premiums and assessments should be classified as taxes, courts have looked at whether a state’s workers’ compensation scheme allows an employer the option of subscribing to a state-administered insurance plan and whether such a plan is “monopolistic” (that is, the scheme requires payments only to a state-run insurance fund) or allows an employer the additional option of purchasing private insurance or of self-insuring. See In re Sacred Heart Hosp. of Norristown, 209 B.R. 650, 655-58 (E.D.Pa.1997) (discussing differences in courts’ treatment of workers’ compensation payments between states with varying workers’ compensation schemes). Where a system is monopolist lowing Payne and holding that Minnesota’s reimbursement claims were not “excise taxes”); Suburban II, 36 F.3d at 488-89 (<HOLDING>); In re Freymiller Trucking, Inc., 194 B.R. 914
holding that oklahomas reimbursement claims met the lorber and feiring definitions of a tax but were not taxes under the anderson definition because they were not assessed at a fixed rate holding that reimbursement claims were excise taxes under lorber holding that ohios reimbursement claims met the lorber criteria but were not excise taxes because they were not universally applicable to similarly situated entities and in addition disadvantaged private creditors with like claims holding that michigan reimbursement claims were excise taxes under both lorber and suburban ii holding reimbursement claims were excise taxes under the lorber test without addressing the bankruptcy codes central policy of equal distribution