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

141–150 of 280 posts

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

#141

Post by kps »

cosmie wrote: post #24
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…

> And to be honest, I'm 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…

If, as some other comments say, AOL self-insures, are they a covered entity?

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

#142

Post by lutusp »

a3n wrote: post #85
lutusp wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you explain more about how self insuring works? In normal insurance, the policy payments go into an investment pool that benefits the corporation's stockholders. In self-insurance, the set-aside funds go into an investment pool that benefits you (or your company). The drawback to self-insurance are outlier claims that can more than wipe out the set-aside (as in the case under discussion). Obviously an insuran…

Insurance companies re-insure. Can't a self-insured company do the same? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance

The problem with a self-insurance plan re-insuring is that it undermines the very reason for the self-insurance -- it erodes the advantage of local investment of the set-asides.

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

#143

Post by ericd »

mbreese wrote: post #134
ericd wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because he wasn't cutting the medical benefits at all.

No, he was cutting benefits in general and used healthcare expenses as a rationale for it. This may be a good thing for the company's bottom line, but the optics are horrible. Even if the policy was sound (and I'm not sure it is), the delivery ruined it. It will be hard to say how he can be an effective leader at this point.

I don't see how you were disagreeing with me? He was making the 401k plan marginally worse, not cutting benefits in general. I wasn't saying anything about his ability to lead going forward, just that if their medical policy is going to continue to be willing to pay for these unusual events in the future that he probably doesn't view them as unacceptable.

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

#144

Post by mindcrime »

DanBC wrote: post #11
mp99e99 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's why those companies employ teams of people who look for ways to avoid paying insurance.

You mean the people encouraging people to use proper fire-safety techniques, "baby-proof" their homes, eat more healthful foods, exercise regularly, etc?

Of course every insurance company knows they will have to pay some claims at some point, it's a cost of doing business. So their entire purpose isn't to avoid paying claims, it's to charge enough in premiums to cover those claims while still making a profit.

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

#145

Post by urethra »

ekidd wrote: post #31

I'm delighted to hear that this child is doing well, and I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently it's possible to pay a programmer $100K/year, but spending ten times that to save the life of one of his employee's children is absolutely unacceptable. I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I hear from an AOL recruiter. The whole point of insura…

I was LinkedIn stalked by AOL HR two days before this happened. I thought about doing the interview just to get back in the habit but ended up declining the invite and indicating Armstrong's hamfistedness was the reason why.

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

#146

Post by saraid216 »

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

You realize that will only exacerbate his mistakes, yes?

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

#147

Post by tlogan »

pg wrote: post #92
ekidd wrote: post #31

I'm delighted to hear that this child is doing well, and I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently it's possible to pay a programmer $100K/year, but spending ten times that to save the life of one of his employee's children is absolutely unacceptable. I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I hear from an AOL recruiter. The whole point of insura…

"I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently it's possible to pay a programmer $100K/year, but spending ten times that to save the life of one of his employee's children is absolutely unacceptable." Did he say that?

What did he say?

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

#148

Post by iandanforth »

So I believe the following is true:

1. The costs of the procedures involved are wildly inflated by the private sector healthcare system we employ. 2. Regardless of 1 the effort involved in keeping the child alive was extraordinary. 3. The effort involved was disproportionate to the benefit to society.

It's unlikely the reader will agree with 3. That's ok. But I would ask anyone who disagrees with 3 to think carefully about if there is a line where the effort to save a child's life is too great, and if that line exists, how would you determine where it is, and given that method where is that line for you?

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

#149

Post by mindcrime »

ekidd wrote: post #31

I'm delighted to hear that this child is doing well, and I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently it's possible to pay a programmer $100K/year, but spending ten times that to save the life of one of his employee's children is absolutely unacceptable. I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I hear from an AOL recruiter. The whole point of insura…

I'm delighted to hear that this child is doing well, and I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children

Do you really think it's possible to have a comprehensive understanding of "Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children" based on this one little blurb? I mean, seriously... I can't help but think people are constructing a caricature of the man, based on a very limited understanding, and heavily influenced by their own preconceived biases and generic "Robber Barrons, evil, muwahahahaha" stereotypes.

I'm not saying that Tim Armstrong is a good person, as I don't know him. But I am very suspicious of this rush to judgment that seems to be going on here.

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

#150

Post by mindcrime »

ceph_ wrote: post #81
ryguytilidie wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The craziest thing to me is what an utterly small drop in the bucket this is and how Tim embarrassed the entire company and their stockholders over an expense that is <1% of AOLs revenue and is less than his yearly salary. He should have been immediately fired for both insensitivity and short-sightedness to the point of incompetence.

Man who makes 12 million a year decries outlandish million dollar spending to save child's life. The guy is absolute scum.

decries outlandish million dollar spending to save child's life.

Where exactly did he do that?

Post reply on HN