Blake misses in HB-1008 column
The headline from Peter Blake's column last Saturday asked "Can passing bad bills help GOP?" A better headline may have been, "How much misleading data can we fit into one column?"
Blake argues that HB-1008 is "a singularly cynical proposal" that Republicans may have decided to support to put "Gov. Bill Ritter in a bind once again."
The bill would make it easier for firefighters with cancer to get workers comp. So how does Blake try to make it sound like pro-union pandering? The column rests on two assumptions. The first is that HB-1008 "is roundly detested by those who would have to pay higher workers comp premiums, namely the municipalities and special districts that employ firefighters." This is a point the Rocky's editorial staff made - nearly word for word - in January, when it wrote, "HB 1008 would increase the cost of workers comp insurance purchased by the municipalities and special districts that employ firefighters."
But neither statement is accurate. In fact, statistics provided by the House Democrats cite a number of states that have passed presumptive cancer bills without impacting workers comp premiums:
• California has had "no impact" in actuarial assumptions or funding of the state's firefighter retirement system. An actuary in the system says that this legislation has had "minimal effect" on the actuarial costs to the retirement system.
• Illinois has had presumptive cancer legislation in its worker's compensation statute in place since 1984. For the first 6 years after the implementation of the statute, the City of Chicago (which employs 50% of the firefighters in the state) had an 8.3% reduction in the number of beneficiaries receiving occupational disability benefits.
• In the first 4 years after passing presumptive cancer legislation in Nevada, the state had a total of three claims. This averages to less than one claim per year for a rate of 0.02% in the state of 3,990 firefighters.
• Rhode Island had a total of 6 claims in the first 8 years after the presumptive cancer legislation was implemented in 1986. This, again, averages to less than one claim per year for the state of 5,000 firefighters.
• The state of Oklahoma had 22 claims paid in the 6 years after passing presumptive legislation, an average of 4 claims per year. The average cost per claim was $10,409 for a state of 12,420 firefighters. That is less than a dollar per year per firefighter to pay for the coverage of cancer in his/her profession statewide.
Blake's second assumption is that "[n]obody really knows what causes cancer and the only studies linking cancer to firefighting are funded by the firefighters. But HB 1008 says that most cancers afflicting firefighters after five years on the job 'shall be presumed to result' from their employment."
A press release from the House Democrats cites "studies done over the past 50 years [that] have provided evidence that supports the fact that members of the firefighting profession develop certain forms of cancer at an alarmingly higher rate than previously believed." The bill is limited to these forms of cancer - those that attack the brain, skin, digestive system, blood or genitourinary system.
It is unreasonable to place the burden of proof on a cancer victim. It is a fact that firefighters develop specific cancers at a high rate due to their exposure to various toxins. And presumptive cancer legislation has had only a minor impact in the states where it has been enacted. It seems like HB-1008 would be a hard peice of legislation for the GOP machinery to attack.
But Peter Blake has a history of leaving critical facts out of his columns. (For instance, Colorado Media Matters called him out for a column that "pointed to two of Colorado political consultant Dick Wadhams' campaign successes without acknowledging -- aside from a passing mention of comparisons between Wadhams and Karl Rove -- the negative campaign tactics Wadhams has used to achieve those successes.") But ignoring data in order to portray a good bill as a giveaway to the firefighter's union? He's really gone too far.
Cross-posted at SquareState.
Blake argues that HB-1008 is "a singularly cynical proposal" that Republicans may have decided to support to put "Gov. Bill Ritter in a bind once again."
The bill would make it easier for firefighters with cancer to get workers comp. So how does Blake try to make it sound like pro-union pandering? The column rests on two assumptions. The first is that HB-1008 "is roundly detested by those who would have to pay higher workers comp premiums, namely the municipalities and special districts that employ firefighters." This is a point the Rocky's editorial staff made - nearly word for word - in January, when it wrote, "HB 1008 would increase the cost of workers comp insurance purchased by the municipalities and special districts that employ firefighters."
But neither statement is accurate. In fact, statistics provided by the House Democrats cite a number of states that have passed presumptive cancer bills without impacting workers comp premiums:
• California has had "no impact" in actuarial assumptions or funding of the state's firefighter retirement system. An actuary in the system says that this legislation has had "minimal effect" on the actuarial costs to the retirement system.
• Illinois has had presumptive cancer legislation in its worker's compensation statute in place since 1984. For the first 6 years after the implementation of the statute, the City of Chicago (which employs 50% of the firefighters in the state) had an 8.3% reduction in the number of beneficiaries receiving occupational disability benefits.
• In the first 4 years after passing presumptive cancer legislation in Nevada, the state had a total of three claims. This averages to less than one claim per year for a rate of 0.02% in the state of 3,990 firefighters.
• Rhode Island had a total of 6 claims in the first 8 years after the presumptive cancer legislation was implemented in 1986. This, again, averages to less than one claim per year for the state of 5,000 firefighters.
• The state of Oklahoma had 22 claims paid in the 6 years after passing presumptive legislation, an average of 4 claims per year. The average cost per claim was $10,409 for a state of 12,420 firefighters. That is less than a dollar per year per firefighter to pay for the coverage of cancer in his/her profession statewide.
Blake's second assumption is that "[n]obody really knows what causes cancer and the only studies linking cancer to firefighting are funded by the firefighters. But HB 1008 says that most cancers afflicting firefighters after five years on the job 'shall be presumed to result' from their employment."
A press release from the House Democrats cites "studies done over the past 50 years [that] have provided evidence that supports the fact that members of the firefighting profession develop certain forms of cancer at an alarmingly higher rate than previously believed." The bill is limited to these forms of cancer - those that attack the brain, skin, digestive system, blood or genitourinary system.
It is unreasonable to place the burden of proof on a cancer victim. It is a fact that firefighters develop specific cancers at a high rate due to their exposure to various toxins. And presumptive cancer legislation has had only a minor impact in the states where it has been enacted. It seems like HB-1008 would be a hard peice of legislation for the GOP machinery to attack.
But Peter Blake has a history of leaving critical facts out of his columns. (For instance, Colorado Media Matters called him out for a column that "pointed to two of Colorado political consultant Dick Wadhams' campaign successes without acknowledging -- aside from a passing mention of comparisons between Wadhams and Karl Rove -- the negative campaign tactics Wadhams has used to achieve those successes.") But ignoring data in order to portray a good bill as a giveaway to the firefighter's union? He's really gone too far.
Cross-posted at SquareState.
Labels: 2007 legislative session, HB-1008, media, Peter Blake, punditry
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home