Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 280 posts

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#11

Post by DanBC »

mp99e99 wrote: post #9
scarmig wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The point of insurance is to make money for people selling insurance. That's why those companies employ teams of people who look for ways to avoid paying insurance.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#12

Post by pwg »

Another interesting quote from the article:

> Let’s set aside the fact that Armstrong—who took home $12 million in pay in 2012

Assuming the above is factual (and I have no reason to doubt it), he wanted to cut the 401(k) plan for everyone because of an expense that was one twelfth the size of his own pay that same year.

Just a wee bit hippocritical there on his part.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#15

Post by [deleted] »

scarmig wrote: post #4
emp_zealoth wrote: post #3

Isn'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…

[deleted]

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#16

Post by selmnoo »

GuiA wrote: post #6

I'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…

> 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.

I know the word "sociopath" gets thrown around a lot when we're talking about CEOs, but I really really think this guy fits the bill. And so, in all likelihood, he sadly will not feel or realize a thing even as he gets older.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#18

Post by dmm »

MattBearman wrote: post #7
scarmig wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I can't get my head round this, as someone born and raised in the UK, America's health care system (or lack there of) is the single thing that will stop me ever wanting to live in the US.

Don't take financial or healthcare from online forum comments ( in other words the parent is full of shit).

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#19

Post by icebraining »

MattBearman wrote: post #7
scarmig wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I can't get my head round this, as someone born and raised in the UK, America's health care system (or lack there of) is the single thing that will stop me ever wanting to live in the US.

What about cases like this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/aug/24/avastin-too-e... ?

I'm not a fan of the US system either, but I live in a country with State-run healthcare, and cost decisions like those are made every day.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#20

Post by josephfung »

scarmig wrote: post #4
emp_zealoth wrote: post #3

Isn'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…

That's not exactly accurate - he's blaming Obamacare for them having to provide new insurance products that have a net higher cost going forward - the incident of distressed babies happened before the ACA, which means they did have that choice, and chose to pay the costs.

Regarding what most insurance policies cover, there are actually several scenarios that would leave AOL on the hook. First, they could have a policy that has an Annual or Lifetime payment limit, which would leave the company (or individual) responsible for anything over. Alternatively, if the number of incidents was significantly higher than average for the carrier, AOL could see a significant premium increase due to the higher utilization of their plan. Or, they could actually be running a self-funded insurance program, which means they are managing the risk instead of relying on a separate insurance carrier.

Either way, there are several situations in which AOL's costs could be significantly impacted by the situation.

Post reply on HN