I think Friedman would argue against the people who say that this company would have a hard time in the private sector. I think he would say that if the company goes under it was not working in the best way and by keeping this in the public sector he would say that we are just helping to keep a bad company alive.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you when it comes to Friedman loving this because he wants anything that can be privatizied to be done. He says that he only wants the government to have two roles in our society and anything that can be taken away from their hands should be done no matter what it costs or what happens to people. He wants people to have economic freedom and he feels that can only be done by taking away the governments roles in certain businesses. Friedman would want this to stay in a private sector because he feels that it would be the best way to keep the company alive. But like I said before, does Friedman take into account what would happen to these people? Does he put into the equation the outcome of these situations.
ReplyDelete