That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter
1–10 of 280 posts
Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter
#2Also see http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/02/tim_a... for the single-page version.
Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter
#3Isn't it how the insurance works(and the very point of it)?
Spreading the risk(and cost) over multitude of individuals?
I his words utterly silly
Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter
#4Isn't it how the insurance works(and the very point of it)? Spreading the risk(and cost) over multitude of individuals? I his words utterly silly
Tim Armstrong blaming Obamacare (its mandate for medical coverage for situations like this) for the benefit cuts also has an interesting implication:
If not for Obamacare, AOL would have provided a insurance plan that wouldn't have covered this child, and instead left her to die and her family in a permanent state of medical bankruptcy.
ETA: For the record, I think most insurance policies have covered this for awhile. But Armstrong's either very confused, or, more likely, just struggling to find a way to point fingers at anything who's not him.
Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter
#5Armstrong's quotes are quite deplorable and the backpedaling is cringe-worthy but all i could think of while reading the article is Mrs. Lovejoy from the simpsons, "Won't somebody think of the children?!"
Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter
#6I'm glad this article was written. Armstrong's statements were so despicable that in this case "airing the dirty laundry" is a perfectly appropriate answer.
I'm also surprised that his statements aren't "suable" in some form in the lawsuit happy country that is the United States of America. A friend of mine immediately pointed out to the numerous healthcare privacy laws in place; and another HN commenter pointed out on the original thread the possibility that the employees with the distressed babies would get discriminated against by their coworkers, after Armstrong's statements, due to the fact that they're probably identifiable internally by their team members.
This is the same guy who fired an employee publicly during a company talk for (apparently) taking pictures. (http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/AOL...)
What a sad, sad man. I hope that he gets scared and lonely as he gets older and older, when his billions won't change anything and when he realizes that all of his misery stems from his own choices.
Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter
#7Isn't it how the insurance works(and the very point of it)? Spreading the risk(and cost) over multitude of individuals? I his words utterly silly
Tim Armstrong blaming Obamacare (its mandate for medical coverage for situations like this) for the benefit cuts also has an interesting implication: If not for Obamacare, AOL would have provided a insurance plan that wouldn't have covered this child, and instead left her to die and her family in a permanent state of medical bankruptcy. ETA: For the record, I think most insurance policies have covered this for awhile…
left her to die and her family in a permanent state of medical bankruptcy.
Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter
#8Isn't it how the insurance works(and the very point of it)? Spreading the risk(and cost) over multitude of individuals? I his words utterly silly
Spreading the risk is only half of insurance, the other half is deciding exactly what hazards are covered.
In normal first-world countries you have some form of socialized healthcare with bioethics committees that decide what should society should pay for. You can have reasoned arguments about end-of-life care and very premature babies.
But in America with the crazy system of employee-provided coverage it's the CEO that sets coverage limits, and generally speaking a company's interests are not aligned with society in general.
Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter
#9Isn't it how the insurance works(and the very point of it)? Spreading the risk(and cost) over multitude of individuals? I his words utterly silly
Tim Armstrong blaming Obamacare (its mandate for medical coverage for situations like this) for the benefit cuts also has an interesting implication: If not for Obamacare, AOL would have provided a insurance plan that wouldn't have covered this child, and instead left her to die and her family in a permanent state of medical bankruptcy. ETA: For the record, I think most insurance policies have covered this for awhile…
According to the article, the family had family insurance plan which would have existed before Obamacare, so I think this is a bit of a red herring. I think he was pointing to increased costs of Obamacare AND the distressed babies as examples.
But I agree, if you can't use your insurance when you need it, whats the point of insurance?
Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter
#10Armstrong's quotes are quite deplorable and the backpedaling is cringe-worthy but all i could think of while reading the article is Mrs. Lovejoy from the simpsons, "Won't somebody think of the children?!"
Because somebody should think of the children. And the geriatric. And the disabled. Part of the point of having a developed society with a developed healthcare system is using it to sustain people who can't sustain themselves.
I think this article isn't important because one person happened to say something rude about somebody's daughter. It's important because it's a peek into how a lot of people are actually thinking about the world, and that's pretty scary.