Does a rate of 2.26% really seem actuarily fair for on the job accidents for "Creative artists, musicians, writers and performers"? Note that private insurance markets charge less than 1% for income protection insurance, and that they charge men less than women (as women are far more likely to make claims based on mental health disorders).
Where's my opt-out switch?
There's a class of arguments that run as follows:
If I allow you to do X, and X turns out badly, I cannot credibly commit to letting you suffer the consequences. Therefore, your ability to do X must be regulated or prohibited.And so we can't opt-out of public health systems or workplace accident insurance because the state cannot credibly commit to letting us suffer the downside consequences of accepting risk; we may soon prevent banks from getting "too big" because the state can't help itself from bailing them out (why not car manufacturers too in that case?). In this kind of world, a state that didn't want to agglomerate power to itself would be working hard to establish a credible reputation for letting things suffer downside costs of risk so that it wouldn't be put into the "can't credibly commit" situation. Instead, governments seem to be moving to bail out or compensate for any adverse life or business outcome and folks have come to expect and demand such bail-outs.
If I could convince you that, were you to suffer kidney failure, I'd be utterly unable to prevent myself from giving you a kidney, does that then give me the right to heavily regulate your diet and exercise regime to keep you from needing my kidney? Why should your rights be contingent on my self-control problems?