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 127
    More: Cool, CEO, pre-eclampsia, federal benefits, premature birth  
•       •       •

17010 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2014 at 3:32 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-09 03:41:20 PM  
19 votes:
The CEO failed to mention that his personal compensation jumped from $3 million to $12 million during the time when Obamacare supposedly cost them $7 million and two babies $1 million each. fark that guy. Seriously. He's disgusting.
2014-02-09 03:54:47 PM  
15 votes:

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?
2014-02-09 03:25:48 PM  
15 votes:
Let's hear it for the World's Greatest Nation, where your only purpose is to make profit for one company or another.

"Fark you if you get sick, and for Fark's sake don't you DARE have a baby prematurely. The cost of that would cut profits, if we didn't find the money by reducing the benefits package again.  What do you think insurance is for - YOU??  You selfish asshole who cost the insurance company money?  Just for that, we're taking out of everyone else's hide, too.  And we're going to make sure they know who is responsible."

The more I watch the happenings in the US, the more I like Canada.  Even if the shopping isn't as good.
2014-02-09 03:24:24 PM  
14 votes:
"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.
2014-02-09 03:49:46 PM  
13 votes:
This just in: A lot of really wealthy people are sociopaths.
2014-02-09 03:46:06 PM  
12 votes:
Dear Tim Armstrong: even if you're self-insuring your employees health care costs, you write a stop-loss policy for the small number of employees with catastrophic health care costs.  Usually it is because of cancer or auto accidents but your failure to do so is financial malfeasance.
2014-02-09 03:41:32 PM  
11 votes:
What a farking scumbag.

AOL's total assets are almost $2.8 billion. Tim Armstrong's pay last year was  six times the cost of those two "distressed babies"  living.
2014-02-09 04:07:27 PM  
9 votes:
What the f*ck screwed up insurance did this company have?

My daughter was 9 weeks early. My wife spent two weeks in the hospital prior to the emergency C-section, and 9 weeks premature was scary as Hells, at 1lb 14oz at birth. She was in the NICU for two months, and my wife spent another two weeks in the hospital as well. We had a Blue Cross plan that never batted an eye, and even hooked us up with home health aids when she finally came home, along with the oxygen and the rest of the goodies the hospital wanted us to have on hand, just in case.

My employer was NOT on the scale of AOL--even today. The Iron Horse Entertainment Group is big for our area--four clubs, a ticket office that gives Ticketmaster a run for its money at least for shows in Western Mass, and two restaurants in the clubs--but it's not exactly a multi-million dollar sort of operation, and the employee pool is easily less than 100 folks for those who qualify for insurance in company. My wife's eclampsia and our daughter's extended stay at Bay State probably didn't make the folks at Blue Cross thrilled, but somehow we didn't see rises in our insurance costs. Yes, my wife and daughter's hospital bills were easily into the $750K range, and a bit more, and with our co-pay, it was $250 out of my pocket. Plus the loss of sleep, the worry, the gas in trips to Springfield while working and trying to see that the house was geared up for our daughter's homecoming, and the additional worry of getting paternity leave for when she came home.

If a small company like IHEG didn't have to drop its insurance or raise rates, or cut benefits, what kind of bullsh*t is this excuse? Really? Just admit: we don't like to cover people, so screwum, and screw their retirement, and screw all these folks, and I'mma blame anyone for the loss of revenue that we've been seeing because our organization is losing out to a lot of other folks, and I can't just admit that we haven't stayed competitive.

cman
--That wasn't a decision based in logic. It was a decision based on bullsh*t, unless AOL somehow managed to find an insurance provider that ONLY had AOL employees as their clients. It was a decision that was made to indeed boost profits, but he's just reaching for excuses at this point to justify it. He's just trying to spin, "Hey, if we don't do something fast, I may not make my quarterly bonus, because for damn sure my stocks ain't riding high nowadays..."
2014-02-09 03:39:32 PM  
9 votes:

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.
2014-02-09 03:38:10 PM  
8 votes:

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.



Yeah, wow.

"Insurance did what it was supposed to, which became expensive, so we're dropping insurance.  Since it did what it was supposed to."
2014-02-09 03:07:25 PM  
8 votes:
Remember when it was the gangsters that said "This is not personal, it is just business." BANG BANG

Meet the New Gangsters.
2014-02-09 05:27:37 PM  
7 votes:
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.

The first thing to understand is that HIPAA is broken into two parts- the "Security Rule" and the "Privacy Rule". We're only interested in the Privacy Rule here. The Security Rule covers things like how electronic data is stored, what safeguards there are against its being disclosed, and regulations for who can access electronic health care data (in point of fact, for Tom Armstrong to be aware of such specifics, there had to be one or more violations of the Security Rule, but let's just stick to the Privacy Rule for now).

For most of this, I'll be referring to this document:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/combined/hipaa-s im plification-201303.pdf

That is is an "Administrative Simplification" of the HIPAA requirements, boiling it all down into one document instead of requiring you to trawl through the CFR, the HIPAA text itself (laws are different than the regulations they create) and other such mind-numbing tasks.

Anayway, the big question we have to answer: Is AOL and its staff subject to HIPAA?

HIPAA is only applicable to "covered entities", which are enumerated in the regulations (see § 160.102 and § 160.103)

AOL self-insures, making it a "health care provider" under the regulation. It might be a "hybrid entity" because it also does non-healthcare stuff. But either way the Privacy Rule applies.
Here's a summary of the "Privacy Rule":

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.htm l

Here's a set of flowcharts for easy determination of whether a business is a "covered entity".

http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/HIPAA-Administrative-Sim pl ification/HIPAAGenInfo/Downloads/CoveredEntitycharts.pdf

In conclusion: Yes, AOL is a "covered entity", making it subject to HIPAA requirements.

So, if AOL is subject to HIPAA, did Tom Armstrong violate any of its provisions?

We have to ask if the information in question was "protected health information" (PHI). PHI means all "individually identifiable" information that is "held or transmitted" by a covered entity or business associate. Specifically, it includes, but isn't limited to:

* The individual's past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
* The provision of health care to the individual, or
* The past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,
* and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.

Given what Armstrong said, and the paucity of people to whom his statements could apply, it's quite clear that the information about this woman and her child was indeed PHI.

CFR 45 § 164.502 states that: "A covered entity or business associate may not use or disclose protected health information, except as permitted or required by this subpart or by subpart C of part 160 of this subchapter." Uses permitted or required are to allow for healthcare decisions and support. What Armstrong said was specifically NOT a legitimate disclosure.

Potential Outcomes

So now that we know that Armstrong did violate the Privacy Rule (and it looks like his organization violated the hell out of the Security Rule, because the CEO never needed to see PHI to do his work at AOL, which is a GLARING violation of the rule), what is the potential outcome?

There's a couple. HIPAA only identifies civil monetary penalties within the privacy and security rules, but those penalties can be excessive- millions of dollars. And HHS has been getting tougher of late.

However, I'd like to call your attention to a fun little section of the US Code. Specifically US Code § 1320d-6 - Wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1320d-6

If someone knowingly "discloses indivdiudally identifiable health information to another person", they're subject to criminal penalties. Those include fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to ten years, depending on the severity of the violation and whether it was done with intent to gain commercial advantage.


So, in conclusion: WHY THE HELL ISN'T THIS GUY IN JAIL YET?
2014-02-09 04:13:25 PM  
7 votes:
What I'm saying is Peter Goodman is high up enough at Huffington post that if he was dropped from his position "for cause" (and not simply shuffled around, taking a better offer somewhere else, the usual dance high-level editors do), completely apart from this Tim Armstrong thing, it would be a minor but noteworthy change in media circles. He's high up enough that if he got fired for a specific fark-up, my peers in the industry would hear about it. And this has become bad enough that if he got fired in the next year for  not a specific fark-up, it would basically be Armstrong's head.
2014-02-09 04:08:19 PM  
6 votes:

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

They're primarily a media company, now.  They own The Huffington Post, Moviefone, Engadget, Patch, Stylelist, TechCrunch, MapQuest and Cambio among others.  As a small clue, the article mentions the author's husband is an editor with AOL.

Their current business model bears little resemblance to the business that made them a household name.


In this case, her husband is the Executive Business Editor at Huffington Post. As in he's in the second cluster of their masthead. As in he runs a big chunk of the biggest name in AOL's content portfolio.

As in Tim Armstrong farked up unbelievably royal. Executive editor position isn't C-level, EiC, or managing editor, but it's the next rung or two down. It would have looked bad if Armstrong said this and the people in question were analysts, or associate editors, or designers, or any people in content production but near the bottom of the pyramid. This is Armstrong pulling a giant farking boner if this gets any significant traction.

Basically it's like the new CEO of Microsoft just said he cut benefits because a senior vice president of Skype had a sick infant.
2014-02-09 04:00:57 PM  
6 votes:
If he doesn't want to be responsible for employee health costs, maybe he should start lobbying for single payer.
2014-02-09 03:59:11 PM  
6 votes:
Add Armstrong to the whiny 1%.

Good to hear that this "distressed baby" made it and will likely grow up, gradually losing any signs she was born premature.  At least, if my track record is anything to go on, she can.  .  I was born just a little under three pounds, blue as a smurf, with all sorts of complications that kept me in the neonatal ICU for a month and a half before my mother was allowed to touch me.  Thirty years on, I'm a healthy six-foot-tall weighing 175 pounds.  I maintain a physically active lifestyle and am on my way in the professional career of my choice.
2014-02-09 03:58:50 PM  
6 votes:

gar1013: Occam's Disposable Razor: Make no mistake, insurance of every kind exists to fark you. They don't turn a profit by paying out more than they take in.

You know what you call an insurance company that pays out more than it takes in?

Insolvent. Unable to pay claims.

Do you want to buy insurance, and then not have the company be able to make good on a claim?

The only type of insurance that doesn't face this risk is insurance from the government...and if you knew anything about the federal flood insurance program or the FHA, you'd know that they're both screwed up.


Not saying I have a better system, just saying they'll do everything they can not to pay you - it's the necessity of the business. I work in healthcare, I've seen companies try to weasel out of paying for life saving cancer drugs. I'm not talking about stuff that grants an extra 6 months, I'm talking about stuff like Gleevec that can keep someone in remission and living a completely normal life potentially for decades. Patient has insurance, patient gets sicks, gets diagnosis, patient responds beautifully to treatment, insurance company tries to deny coverage. For literally the only disease the drug was developed and approved to treat. Absolute insanity.
2014-02-09 03:54:01 PM  
5 votes:

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.


For the longest time, there was a very creepy unwillingness on the part of a lot of people to blame insurers for health care costs. Granted, conservatives rounded up the usual suspects - generally the victims - though they tried to mitigate this by pointing fingers, Sutherland-like, at trial lawyers. But the meme was somehow apolitical - no one really asked why insurers charged so much, no one really asked why they provided so little. It took a long, long time before people started looking at the wealthy middlemen and gong "Hey wait a minute."

Politicians, you can sort of understand - insurers were shoveling money into their pockets as fast as they could print it, and they're awesome at turning a blind eye. But the general public somehow never picked up on who was screwing them.
2014-02-09 03:07:53 PM  
5 votes:
How in the blue hell is AOL still making money?
2014-02-09 05:45:59 PM  
4 votes:
The same year that distressed baby cost the company $3 million, the CEO cost AOL nine extra million dollars, for a total of 12, as he got a 300% raise from his former salary of $3 million the year before.  Decking sociopath
2014-02-09 05:18:21 PM  
4 votes:

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.
2014-02-09 04:44:39 PM  
4 votes:

b3x: we were told at work that our health costs were going up, and coverage was going down (thanks obama care!) because my company is 95% women, and women go to the doctor too much. I work at a women's health facility. Kind of funny, isn't it?


It is kinda funny, especially because it's bullshiat.

In 2014, insurers will no longer be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men
2014-02-09 04:31:27 PM  
4 votes:

Old Smokie: Health care costs go up 30% a year.  You think this is about some CEO being an asshole?  Wake up


Actually, what I think that most folks here think is that the CEO IS an asshat, and that the excuses for why he's an being forced to be an asshat are just his being modest for his natural talent. The fiduciary reasons are dubious at best, and he's looking to excuse his actions, by invoking "the market" when it comes down to a guy who seems to like to screw with folks to pad his own pockets, and shed any sort of blame for his innate dickishness.
2014-02-09 04:25:09 PM  
4 votes:
This is the guy that fired the guy on a company conference call last year in front of 1000 coworkers.


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 04:15:26 PM  
4 votes:
Willful violations of HIPAA carry prison time.
2014-02-09 04:07:48 PM  
4 votes:
I hope this story is a lesson for all those whiny-assed people who complain about Obamacare on the grounds that, because they're in their twenties and healthy there is no need for them to have insurance coverage so why should they pay premiums to help some old fark with lung cancer or a gay with AIDS.  Remember, you can never count that your happy, uneventful life will continue and when you begin to rack up medical bills mandatory healthcare coverage will instantly become a blessing rather than an anchor around your neck.
2014-02-09 03:55:51 PM  
4 votes:

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.
2014-02-09 03:50:44 PM  
4 votes:

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.
2014-02-09 03:50:41 PM  
4 votes:

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


The same way Fox News does... off old people who don't know any better.
2014-02-09 03:47:07 PM  
4 votes:

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.


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
2014-02-09 06:33:00 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:51:27 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:47:11 PM  
3 votes:

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.


No, it's an even more insidious issue than that. The wealthy are totally divorced from reality and are no longer trying to operate profitable businesses for everyone's benefit (stockholders, employees, etc.). They now take home ever more exaggerated sums each year, which has a material effect on company healthy. Notice that he said just two babies with $1 million of health care costs were enough to make him change the benefits package for all of the employees in the ENTIRE COMPANY. Meanwhile, he personally took home $12 million just himself - and I'd be awful surprised if that was the sum and total of his entire compensation plan... And adding up the other executives you would no doubt have a veritable cash mountain...

But yeah, it's those TWO babies that were the fault, even though the company pulled in increased profits despite them and they were able to reinstate the plans without any problems once it blew up in their faces... Could he not run AOL for $2 million a year? $5 million? No, it has to be $12 million, to the point where executive costs have gotten so out of control that they choose between employee benefits, and profitability just to hoard ever more obscene sacks of wealth.

The problem is that we have a cultural problem of our wealthiest treating the rest of society as their personal slush funds and too many people being brainwashed by flawed right-wing ideology who enable them.
2014-02-09 05:31:36 PM  
3 votes:
Single. Payer. No, it's not socialism. Want a nice house and a fancy car and a vacation in Mexico, that's on you. But we could go to a Single payer for the cost of a slight trim in the already excessive military budget.
2014-02-09 05:05:45 PM  
3 votes:
My boss always said she couldn't afford our health insurance - single mom, one income, etc. Our basic plan is roughly $175/month out of pocket. It's not great coverage, but it's there. Then she ended up in the hospital with appendicitis and is looking at a $20k bill from her stay - and that was the "reduced" bill they ended up giving her. That's essentially ten years of paying into insurance right there.

I'd rather give up something else in my life (she's a smoker) for the guarantee that if something DOES happen to land me in the hospital, I won't have to sell a kidney to pay for it.

Fark all these companies saying they "can't afford insurance," all while raking in record profits and paying their CEO's millions and millions of dollars. Take care of your employees, FFS.
2014-02-09 04:55:21 PM  
3 votes:

That Guy Jeff: 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.

That's how decisions should be made. No one gains when we are weighed down with appeals to pathos and the whaarble of emotional parents screaming "won't someone think of the children!"


Except of course, it's a business decision that has Jesus involved, then it's just fine?

I hate to break this to the folks who think that business is JUST about the numbers, but the key to being a good manager, and steering a business well, is to pay attention to not just numbers, but people. Your customers, your employees, and more than just a cursory card at Christmas or a cute note on your birthday. Business has to do with personal relationships, because that's who you do business with. Your employees, your customers, and ignoring that portion of the equation, and ignoring the psychology of folks, and their reactions gets a ton of businesses in a lot of trouble every year. Beyond just the Nervous Nellies who point to the TV machine and wail about the chill'runs when there is a hint of boob, or who worry that the The Discovery Channel doesn't credit Jesus and Yahweh for the Big Bang. Market confidence, and reading trends has to involve understanding people. Real people. Not just imaginary ones, and understanding that all those trends involve upright apes that are huge balls of reactionary emotion and barely tamped down rage and fear machines fueled by glands and secretions triggered by words and images around them. And that people tend to talk, and that communication travels fair fast.
2014-02-09 04:29:16 PM  
3 votes:
If the cost of health is such a burden on companies as this stupid example illustrates, then I have to wonder why they're not lobbying HARD to introduce true universal health care, paid through income taxes.
2014-02-09 04:28:05 PM  
3 votes:
When my second son was born he was premature and spent a bit over two weeks in the hospital, with an incubator, breathing support,feeding tube and all the rest. (Norfolk Sentara was awesome.) He's completely healthy today.

Because he was adopted, his bill was picked by Medi-cal. I have no idea what it cost since I never saw a bill for so much as a dime. I also didn't spend a single second fighting an insurance company about denying care.

Remember folks, government single payer health care is evil socialism. Don't let what happened to me and my son happen to the rest of the US.
2014-02-09 04:27:22 PM  
3 votes:
August 2013: AOL CEO Tim Armstrong fires an employee live on a conference call.
January 2014: AOE CEO Tim Armstrong blames benefit cuts on two sick infants during a conference call.

Maybe this guy should rethink doing conference calls. Actually, no, maybe this guy needs to do  more conference calls.
2014-02-09 04:22:50 PM  
3 votes:

Bloody William: What I'm saying is Peter Goodman is high up enough at Huffington post that if he was dropped from his position "for cause" (and not simply shuffled around, taking a better offer somewhere else, the usual dance high-level editors do), completely apart from this Tim Armstrong thing, it would be a minor but noteworthy change in media circles. He's high up enough that if he got fired for a specific fark-up, my peers in the industry would hear about it. And this has become bad enough that if he got fired in the next year for  not a specific fark-up, it would basically be Armstrong's head.


Things are gonna get interesting at AOL, I'm thinking.
2014-02-09 04:16:19 PM  
3 votes:

gar1013: Seriously?

Walk through what happens in the other scenario: health insurance company pays out additional claims, they raise rates. Company portion of your health insurance either goes up, or they pass it along to the employees.


Assuming you're running the company as a human being who recognizes that other human beings work for you and you're not one of the computers in the Star Trek episode "A Taste of Armageddon," you deal with the former choice or apply the latter in a more subtle way that doesn't involve advertising a direct case of "This baby almost died and it's really expensive, so I cut their benefits."
2014-02-09 04:15:45 PM  
3 votes:

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.

3) Whatever you do, don't blame your own greed or $12 million salary.

FTFY
2014-02-09 04:01:41 PM  
3 votes:

b3x: we were told at work that our health costs were going up, and coverage was going down (thanks obama care!) because my company is 95% women, and women go to the doctor too much. I work at a women's health facility. Kind of funny, isn't it?


Not really, no.
b3x
2014-02-09 03:58:46 PM  
3 votes:
we were told at work that our health costs were going up, and coverage was going down (thanks obama care!) because my company is 95% women, and women go to the doctor too much. I work at a women's health facility. Kind of funny, isn't it?
2014-02-09 03:52:51 PM  
3 votes:
Maybe the problem isn't douche CEO, maybe the problem is a bunch of morons that for some reason want to keep the only medical oligopoly in the developed world well fed.
2014-02-09 03:47:10 PM  
3 votes:

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.


This. Armstrong made $12 million in 2012. He could've paid $2 million out of his own pocket and barely felt it. How would that payout hurt the company's bottom line?

Also, isn't the employee health insurance risk pool bigger than just AOL employees? Or does working for AOL suck that bad that their employees suffer a disproportionately higher rate of health problems?
2014-02-09 03:45:45 PM  
3 votes:
Let's set aside the fact that Armstrong-who took home $12 million in pay in 2012-felt the need to announce a cut in employee benefits on the very day that he touted the best quarterly earnings in years.

How dare you peons not understand the pain of only bringing home $12 million for your family!  Why, if he hadn't cut all those benefits, he wouldn't be able to keep posting record profits for the company and then his family might suffer!  You goddamn well don't need those benefits as much as the company needs those profits so you should be ashamed of yourselves!  SHAME ON YOU!
2014-02-09 03:41:33 PM  
3 votes:

AngryDragon: Good for you, mom.  Fark him right in the ass.


And she will. Major healthcare privacy violation
2014-02-09 07:43:08 PM  
2 votes:

jso2897: By the way - this guy REVERSED his decision (you know - that fiscally sound, supersmart executive type guy decision) yesterday evening.
So apparently, it was all mean-spirited bullshiat, just to make himself look like a tough guy.
I got news for this guy - I could carve a better, tougher man than him out of a banana.


Pretty much. He's looking to justify a position, that isn't justified by facts, and folks are lining up to congratulate him, because it sounds cool, because it says, "Hey, we're just being tough."
2014-02-09 07:31:49 PM  
2 votes:
What the hell.

What the hell is next from this type of abhuman creature?

"How dare you peons try to breed!"

"How dare you deliberately have malfunctioning offspring!!"

Is that what's coming?

Is there a connection to "Why didn't you just put an aspirin between your knees, you filthy sluts!"??

I keep seeing these patterns.
2014-02-09 06:31:28 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:53:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:23:00 PM  
2 votes:

Testiclaw: 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.


Yeah, wow.

"Insurance did what it was supposed to, which became expensive, so we're dropping insurance.  Since it did what it was supposed to."


The insurance basically distributes risk and cost.  It did what it was supposed to, but the atypical costs (the two high cost patients) changed the amount of risk to be distributed which meant that more money had to be recovered (especially if they were self insured).  Even if you are insured, there bills still need to be paid, and that has to come from somewhere.  He decided that it would come from the 401(k) plan, which basically likely means that he lowered the discretionary match.

The argument isn't 'OMG Insurance is magic, he is making up excuses to reduce benefits'.  The argument should be 'Is a company that values making market expectations of earnings over employee benefits and retention sustainable over the long run'  Unfortunately, history has usually proven the former to be true.

And yes, the company prioritizes making money.  This is why companies form.  This is why investors invest in them.  It is hopelessly naive to think that publicly traded companies should be in business for any other reason than to maximize profit.  That doesn't mean you have to use slash and burn tactics with your employees, several highly profitable companies treat their employees well.  But it is silly to think that any public company is going to act without considering its bottom line.
2014-02-09 05:05:24 PM  
2 votes:
Nice to see so much support for the mom in here rather than the usual Fark Neckbeardy "whargarbl, a kid cried on my plane once so let's voluntarily go extinct as a species because nobody will ever hump me anyway without cash up front" bullcrap.
2014-02-09 04:25:38 PM  
2 votes:
Even if AOL is self insured, and they likely are - AFAIK, they will buy an umbrella policy to cover them if they get more than some limit, say $25 million in claims in the year.

Besides what the ACA does change is that insurance can no longer have a cap, that could have been $1 million leaving this family bankrupt when the baby's bills exceeded the $1 million. There is a well-known less than middle-aged podcaster who suddenly had a stroke at dinner and had the cost of his medical care exceed the $1 million maximum.

Besides Armstrong needs to remember that the death panels were supposed to be for the elderly, not newborns.
2014-02-09 04:22:34 PM  
2 votes:

gar1013: Occam's Disposable Razor: Make no mistake, insurance of every kind exists to fark you. They don't turn a profit by paying out more than they take in.

You know what you call an insurance company that pays out more than it takes in?

Insolvent. Unable to pay claims.

Do you want to buy insurance, and then not have the company be able to make good on a claim?

The only type of insurance that doesn't face this risk is insurance from the government...and if you knew anything about the federal flood insurance program or the FHA, you'd know that they're both screwed up.


Wrong. Insurance companies can be profitable with combined ratios over 100% due to investment income. Insurance companies exist in essence to take your premium, invest it and hold off on paying claims as long as they can
2014-02-09 04:16:02 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-02-09 04:10:21 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2014-02-09 04:07:43 PM  
2 votes:

gar1013: 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?

Cheaper for the company.

If you have enough capital, why pay to use the capital of the insurance company.


So that a couple of "distressed babies" don't put the hurt on your bottom line?
2014-02-09 04:04:55 PM  
2 votes:

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.


While I don't agree with his reasoning, your logic is flawed.

If you think you're going to spend a certain amount on benefits, and then you spend more, why wouldn't you cut back? If it was YOUR money and you overspent one month, next month you trim the fat a bit.

They are supposed to be managing the company's finances with the same care as their own.

The cut is perfectly logical, but the messaging is wrong, and the math probably doesn't work out as a wash either.

This is coming from someone who has gotten farked on the benefits and compensation side of things for a few years in a row. Don't worry - once the job market improves, you'll see the pendulum swinging in the other direction.
2014-02-09 04:03:07 PM  
2 votes:

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.


More likely the man is a sociopath at best, psychopath at worst. Why we let the most vile among us rule is beyond me. Its sad to me that the acquisition of wealth seems to have become the sole focus of human endeavors.

Science? Sure if it makes money. Dignity? Sure, if you have money. etc, etc.
2014-02-09 04:01:45 PM  
2 votes:

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


I believe the term you're looking for is "gambling".  I can't imagine that even AOL has a large enough risk pool to make this feasible.
2014-02-09 04:00:44 PM  
2 votes:

Mitch Taylor's Bro: 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.

This. Armstrong made $12 million in 2012. He could've paid $2 million out of his own pocket and barely felt it. How would that payout hurt the company's bottom line?

Also, isn't the employee health insurance risk pool bigger than just AOL employees? Or does working for AOL suck that bad that their employees suffer a disproportionately higher rate of health problems?


As gar1013 points out, many large companies actually self-insure, paying out of pocket for healthcare costs.  When I worked for the state of Kansas, they did this as well.  The insurance company is really only responsible for negotiating rates and administering payments, but the actual cost for payouts comes from the company.  Or, as Wikipedia puts it:

"Employee benefits self-insurance programs are often underwritten by captive insurance companies formed, owned and managed by corporations in both on-shore and off-shore captive domiciles. The reason for this is that hundreds of thousands of employees constitute a large enough risk pool for the corporation to be able to predict and price the risk of losses from benefits offered to employees. In this way, corporations are able to manage their financial exposure to the self-insurance program without buying commercial insurance."
2014-02-09 03:53:29 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-02-09 03:53:24 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-02-09 03:52:59 PM  
2 votes:
Die you corporate farker, die.
2014-02-09 03:43:54 PM  
2 votes:
Make no mistake, insurance of every kind exists to fark you. They don't turn a profit by paying out more than they take in.
2014-02-09 03:41:15 PM  
2 votes:
Good job, mom. Your husband is getting fired tomorrow.
2014-02-09 03:38:46 PM  
2 votes:

Huskadoodle: What's AOL



They make coasters, like a poor Pier 1 Import thing.
2014-02-09 03:37:54 PM  
2 votes:
Good for you, mom.  Fark him right in the ass.
2014-02-09 03:16:23 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-02-10 04:29:18 PM  
1 votes:

MikeM: the man generated revenues of $2.19 BILLION in 2012!


You worded that in a way that deliberately gives him credit for every penny of AOL revenue.  He didn't generate revenue any more than the sales staff, the editors, the customer service staff who kept people from terminating service, or the middle management who herded those workers.  His compensation is not reflective of the contribution he made.
2014-02-10 04:18:14 PM  
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: I type this right now knowing, like all of you, that there are starving children across the globe, yet I am not doing anything about it (nor are most of you).  Doesn't make us bad people, they just are not close enough to us to mean anything beyond the abstract


I get what you are saying, but I think that actually does make most of us bad people to some extent.

We ignore, rationalize, justify, and accept it, but it doesn't change the fact that we could do something to help fellow human beings who are suffering yet we do nothing. That's bad. Of course it's also true that no single person can save the world, and I wouldn't expect anyone to dedicate their every waking moment to helping others.

I'm not excepting myself. I do no more than most people, and I must admit that my conscience doesn't bother me too much about it. But just because I have learned not to be bothered doesn't make me 'good'.

Not trying to pick a fight and I don't have a proposal to fix it, this is just my observation. There are plenty of things that we all do each day that do make us good people and maybe that offset is why we have made it this far as a species.
2014-02-10 03:56:22 PM  
1 votes:

ransack.: midigod: Incredulous: Curious thing.   The Goodman bio says that he's a journalist who's worked for The New York Times and the Washington Post and is now is the executive business editor of the Huffington Post.  There isn't anything at all about him working for AOL.

Do you know who owns HuffPo?

Why don't you just inform him that AOL owns The Huffington Post? Why do you mock a person for their ignorance, rather than utilize the perfect opportunity to genuinely educate a fellow human mind? Are you a sociopath or something? Is anonymously bullying another anonymous person on the internet the highlight of your day? Get a life. FARK, the internet, humanity, earth, and physical existence in general, doesn't need, and would be better off, without your ilk and kin.

You're farking garbage


ryanesaki.com
2014-02-10 02:17:11 PM  
1 votes:

ransack.: Why don't you just inform him that AOL owns The Huffington Post? Why do you mock a person for their ignorance, rather than utilize the perfect opportunity to genuinely educate a fellow human mind? Are you a sociopath or something? Is anonymously bullying another anonymous person on the internet the highlight of your day? Get a life. FARK, the internet, humanity, earth, and physical existence in general, doesn't need, and would be better off, without your ilk and kin.

You're farking garbage


I wasn't mocking him.  In fact, I wasn't sure whether he was trolling.  But thank you for taking advantage of that opportunity to genuinely educate me.

Seriously, that's bullying to you?

Lighten up, Francis.
2014-02-10 11:58:27 AM  
1 votes:

Incredulous: Curious thing.   The Goodman bio says that he's a journalist who's worked for The New York Times and the Washington Post and is now is the executive business editor of the Huffington Post.  There isn't anything at all about him working for AOL.


Do you know who owns HuffPo?
2014-02-10 11:14:25 AM  
1 votes:

MycroftHolmes: His revelation, then, gave up no additional information.


Sure it did. It told people the amount of money they had received and discussed their specific conditions, which were rare enough that identification of them was trivial for anyone who knew them. Discussing specifics of amounts paid on medical claims is a violation of HIPAA.

In short, his statement was enough to identify people, what medical care they had received, and how much money was spent on them. And it was used in the context of making a move that negatively affected many people. This is precisely the kind of thing HIPAA was created to prevent.
2014-02-10 09:33:23 AM  
1 votes:

jso2897: 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).


I think the fact that he knew the details is a violation of HIPAA in and of itself; that information shouldn't be accesible by anyone except the insurer (even if the company is self-insured, there is a insurance provider that handles the health information for this very reason)
2014-02-10 08:02:10 AM  
1 votes:

Cyclometh: Farty McPooPants: I missed the part where he called anyone out by name.

You don't have to call anyone out by name. All you have to do is release information that could be reasonably used to identify someone. Since he mentioned two "distressed babies" of parents who worked at AOL (or whose spouses did), it would be trivially easy to figure it out, even if you didn't know them that well.


This doesn't make sense.  You are saying, the way to identify the parents of distressed babies is to know that they were parents of distressed babies?  His revelation, then, gave up no additional information.

And yes, for HIPAA to be violated PII has to be coupled to the health information to be considered PHI.
2014-02-10 04:26:50 AM  
1 votes:

ladyfortuna: That CEO needs to be removed by the board for gross insensitivity (or whatever the legal equivalent is). I don't care that he figured out enough corners to cut to 'show profit'. He's one of the worst examples of a person with power - here he had the chance to show generosity to help an employee's family in need, and instead he shiat all over them while cutting another corner.


You know, I'd like to agree that he should be removed from the gene pool, but it's actually the law that he has to act like the biggest dick on the planet. Every single decision he makes has to benefit the stockholders. If he fails to do so, he can even be held civilly liable - the stockholders can sue him for the money that belonged to them that he handed over to the employees.

A recent case in the news is a group of investors who are demanding that Juniper networks cut its employee pay and benefits. While it sounds like the most assholish thing on the planet, keep in mind that the investment group is planning their own retirements based on appreciation of the stock price. If you owned a restaurant, and you found out your manager was giving people free meals, cutting into your bottom line, you'd be upset, right? If he was paying someone $22/hr to wash dishes, and you knew you could easily find someone to wash dishes for $10/hr, you might consider finding a new manager.

It might be best for American workers to start making sure that they are recognized for the work they do, and that they should never be looked at as a commodity. Consider this: John Fox, head coach of the Denver Broncos, got paid $3.5 million last year. (he had the option for another $1 million if they won the Super Bowl.) His boss, John Elway, the GM of the Denver Broncos, got only $3 million. Peyton Manning, on the other hand, received $15 million. Champ Bailey received $9.5 million.

Yes, Peyton Manning and Champ Bailey do highly specialized work that only a handful of people in the world can do effectively. But would it surprise you to learn that the top servers in most casual dining restaurants normally make more than the associate managers? They have to, in order to keep the servers. The associate managers take the job at a low salary in order to get benefits and because they know that a mere adequate job will eventually see them promoted.

The workers spoke at AOL, and the 401K plan was changed back. But I have no doubts that other companies will begin doing this, and it will become the new norm over the next few years, at least for new employees. According to Deloitte and Touche, only 9% of American companies currently have this practice. Consider, however, the amount of retention leverage this gives a company - quit in July and you've just left 2% or so of your yearly salary. November it's more like 4%. The numbers are showing that Obamacare is affecting employee retention, as more people can afford to quit and get healthcare outside of jobs they don't like. This gives the companies way too much leverage over the employees, but, like the $22/hr dishwasher, if you owned the company, and had to pay out money to train new employees every time someone left, you'd be looking for every advantage in keeping them that you could.
2014-02-10 03:19:21 AM  
1 votes:

Prey4reign: Add Armstrong to the whiny 1%.

Good to hear that this "distressed baby" made it and will likely grow up, gradually losing any signs she was born premature.  At least, if my track record is anything to go on, she can.  .  I was born just a little under three pounds, blue as a smurf, with all sorts of complications that kept me in the neonatal ICU for a month and a half before my mother was allowed to touch me.  Thirty years on, I'm a healthy six-foot-tall weighing 175 pounds.  I maintain a physically active lifestyle and am on my way in the professional career of my choice.


All right I'm skipping most of the thread to reply to this.

That said, grats, and I'd give you cake if I could. Seriously.

My sister was born almost FOUR MONTHS early, in the mid 1970s. My dad was very fortunate to have a good job at NCR in Cleveland back then, and she was exclusively cared for in The Cleveland Clinic - I strongly suspect she'd have died in most other areas of the country. I don't know a whole lot about it, and since mom passed in '95 I can't ask her and dad doesn't really talk about it, but I remember some stories from when I was little, about how they went every day to the hospital to see her, and how she was in an incubator for most of that time.

She had some issues growing up, mostly vision (she had glasses at 18 months, bifocals as a young adult), but she's now a pretty successful high school language teacher, has two healthy kids, and she has the biggest feet in the family and was tallest until I peaked a few years later :D

I literally cried reading this article though. My parents were lucky enough that back when she was born, insurance worked the way it was supposed to. I'm sure they were already worried enough about her without this kind of situation sprouting up in the wake of a drawn-out major medical emergency.

That CEO needs to be removed by the board for gross insensitivity (or whatever the legal equivalent is). I don't care that he figured out enough corners to cut to 'show profit'. He's one of the worst examples of a person with power - here he had the chance to show generosity to help an employee's family in need, and instead he shiat all over them while cutting another corner.
2014-02-10 12:46:10 AM  
1 votes:
"IF YOU DESIRE TO DRAIN TO THE DREGS THE FULLEST CUP OF SCORN AND HATRED THAT A FELLOW HUMAN BEING CAN POUR OUT FOR YOU, LET A YOUNG MOTHER HEAR YOU CALL DEAR BABY 'IT.'"

~ T. S. Eliot

Tim Armstrong has the social skills of a doorknob, apparently.
2014-02-10 12:39:34 AM  
1 votes:

Farty McPooPants: I missed the part where he called anyone out by name.


You don't have to call anyone out by name. All you have to do is release information that could be reasonably used to identify someone. Since he mentioned two "distressed babies" of parents who worked at AOL (or whose spouses did), it would be trivially easy to figure it out, even if you didn't know them that well.
2014-02-10 12:27:52 AM  
1 votes:

PreMortem: And he didn't give himself a raise. Corporations have these things called "boards" and "shareholders" that dictatate what CEOs get payed.


And those "boards" are usually staffed by other "CEO's" who get their own "compensation packages" from their own "boards" which are made up of other "CEO's" who have their own "boards" yada yada yada CEO's always seem to get all of the compensation.
2014-02-10 12:05:34 AM  
1 votes:

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: AngryDragon: Good for you, mom.  Fark him right in the ass.

They spent all this money; she's an ingrate.

I'm sure her husbands thrilled, as I'm sure his chances of getting promoted just took a massive , peanut flecked shiat. If not worse.

Maybe then she'll complain that she doesn't have the cash to pay for her ever growing brood because AOL didn't promote hubby enough...


Her audacity truly knows no bounds; all that I'm left with are questions.

Number one, how dare she?  Number two, HOW DARE SHE??
2014-02-09 10:00:20 PM  
1 votes:

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?


Lower overhead. You don't have to pay the insurance company's profits on top of the premiums.

Most companies do it for dental care and glasses. Since almost everyone use those benefits, the premium paid to an insurance company is actually higher than the cost of the actual services rendered. For the rest of medical charges, it's harder to predict.
2014-02-09 09:51:24 PM  
1 votes:

midigod: 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.



How many posts before somebody finnnnnnally hit the nail on the head. The distressed baby comment is a red herring to deflect attention from the fact that management failed to structure the employee insurance policies correctly with reinsurance. It's common practice by insurance companies to insure themselves against a risk profile gone awry. Management failed to buy reinsurance, risk exceeded model, management cut 401(k) benefit, pointing finger at the distressed babies as the cause.
2014-02-09 08:50:04 PM  
1 votes:

Farty McPooPants: I missed the part where he called anyone out by name.


Didn't need to - told enough that coworkers identified them. Fat settlement, or lawsuit - book it, done.
2014-02-09 08:32:00 PM  
1 votes:
We had some a-hole manager running around our company saying a sales associates heart attack brought up everyone's health care premiums in the company. I wish that f-ing manager would have a heart attack.
2014-02-09 07:38:08 PM  
1 votes:

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.

The first thing to understand is that HIPAA is broken into two parts- the "Security Rule" and the "Privacy Rule". We're only interested in the Privacy Rule here. The Security Rule covers things like how electronic data is stored, what safeguards there are against its being disclosed, and regulations for who can access electronic health care data (in point of fact, for Tom Armstrong to be aware of such specifics, there had to be one or more violations of the Security Rule, but let's just stick to the Privacy Rule for now).

For most of this, I'll be referring to this document:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/combined/hipaa-s im plification-201303.pdf

That is is an "Administrative Simplification" of the HIPAA requirements, boiling it all down into one document instead of requiring you to trawl through the CFR, the HIPAA text itself (laws are different than the regulations they create) and other such mind-numbing tasks.

Anayway, the big question we have to answer: Is AOL and its staff subject to HIPAA?

HIPAA is only applicable to "covered entities", which are enumerated in the regulations (see § 160.102 and § 160.103)

AOL self-insures, making it a "health care provider" under the regulation. It might be a "hybrid entity" because it also does non-healthcare stuff. But either way the Privacy Rule applies.
Here's a summary of the "Privacy Rule":

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.htm l

Here's a set of flowcharts for easy determination of whether a business is a "covered entity".

http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/HIPAA-Administrative-Sim pl ification/HIPAAGenInfo/Downloads/CoveredEntitycharts.pdf

In ...


I missed the part where he called anyone out by name.
Employers are given information, statistics if you will, about how their healthcare benefits are being used.  It helps them provide relevant benefits and to know if their benefits package is competitive.
Two newborns in a year costing a million bucks each?  Yeah, pretty sure they're going to be told about that.  /Not saying I agree with his decision or his method but we seem to be rat-holing the discussion with this  angle.
2014-02-09 07:08:14 PM  
1 votes:
By the way - this guy REVERSED his decision (you know - that fiscally sound, supersmart executive type guy decision) yesterday evening.
So apparently, it was all mean-spirited bullshiat, just to make himself look like a tough guy.
I got news for this guy - I could carve a better, tougher man than him out of a banana.
2014-02-09 06:59:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:53:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:36:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:33:02 PM  
1 votes:

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


You don't say?
2014-02-09 06:29:26 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:27:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:12:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:09:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:06:25 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:05:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:44:18 PM  
1 votes:

gadian: Nothing like creating that hostile work environment by telling the whole world that Bob and his brat are the reason their retirement is tanked.


Yeah. It's a little surprising that AOL's lawyers didn't show up at the affected employees' doors the next morning with sacks of cash and nondisclosure agreements. (Probably because AOL can't afford proactive lawyers anymore.) But they'll sure as hell be doing it now.
2014-02-09 05:43:15 PM  
1 votes:
Just to be clear - the actual executive decision this guy made was unpopular, but i don't know enough to say categorically that it was a good or a bad one.
i do know that his "little speech" was utterly unnecessary, petulant, mean, and childish - and has had repercussions for the peope he targeted.
Let's do the list:
Mean and petulant? Check.
Serving no business purpose? Check.
Hramful to his company's public image? Check?
Possibly resulting in legal action? Check.

A huge wad of fail - and lolbertarian rants provide no defense for it whatsoever.
2014-02-09 05:41:12 PM  
1 votes:
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?
2014-02-09 05:38:45 PM  
1 votes:
Nothing like creating that hostile work environment by telling the whole world that Bob and his brat are the reason their retirement is tanked.
2014-02-09 05:34:32 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2014-02-09 05:25:14 PM  
1 votes:

Parthenogenetic: Hmmm, let's see... There are least three options to go with here...

1) The Constitution does not grant anybody the right to a pension, or to health insurance.

2) The Constitution does not mandate job creators to pay for their employees' defective offspring.  If God wanted that couple to have a healthy baby, He would have given them one. Those parents thwarted God's will, by spending a million dollars that wasn't theirs.  The Founding Fathers were all too familiar with infant mortality. This great nation was founded by great men who survived the harsh rigors of life in the colonies.  We've become too soft as a nation, with a sense of entitlement that all babies should live and thrive, no matter what the cost. We need a return to good old fashioned family values.

3) If all you bleeding hearts care so much for this baby, why aren't YOU donating some of your OWN money to pay for its million-dollar medical care, instead of picking a job creator's pocket? What's that? You don't know them personally? Well, neither does he! It's easy to be generous with other peoples' money!


Anything to cover for this emotional, babyish, spoiled child's obnoxious public behavior, eh?
I'm sure all three of AOL's remaining shareholders are really excited about all the great publicity he has brought to their already shaky company. None of the stuff you just said even relates to this issue - it's a huge red herring, apparently intended to distract from the fact that this man publicly made a fool of himself and his company.
Right wing ideological rants don't excuse incompetence and immaturity.
2014-02-09 04:53:16 PM  
1 votes:

b3x: we were told at work that our health costs were going up, and coverage was going down (thanks obama care!) because my company is 95% women, and women go to the doctor too much. I work at a women's health facility. Kind of funny, isn't it?


That means each one of you women goes to the doctor every working day! What the fark is wrong with you?????
2014-02-09 04:46:48 PM  
1 votes:

Mitch Taylor's Bro: gar1013: Mitch Taylor's Bro: gar1013: 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?

Cheaper for the company.

If you have enough capital, why pay to use the capital of the insurance company.

So that a couple of "distressed babies" don't put the hurt on your bottom line?

Seriously?

Walk through what happens in the other scenario: health insurance company pays out additional claims, they raise rates. Company portion of your health insurance either goes up, or they pass it along to the employees.

Exactly, then Armstrong says, "Hey, health care costs are going up, so we're cutting back." Employees grumble, maybe an article gets written about it in the business section if an editor actually goes through AOL's earnings report, but nothing of this scale get publicized.


Yup. Only issue here was that their PR or IR team didn't have a sniper with tranq darts on hand to take him out before he could finish his statement b
2014-02-09 04:45:17 PM  
1 votes:

Rex_Everything: gar1013: Occam's Disposable Razor: Make no mistake, insurance of every kind exists to fark you. They don't turn a profit by paying out more than they take in.

You know what you call an insurance company that pays out more than it takes in?

Insolvent. Unable to pay claims.

Do you want to buy insurance, and then not have the company be able to make good on a claim?

The only type of insurance that doesn't face this risk is insurance from the government...and if you knew anything about the federal flood insurance program or the FHA, you'd know that they're both screwed up.

Wrong. Insurance companies can be profitable with combined ratios over 100% due to investment income. Insurance companies exist in essence to take your premium, invest it and hold off on paying claims as long as they can


You can't do that in the long run, especially with yields where they are.

Even worse is when you price at > 100% loss ratio. I've seen it first hand, and basically shook my head the entire time.
2014-02-09 04:38:45 PM  
1 votes:
This isn't even the politics tab and Obamacare isn't in the headline. What's with all the trolls?
2014-02-09 04:36:53 PM  
1 votes:
Deanna Fei makes the perpetual Libtard fatal error in her reasoning: that AOL exists for her benefit.

Sorry, toots. You wanna whine, start your own company and cut the cord of dependency on others.
2014-02-09 04:24:35 PM  
1 votes:

Prey4reign: Add Armstrong to the whiny 1%.

Good to hear that this "distressed baby" made it and will likely grow up, gradually losing any signs she was born premature.  At least, if my track record is anything to go on, she can.  .  I was born just a little under three pounds, blue as a smurf, with all sorts of complications that kept me in the neonatal ICU for a month and a half before my mother was allowed to touch me.  Thirty years on, I'm a healthy six-foot-tall weighing 175 pounds.  I maintain a physically active lifestyle and am on my way in the professional career of my choice.


I'm also glad to hear she seems to be doing well.  She looks adorable.
2014-02-09 04:24:35 PM  
1 votes:

gar1013: Mitch Taylor's Bro: gar1013: 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?

Cheaper for the company.

If you have enough capital, why pay to use the capital of the insurance company.

So that a couple of "distressed babies" don't put the hurt on your bottom line?

Seriously?

Walk through what happens in the other scenario: health insurance company pays out additional claims, they raise rates. Company portion of your health insurance either goes up, or they pass it along to the employees.


Exactly, then Armstrong says, "Hey, health care costs are going up, so we're cutting back." Employees grumble, maybe an article gets written about it in the business section if an editor actually goes through AOL's earnings report, but nothing of this scale get publicized.
2014-02-09 04:18:27 PM  
1 votes:

Snarfangel: So...  should I wish for AOL to die a painful death, or for it to continue paying her insurance premium? Because I'm willing either way.


The latter. But wishing for Tim Armstrong to die a painful death would be a compromise?
2014-02-09 04:16:48 PM  
1 votes:
Christ, what an A-OL.

/Surprised I'm the first.
//Unless I'm not.
2014-02-09 04:06:04 PM  
1 votes:

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


In the prophetic words of Dickens, as adapted for film:

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
First Collector: Many can't go there.
Second Collector: And some would rather die.
Later that week Ebenezer apologized for "offending anyone" and restated that his considerable compensation was on paper and approved by the board for years before being called into question.
2014-02-09 04:05:02 PM  
1 votes:

Occam's Disposable Razor: Make no mistake, insurance of every kind exists to fark you. They don't turn a profit by paying out more than they take in.


I'm told that, via the magic of investments and interest rates, they could.
2014-02-09 04:00:39 PM  
1 votes:

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


They're primarily a media company, now.  They own The Huffington Post, Moviefone, Engadget, Patch, Stylelist, TechCrunch, MapQuest and Cambio among others.  As a small clue, the article mentions the author's husband is an editor with AOL.

Their current business model bears little resemblance to the business that made them a household name.
2014-02-09 04:00:25 PM  
1 votes:

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?


Cheaper for the company.

If you have enough capital, why pay to use the capital of the insurance company.
2014-02-09 03:54:08 PM  
1 votes:

Mitch Taylor's Bro: This. Armstrong made $12 million in 2012. He could've paid $2 million out of his own pocket and barely felt it. How would that payout hurt the company's bottom line?


If I pay 1 million for your broken baby, I better get to stick a dick in you.
2014-02-09 03:53:36 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Psychopath, Gangster, same-same.
2014-02-09 03:52:36 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2014-02-09 03:51:49 PM  
1 votes:

Occam's Disposable Razor: Make no mistake, insurance of every kind exists to fark you. They don't turn a profit by paying out more than they take in.


You know what you call an insurance company that pays out more than it takes in?

Insolvent. Unable to pay claims.

Do you want to buy insurance, and then not have the company be able to make good on a claim?

The only type of insurance that doesn't face this risk is insurance from the government...and if you knew anything about the federal flood insurance program or the FHA, you'd know that they're both screwed up.
2014-02-09 03:45:51 PM  
1 votes:
I like her style.
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
2014-02-09 03:41:51 PM  
1 votes:
www.1st-art-gallery.com
2014-02-09 03:41:26 PM  
1 votes:
I found one of those freebie Aol disks when I was cleaning out my desk at home the other day. They made good coasters.
 
Displayed 127 of 127 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report