Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Mother of distressed AOL baby has something to say to the CEO   (slate.com) divider line 274
    More: Cool, CEO, pre-eclampsia, federal benefits, premature birth  
•       •       •

17018 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2014 at 3:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



274 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-09 05:51:27 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: "Two things that happened in 2012," Armstrong said. "We had two AOL-ers that had distressed babies that were born that we paid a million dollars each to make sure those babies were OK in general. And those are the things that add up into our benefits cost. So when we had the final decision about what benefits to cut because of the increased healthcare costs, we made the decision, and I made the decision, to basically change the 401(k) plan."

Christ, what an asshole.


note how he leaves out that he gave himself a 300% pay raise (to 12 Million/ year) in 2012... I'm sure he just forgot.
 
2014-02-09 05:52:07 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Parthenogenetic: The Constitution does not grant anybody the right to a pension

So why is Mr. Armstrong insisting upon his?


Because contacts and commitments don't exist. The only rights any person may possess are those that passionate area men think are in the Constitution. I guess. i don't even know what these people are talking about anymore.
 
2014-02-09 05:52:08 PM  

Bungles: but how is AOL out of pocket by $1 million? Isn't the insurance company out a million?


They're self-insured. Which is usually a good option if you can afford it (regardless of what's being insured) but a terrible idea if you can't, and if you're complaining about individual babies, you couldn't have afforded it.

Bungles: And how does a million make any sort of impact on a massive company's entire retirement system?


AOL ain't so massive these days.

Bungles: OK, I'm British so I find your entire system baffling and ridiculous,


Many things are baffling and ridiculous. Health care in America is one of the rare non-British examples. I've watched a cricket match... I think.
 
2014-02-09 05:53:30 PM  

liltingbanshee: foo monkey: Good job, mom. Your husband is getting fired tomorrow.

Yeah, after reading TFA, I couldn't help but wonder what his future at the company will be like.
I guess firing him would be really bad for public relations though.


Tim Armstrong is the asshole who fired one of his employees for using a camera in one of his annual.  It was the guy's job, wait for it, to take pictures of people from the company giving speeches, to put on the internal website.  He fired a guy for doing his job.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/listen-to-aol-ceo-tim-armstrong-fire-a -p atch-employee-in-front-of-1-000-coworkers-140600015.html
 
2014-02-09 05:53:43 PM  

DeaH: Conundrum: Your business is no longer expanding, so your bonus size is determined by how much you can cut.

Solution: Cut your employee 401K, and take home a nice percent for yourself. And:

1) Blame Obamacare. When that doesn't work,
2) Blame a couple of premies.


Conundrum: Your business' profits rose by 13% last year

Solution: give yourself a 300% raise, slash employee benefits, blame Obamacare and premies anyways.
 
2014-02-09 05:53:52 PM  

cman: jso2897: cman: jso2897: cman: When he was called out on his decision he went apeshiat. Thats when the emotion part kicked in. He became an asshole of epic proportions.

Right - and that is all that I am discussing here - nothing else.

Ok, but what does that have to do with gangsters? If you were to read the comment I originally replied to (that started this conversation), you will see it was in a different context.

Now you've lost me - but if you say so. I was just arguing with that one statement - not trying to say you were a jerk to make it. You are not the asshole here, buddy, or me either.

Well I am too damn sober to be debating to begin with


I'm not too far from there myself, albeit on a somewhat more herbal, less fermented basis. We should probably quit before we confuse each other.
 
2014-02-09 05:55:15 PM  

Valiente: cman: How in the blue hell is AOL still making money?

I had no idea it was still a thing.

Now, the question of whether we should keep barely viable preemies such as this one alive...because we can...should be, I think, open to discussion. It's far too early to call this one a win as the kid in the photos might have moderate to severe deficits only time will reveal. Frankly, for every "normal" kid born this early, there's probably another five who die, and three who are disabled in one way or another.

I speak as a father whose second child died in a miscarriage caused at five months gestation from my wife's burst appendix. I'm sad we lost the kid, but glad I didn't have to make the call...even with Canada's "free" healthcare...when the odds of an outcome that doesn't involve pain, institutionalization and an early death are so high.

But as for the douchebag CEO:

You agreed to pay.
You set up the plan.
Actuaries did the math to make the plan, presumably, untaxing on your revenues. And now you're biatching because people who bought in have suffered a medical tragedy?

Shut your farking greedy cakehole and pay, you mendacious coont. Count yourself lucky you aren't skullfarked in an uprising of the 99%

I also hope you have a crippling stroke and die alone and in your own shiat, unable to dial 911, but I wouldn't want to seem vindictive or anything.


There it is. "Kill all the sub par humans"

I was waiting for one of you to show up.
 
2014-02-09 05:55:18 PM  

jso2897: Bungles: OK, I'm British so I find your entire system baffling and ridiculous, but how is AOL out of pocket by $1 million? Isn't the insurance company out a million? Else what the hell is the point of having insurance?

And how does a million make any sort of impact on a massive company's entire retirement system? What?

The man is a pathological liar. I assume that concept is fairly well understood on your side of the pond.


It is not lying to him.
He only respects and recognizes his own gang. You, as Not Gang are not entitled to any farking thing, ever.
You are not entitled to the truth.
You can't handle the truth.
You are only a food source.

If that is somehow confused with "logic", I pity you.
 
2014-02-09 05:55:41 PM  

firefly212: DeaH: Conundrum: Your business is no longer expanding, so your bonus size is determined by how much you can cut.

Solution: Cut your employee 401K, and take home a nice percent for yourself. And:

1) Blame Obamacare. When that doesn't work,
2) Blame a couple of premies.

Conundrum: Your business' profits rose by 13% last year due mainly  to the work of your predecessors.

Solution: give yourself a 300% raise, slash employee benefits, blame Obamacare and premies anyways.



FTFY.
 
2014-02-09 05:57:34 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: gar1013: Fun fact: many companies actually pay the cost of your insurance claims out of their own pocket.

That insurance company you speak of? It processes claims but your employer may be the one footing the bill.

It's called self-insurance.

/the more you know
//works for a company that self insures

What's the benefit of doing that?


Insurance works because an insurance company collects more in premiums than it pays in claims. If your risk pool (number of employees) is large enough, the averages work out in your favor. (You're your own insurance company and you pocket the "profit", essentially.)
 
2014-02-09 05:59:53 PM  

snocone: jso2897: Bungles: OK, I'm British so I find your entire system baffling and ridiculous, but how is AOL out of pocket by $1 million? Isn't the insurance company out a million? Else what the hell is the point of having insurance?

And how does a million make any sort of impact on a massive company's entire retirement system? What?

The man is a pathological liar. I assume that concept is fairly well understood on your side of the pond.

It is not lying to him.
He only respects and recognizes his own gang. You, as Not Gang are not entitled to any farking thing, ever.
You are not entitled to the truth.
You can't handle the truth.
You are only a food source.

If that is somehow confused with "logic", I pity you.


Hey, don't look at me. I'm not the one confusing it with logic - that's his white knights.
I think him a fool and a loser.
Prediction - his career at AOL will end in shame, soon, and he'll walk away with a huge chunk of what is left of their once massive, now almost gone pile of cash. To complement the huge chunk they'll have to pay out to the employees who were publicly exposed with their own HIIPA information.
 
2014-02-09 06:04:46 PM  

groppet: I found one of those freebie Aol disks when I was cleaning out my desk at home the other day. They made good coasters.


My neighbor cut up hundreds of them to make an immense mirror ball. Good times!
 
2014-02-09 06:05:20 PM  

semiotix: Bungles: but how is AOL out of pocket by $1 million? Isn't the insurance company out a million?

They're self-insured. Which is usually a good option if you can afford it (regardless of what's being insured) but a terrible idea if you can't, and if you're complaining about individual babies, you couldn't have afforded it.

Bungles: And how does a million make any sort of impact on a massive company's entire retirement system?

AOL ain't so massive these days.

Bungles: OK, I'm British so I find your entire system baffling and ridiculous,

Many things are baffling and ridiculous. Health care in America is one of the rare non-British examples. I've watched a cricket match... I think.


But... a single complex spread cancer would surely cost more than a million? A single AIDS + ancillary issues patient? A heart-lung transplant? I'd have thought the predicted annual over/under spend variable, ever for a medium sized company, must be in the $100 millions? How on earth could *two* slightly complex medical situations destabilise an entire system? How is that even legally allowed to happen?
 
2014-02-09 06:05:27 PM  
BTW- white knights: Do you think this guy is "doing a good job", and that AOL is "doing well"?
What AOL is doing is selling off patents and other assets for operating cash - the equivalent of busting up the train cars and stuffing the wood into the boiler to keep the locomotive going.
Just another corporate looter - not leader.
 
2014-02-09 06:06:25 PM  
I feel sad that the current generation will never experience anything remotely as active as AOL's chat-rooms during it's heyday.  In retrospect it really was a unique and fascinating way of communicating.
 
2014-02-09 06:07:41 PM  

Bungles: semiotix: Bungles: but how is AOL out of pocket by $1 million? Isn't the insurance company out a million?

They're self-insured. Which is usually a good option if you can afford it (regardless of what's being insured) but a terrible idea if you can't, and if you're complaining about individual babies, you couldn't have afforded it.

Bungles: And how does a million make any sort of impact on a massive company's entire retirement system?

AOL ain't so massive these days.

Bungles: OK, I'm British so I find your entire system baffling and ridiculous,

Many things are baffling and ridiculous. Health care in America is one of the rare non-British examples. I've watched a cricket match... I think.

But... a single complex spread cancer would surely cost more than a million? A single AIDS + ancillary issues patient? A heart-lung transplant? I'd have thought the predicted annual over/under spend variable, ever for a medium sized company, must be in the $100 millions? How on earth could *two* slightly complex medical situations destabilise an entire system? How is that even legally allowed to happen?


It may very well develop that it isn't.
This asshole has already got his company in civil trouble - is criminal trouble that far away?
 
2014-02-09 06:09:34 PM  

dababler: I feel sad that the current generation will never experience anything remotely as active as AOL's chat-rooms during it's heyday.  In retrospect it really was a unique and fascinating way of communicating.


That was then. This is now.
 
2014-02-09 06:12:20 PM  

Cyclometh: So, in conclusion: WHY THE HELL ISN'T THIS GUY IN JAIL YET?


You must have missed the part that said he makes $12MM a year.  Laws don't apply to people with money.
 
2014-02-09 06:13:54 PM  

jso2897: dababler: I feel sad that the current generation will never experience anything remotely as active as AOL's chat-rooms during it's heyday.  In retrospect it really was a unique and fascinating way of communicating.

That was then. This is now.


Still. It is sad that "chatrooms" have all but vanished.
 
2014-02-09 06:14:07 PM  

dababler: I feel sad that the current generation will never experience anything remotely as active as AOL's chat-rooms during it's heyday.  In retrospect it really was a unique and fascinating way of communicating.


There's always this opera. The opera is called Two Boys, and they have an interesting way of showing chartrooms.
 
2014-02-09 06:14:50 PM  
Abortion is illegal EXCEPT in the case when it will save a company money on insurance benefits.

/soon to be on a GOP idea notebook
 
2014-02-09 06:15:12 PM  

jso2897: dababler: I feel sad that the current generation will never experience anything remotely as active as AOL's chat-rooms during it's heyday.  In retrospect it really was a unique and fascinating way of communicating.

That was then. This is now.


pfft, that was nothing.

I was there for that heyday, but from what I have read, AOL connecting to USENET pretty much began its death as the place to be.
 
2014-02-09 06:15:48 PM  

cman: jso2897: dababler: I feel sad that the current generation will never experience anything remotely as active as AOL's chat-rooms during it's heyday.  In retrospect it really was a unique and fascinating way of communicating.

That was then. This is now.

pfft, that was nothing.

I was there for that heyday, but from what I have read as I was not there, AOL connecting to USENET pretty much began its death as the place to be.


Whoops. Fixt.
 
2014-02-09 06:16:35 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: Mitch Taylor's Bro: foo monkey: Good job, mom. Your husband is getting fired tomorrow.

You think so? I think he might be untouchable because she went public and firing him would create an even bigger shiatstorm.

Yeah, he might just be able to rub his balls all over the office without consequence now.


I think I know a few guys who'd be willing to have a distressed baby for this perk alone.
 
2014-02-09 06:27:03 PM  
Came for the RIP Lance Armstrong meme
You know the rest....
 
2014-02-09 06:27:36 PM  

Ernest T Bass: Cyclometh: So, in conclusion: WHY THE HELL ISN'T THIS GUY IN JAIL YET?

You must have missed the part that said he makes $12MM a year.  Laws don't apply to people with money.


That law may not apply to people with money,  But since the "alleged" violation of that law was done as an excuse to modify financial practices of a publicly traded company.   Why aren't the IRS (for the 401k changes) and the SEC (for Sarbanes Oxley complaince) both warming their hands to go over this companies books with the proverbial fine toothed comb?

And like HIPAA, breaking SOX compliance can (but probably won't) also result in Criminal and Civil charges.
 
2014-02-09 06:28:50 PM  

Bloody William: Okay, him blabbing about two "distressed babies" was certainly bad, but... how did HE farking know? How is the CEO privy to the medical treatments and outlays, protected under HIPAA, that any given employee gets?


He didn't have to know anything, he probably pulled that out of his ass like the Obamacare stuff. It was probably supposed to be a way to keep the employees from biatching because nobody would want to be that guy and make a fuss. But go figure, a person like that actually exists, thought he was talking about her, and, in true modern attention-whore-mommy-blogger style, outed herself.
 
2014-02-09 06:29:26 PM  
A question for the "Free marketeers" who defend this guy - does a real, free market capitalist reneg on his agreements when it's convenient?
Because I don't remember Hank Rearden or Francisco D'Anconia welshing on their employees.
 
2014-02-09 06:31:28 PM  

Fear the Clam: Bloody William: Okay, him blabbing about two "distressed babies" was certainly bad, but... how did HE farking know? How is the CEO privy to the medical treatments and outlays, protected under HIPAA, that any given employee gets?

He didn't have to know anything, he probably pulled that out of his ass like the Obamacare stuff. It was probably supposed to be a way to keep the employees from biatching because nobody would want to be that guy and make a fuss. But go figure, a person like that actually exists, thought he was talking about her, and, in true modern attention-whore-mommy-blogger style, outed herself.


Actually, her husband's colleagues had figured out who they were before the article was written, but nice try.
Lawsuit like the fist of an angry god in 3-2-1.........
 
2014-02-09 06:31:34 PM  

jso2897: A question for the "Free marketeers" who defend this guy - does a real, free market capitalist reneg on his agreements when it's convenient?
Because I don't remember Hank Rearden or Francisco D'Anconia welshing on their employees.


People are gonna push you around. Eventually people have to stand up. Management has all the power. This has resulted in income inequality the likes that our nation has never seen. The lack of labor power is why our economy is shiat, because wages havent risen. You cant grow without growth.
 
2014-02-09 06:32:14 PM  

Cyclometh: OK, so here's some research I've done and why I think Tom Armstrong is or should be in a lot of trouble for violation of the Health Insuarnce Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

HIPAA is a complex regulation, but is not hard to understand if you spend a couple of minutes learning some basics.
 ...


Thank you for this.  I assumed he was violating HIPAA as well, but didn't do the research
 
2014-02-09 06:32:31 PM  
With comments like this, you have to wonder why we decided to double down on employer provided health care under the ACA.
 
2014-02-09 06:33:00 PM  

Bungles: But... a single complex spread cancer would surely cost more than a million? A single AIDS + ancillary issues patient? A heart-lung transplant? I'd have thought the predicted annual over/under spend variable, ever for a medium sized company, must be in the $100 millions? How on earth could *two* slightly complex medical situations destabilise an entire system? How is that even legally allowed to happen?


That's precisely what Reinsurance is for.  A company that has over 500 employees is generally financially able (legally) to cover their own insurance.  But as a duty to their fiduciaries, they also have Reinsurance, which covers exactly the sort of catastrophe that AOL experienced.  I know this because I've been in healthcare for the last 20 years, and my company literally "forgot" to buy reinsurance a few years ago, costing the company's plan $4 million one year, which they wouldn't have ordinarily had to pay.  And my company had less than a thousand employees at the time.  If AOL didn't have reinsurance, whomever made that decision should be fired.  It's a common and expected practice.
 
2014-02-09 06:33:02 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: This just in: A lot of really wealthy people are sociopaths.


You don't say?
 
2014-02-09 06:34:05 PM  

cman: jso2897: A question for the "Free marketeers" who defend this guy - does a real, free market capitalist reneg on his agreements when it's convenient?
Because I don't remember Hank Rearden or Francisco D'Anconia welshing on their employees.

People are gonna push you around. Eventually people have to stand up. Management has all the power. This has resulted in income inequality the likes that our nation has never seen. The lack of labor power is why our economy is shiat, because wages havent risen. You cant grow without growth.


Oh, I know - I was speaking tongue in cheek.
So to speak.
 
2014-02-09 06:34:41 PM  

Bungles: But... a single complex spread cancer would surely cost more than a million? A single AIDS + ancillary issues patient? A heart-lung transplant? I'd have thought the predicted annual over/under spend variable, ever for a medium sized company, must be in the $100 millions? How on earth could *two* slightly complex medical situations destabilise an entire system? How is that even legally allowed to happen?


It does seem to have been a very poor business decision, which may account for why this genius is trying to shift the blame onto those goddamn babies.

It's legal because companies larger than a certain size are required to (and have long been  expectedto) provide health insurance for their employees, but there is no law saying a company must never fail, fold, or go bankrupt. I don't know about AOL's situation specifically, but self-insurance as a rule is fairly carefully regulated, and they probably had to sock away a fair amount of money to be permitted to do it.
 
2014-02-09 06:36:20 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: gar1013: Fun fact: many companies actually pay the cost of your insurance claims out of their own pocket.

Companies can either take on the risk themselves or they can pay another company to take on the risk. That's what insurance is - risk management. They chose to take a risk by choosing to pay out on insurance hoping that the cost would be less than if they paid another company to take on the risk, saving them money. It sounds like that gamble didn't pay off. Sorry that their gamble didn't work out for them, but that's not a reason to cut back on benefits.

Armstrong can go fark himsefl.


That gamble still pays off unless they suck at negotiating payments.

They'll make up for it next year. Or.. They could make up for it by cutting coverage. There's always that.

/oh.. wait..
 
2014-02-09 06:36:31 PM  

jso2897: cman: jso2897: A question for the "Free marketeers" who defend this guy - does a real, free market capitalist reneg on his agreements when it's convenient?
Because I don't remember Hank Rearden or Francisco D'Anconia welshing on their employees.

People are gonna push you around. Eventually people have to stand up. Management has all the power. This has resulted in income inequality the likes that our nation has never seen. The lack of labor power is why our economy is shiat, because wages havent risen. You cant grow without growth.

Oh, I know - I was speaking tongue in cheek.
So to speak.


I am a free-market guy, but I am not blind to what is wrong with our economic troubles. You cant tax cut your way out of this. Wages need to ruse.
 
2014-02-09 06:40:51 PM  

cman: jso2897: cman: jso2897: A question for the "Free marketeers" who defend this guy - does a real, free market capitalist reneg on his agreements when it's convenient?
Because I don't remember Hank Rearden or Francisco D'Anconia welshing on their employees.

People are gonna push you around. Eventually people have to stand up. Management has all the power. This has resulted in income inequality the likes that our nation has never seen. The lack of labor power is why our economy is shiat, because wages havent risen. You cant grow without growth.

Oh, I know - I was speaking tongue in cheek.
So to speak.

I am a free-market guy, but I am not blind to what is wrong with our economic troubles. You cant tax cut your way out of this. Wages need to ruse.


Yes, I am aware that there are conservatively inclined people who can still do simple arithmetic. the fact that I feel moved to complement you for it speaks volumes about the state of contemporary "consrvatism", if you can even call it that. This guy sure as shiat wouldn't:
i18.photobucket.com
I only hope that here is no afterlife. I don't care to think of this good and brave man looking down on what his party and his country have become.
 
2014-02-09 06:46:36 PM  
you people can keep your distressed babies.  mark my words, acid washed babies are going to be next year's big thing.
 
2014-02-09 06:47:14 PM  

jso2897: MycroftHolmes: jso2897: cman: snocone: Remember when it was the gangsters that said "This is not personal, it is just business." BANG BANG

Meet the New Gangsters.

I wouldnt call them gangsters

He made a decision void of emotion. It was pure logic. Why did he do it that way? Most likely it is because there is too much of a disconnect between the CEO and his employees. AOL is a big company so it is very hard to get on a first name basis with your employees.

If what happened to the baby happened to someone who was on the board, someone who the CEO interacted with, then he would have that emotional aspect to his decision, and that could have changed his mind.

You are wrong. This gentleman's decision to humiliate his employees family was anything but "logical" - it was petulant, childish, nasty, and utterly emotion driven - the act of a teenaged punk.

In a company the size of AOL, it is unlikely that the vast majority of people knew about the people involved.  And if you have ever talked to anyone in HR and benefits, it is not an emotional or nasty thing to understand that certain medical conditions, and certain populations, have a higher cost that must be accounted for.  I do wonder, however, if in a population of 5,600, if 2 to 4 million of cost really bent the curve that much

So you are actually defending this? Wow.
I don't see why he had any necessity to do this - it was a slap at his own employees, and the identity of the employees whose HIIPA info he publicly discussed were, as a matter of truth and fact, quickly exposed and subject to interrogation by fellow employees.
What business purpose did his little speech serve?


Unless there is more information than what is presented, he did not violate any HIPAA PHI regulations.  He would have needed to provide PII to go along with the medical information to provide PHI.

The guy may very well be an a$$hole, i don't follow AOL that closely.  But the two facts
1. High medical costs incurred are directly (if self insured) or indirectly(if third party insured) by the company and affect he bottom line
2. People in HR and benefits, as well as CFO's and other financial types will often discuss this with no animus or emotion.

I was not privy to the call so I cannot speak to his tone or intent.
 
2014-02-09 06:47:15 PM  
It always nice that when dollars and cents matter, we can always trump it with a heart rendering story that somehow pays the bill and makes the underlying problem go away.

/and don't think I'm a heartless bastard. I lost twins under similar circumstances.
 
2014-02-09 06:48:09 PM  

Bloody William: austin_millbarge: Mitch Taylor's Bro: foo monkey: Good job, mom. Your husband is getting fired tomorrow.

You think so? I think he might be untouchable because she went public and firing him would create an even bigger shiatstorm.

Not to mention the only way he might avoid a privacy lawsuit is because the husband stays employed.

Wait wait wait. I just realized something.

Okay, him blabbing about two "distressed babies" was certainly bad, but... how did HE farking know? How is the CEO privy to the medical treatments and outlays, protected under HIPAA, that any given employee gets?


Hopefully there's a lawsuit on the way from Mommy discussing exactly this.
 
2014-02-09 06:53:27 PM  

jso2897: cman: jso2897: cman: jso2897: A question for the "Free marketeers" who defend this guy - does a real, free market capitalist reneg on his agreements when it's convenient?
Because I don't remember Hank Rearden or Francisco D'Anconia welshing on their employees.

People are gonna push you around. Eventually people have to stand up. Management has all the power. This has resulted in income inequality the likes that our nation has never seen. The lack of labor power is why our economy is shiat, because wages havent risen. You cant grow without growth.

Oh, I know - I was speaking tongue in cheek.
So to speak.

I am a free-market guy, but I am not blind to what is wrong with our economic troubles. You cant tax cut your way out of this. Wages need to ruse.

Yes, I am aware that there are conservatively inclined people who can still do simple arithmetic. the fact that I feel moved to complement you for it speaks volumes about the state of contemporary "consrvatism", if you can even call it that. This guy sure as shiat wouldn't:
[i18.photobucket.com image 553x613]
I only hope that here is no afterlife. I don't care to think of this good and brave man looking down on what his party and his country have become.


I am a Whig which is center-right, not necessarily a conservative. It is my belief that our economy has evolved to a point where the primary purpose is to progress mankind technologically. The best way is through competition. When people compete, the best comes out of everyone. I also believe the government exists to ensure a stable society. When our economy gets farked up, that really destabilizes everything. In order to ensure that this does not happen there need to be common sense regulations and also a well-funded police organization to investigate business crimes. What happened in 2008 should have never happened to begin with. People were sleeping and we got farked over.
 
2014-02-09 06:53:37 PM  

PreMortem: I actually read TFA and I don't get what she "said" to the CEO. It was more of an account of what she and her family went through.

That being said, FEDUCIARY DUTY. If you don't like it, behead a few CEOs. Otherwise STFU.


Slashing employee retirements while giving yourself a 300% raise has nothing to do with fiduciary duty.
 
2014-02-09 06:59:25 PM  
His comment is par for the course, nothing more.
 
2014-02-09 06:59:47 PM  

MycroftHolmes: jso2897: MycroftHolmes: jso2897: cman: snocone: Remember when it was the gangsters that said "This is not personal, it is just business." BANG BANG

Meet the New Gangsters.

I wouldnt call them gangsters

He made a decision void of emotion. It was pure logic. Why did he do it that way? Most likely it is because there is too much of a disconnect between the CEO and his employees. AOL is a big company so it is very hard to get on a first name basis with your employees.

If what happened to the baby happened to someone who was on the board, someone who the CEO interacted with, then he would have that emotional aspect to his decision, and that could have changed his mind.

You are wrong. This gentleman's decision to humiliate his employees family was anything but "logical" - it was petulant, childish, nasty, and utterly emotion driven - the act of a teenaged punk.

In a company the size of AOL, it is unlikely that the vast majority of people knew about the people involved.  And if you have ever talked to anyone in HR and benefits, it is not an emotional or nasty thing to understand that certain medical conditions, and certain populations, have a higher cost that must be accounted for.  I do wonder, however, if in a population of 5,600, if 2 to 4 million of cost really bent the curve that much

So you are actually defending this? Wow.
I don't see why he had any necessity to do this - it was a slap at his own employees, and the identity of the employees whose HIIPA info he publicly discussed were, as a matter of truth and fact, quickly exposed and subject to interrogation by fellow employees.
What business purpose did his little speech serve?

Unless there is more information than what is presented, he did not violate any HIPAA PHI regulations.  He would have needed to provide PII to go along with the medical information to provide PHI.

The guy may very well be an a$$hole, i don't follow AOL that closely.  But the two facts
1. High medical costs incurred are directly (if ...


He revealed enough about his employees HIIPA information that they were easily identified by coworkers - his evident intent.
That may not violate the criminal provisions of HIIPA, but that hardly matters, except as a deflecting tactic.
The damage to the company's public image has already been done, and more will follow with the inevitable media shiatstorm and almost obligatory lawsuits (or, far more likely, fat settlements).
 
2014-02-09 07:01:18 PM  

Nick Nostril: His comment is par for the course, nothing more.


Oh, I think "civilly actionable" is more.
 
2014-02-09 07:01:46 PM  

Needlessly Complicated: God Is My Co-Pirate: "Two things that happened in 2012," Armstrong said. "We had two AOL-ers that had distressed babies that were born that we paid a million dollars each to make sure those babies were OK in general. And those are the things that add up into our benefits cost. So when we had the final decision about what benefits to cut because of the increased healthcare costs, we made the decision, and I made the decision, to basically change the 401(k) plan."

Christ, what an asshole.

Came here to say this.

If the insurance company jacked up the rates based on exposure, it's the insurance company's fault. Why isn't the CEO blasting them? Also, the benefits manager sucks for not being able to negotiate better rates.

Guess it's just easier to blame the blah guy and his socialist healthcare.


Unless of course AOL self-insures its employee healthcare and the insurance company is just a glorified payment processor.
 
2014-02-09 07:03:16 PM  
So who gives a rotund rodents rosy red rectum about  her fragile freakin crotch-squeezins?

I vote she dies!
 
Displayed 50 of 274 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report