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

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

#131

Post by alexjeffrey » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:47 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #94

alexjeffrey wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You place more importance on $1M than on a human life? What if it was your child, would you be doing a cost/benefit analysis and turning to your wife and saying "sorry honey, it will cost more than $100,000 to save our child. might as well get her put down"?

This depends on how much I need $100K (odds are I can pull this together if I'm attached to the child), and, crucially, on the age of the child. I place essentially no value on a child at negative eighteen weeks old. I mean, would you personally pay a million dollars to save my child? I'm no more attached to a new nonviable fetus than you are to my (imaginary) 11-year-old.

If I ran a business that turned over $1.05B, and you and I had some form of relationship be that employment or friendship, of course I would. If I had any reasonable number of resources I would prioritise saving lives over building a collection of sports cars or properties. Especially so if I ran a hospital.

Of course this perspective is easy to take from the UK where we don't have to face tough financial decisions over healthcare.

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

#132

Post by saraid216 » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:49 PM UTC

judk wrote: post #110

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…

AOL does pay health benefits, what happened was they cut 401k to maintain their comp budget. Rmember : Slate opinion blogs != journalism

Remember: HN comments != Accurate reflection of the OA's claims.

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

#133

Post by sgk284 » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:50 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #42

paul wrote: post #30

My daughter had a similar birth and hospital stay, which also produced a million dollar insurance bill. It costs about $10,000/day to stay in the NICU. I was never able work out why it costs so much, except that this is a major profit center for hospitals, and they use the money to cover other, money losing, departments. Fortunately Google is run by good people, and they were never anything other than supportive. I'm…

> I do think our medical system needs some rethinking though. You probaby don't want to hear it, but if I were running a medical system I'd decree that gestating one-and-a-half-pound globs (from the article: "One doctor, visibly shaken, described [the fetus's skin] as 'gelatinous'") outside the womb is a waste of resources. To me, if miscarriages aren't the end of the world, neither are "babies" that die of natural c…

If the child lives to 80, she only needs to contribute an additional $12,500 worth of value to civilization per year for this to make economic sense.

Another way to look at this: the government has various estimates for the value of a human life. It averages about $7MM. The "extraordinary" expense of this child actually only requires a 14% increase in value over the average citizen to make sense.

Most importantly though, we must recognize that the actual cost is actually just the cost of risk spread across society, so instead of one person taking the brunt of this cost, we as a society take it together. As a whole, it is negligible on all of us, and it's a risk that any of us can fall into. The value of having a system that supports each other is invaluable. Way more valuable than a measly $1MM. We have strength in numbers and we all benefit when a society supports each other. If we ostracize the statistical outliers in this support system, then the support system itself (the one which we all benefit from) falls apart.

In short, more important than the economic argument (which I argue, still makes sense to spend $1MM on a baby), is the argument that the value to society from supporting each other results in a negligible cost for individuals and a near-priceless benefit to everyone within that society. It's exceptionally difficult to put a price tag on that, and it's orders of magnitude higher than $1MM.

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

#134

Post by mbreese » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:51 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #115

danielharan wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not said, but isn't that exactly what his cost cutting implies?

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.

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

#135

Post by yscale » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:51 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #108

luckydude wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, do you have kids? I might have agreed with you before I held my preemie (only 5 weeks, nothing like the baby we are talking about) in my hand: http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/photos/1999/04/16.html It's easier to make the calls before you have a kid, they are calls in theory. After you have a kid you are changed, what was an obvious call becomes much much more complex. If you can make that call after holding yo…

For your reference: I don't have children of my own. When I was 16, my mother gave birth to twins, so I have more parenting experience than the typical childless American, including that of holding closely-related infants. > It's easier to make the calls before you have a kid, they are calls in theory. After you have a kid you are changed Very true, but I don't see myself reversing on this.

You are an ignorant, arrogant idiot, and a callous asshole.

BTW, we already knew you didn't have kids. We knew that both from your beliefs, and moreso from the the hurtful language you chose to use.

We all already knew you were childless. And single. And white. And male. And a programmer. And an asshole.

Now do the world a favor, and shut up. Forever.

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

#136

Post by davidw » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:53 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #57

ItendToDisagree wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly are outliers like this not "what insurance is for"? I'm curious (not arguing). I could understand that 'self insuring' is a different beast, but isn't the point of insurance in general (not just healthcare), to protect against outliers? If the company didn't put aside enough money to account for unexpected cases, such as this, arn't they just being negligent (or at the very least causing their own financi…

> the point of insurance in general (not just healthcare), to protect against outliers? No, the point of insurance is to enrich the stockholders of the insurance company. This might sound like a leftist rant, but it's actually the singe most important thing to understand about the insurance business. If a policy term doesn't contribute to the bottom line, it's changed to disfavor the policy holder. If a deductible am…

Like many transactions, the fact that it enriches the company does not mean that it is not a mutually beneficial transaction.

That said, I'm pretty happy with health care here in Europe, even though it's certainly not perfect.

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

#137

Post by rayiner » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:54 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #42

paul wrote: post #30

My daughter had a similar birth and hospital stay, which also produced a million dollar insurance bill. It costs about $10,000/day to stay in the NICU. I was never able work out why it costs so much, except that this is a major profit center for hospitals, and they use the money to cover other, money losing, departments. Fortunately Google is run by good people, and they were never anything other than supportive. I'm…

> I do think our medical system needs some rethinking though. You probaby don't want to hear it, but if I were running a medical system I'd decree that gestating one-and-a-half-pound globs (from the article: "One doctor, visibly shaken, described [the fetus's skin] as 'gelatinous'") outside the womb is a waste of resources. To me, if miscarriages aren't the end of the world, neither are "babies" that die of natural c…

I suggest you inform yourself about the gestation process. I used to think the same way, but when we had my daughter I was surprised how early everything happened. First, embryonic age is measured from the date of the last missed period. So even people who find out early are already several weeks along. By six weeks, before many women even realize they are pregnant, the embryo has a heartbeat. By 13 weeks, most of the basic functionality is already there. By 24 weeks, or the time the baby is a pound and and a half, the fetus isn't a glob, but a fully recognizable, if fragile, human. Much of the development after that is external: hair, subcutaneous fat, etc. I don't know what you consider a coherent thought, but at our 24 week ultrasound our baby already responded as we tried to push her into a position to check her gender. I don't think infants who are born full term are more intellectually sophisticated in some fundamental way.

Yes, this has implications for abortion. I support abortion rights, but the "its just a ball of cells" is a rationale that isn't convincing after week 6-9. And lines drawn on intellectual abilities don't justify in a principled way why it isn't okay to abort full term babies. Lines based on viability are susceptible to the progress of medical technology. The typical 24-26 week line we use is fairly arbitrary in all three regards.

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

#138

Post by paul » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:56 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #127

paul wrote: post #30

My daughter had a similar birth and hospital stay, which also produced a million dollar insurance bill. It costs about $10,000/day to stay in the NICU. I was never able work out why it costs so much, except that this is a major profit center for hospitals, and they use the money to cover other, money losing, departments. Fortunately Google is run by good people, and they were never anything other than supportive. I'm…

"... except that this is a major profit center for hospitals, and they use the money to cover other, money losing, departments ..." I think you, like many people, misunderstand the reimbursement regime as it works in American hospitals currently. A patient in an ICU will typically have a DRG associated with him/her. This DRG relates to the acuity, and these in turn, impact the reimbursement level. This is because the…

I didn't mean it as a judgement. It's just the reality that some procedures and areas of the hospital reimburse at much higher rates than others, and it's often unrelated to actual expenses. This isn't random speculation on my part -- I've spoken to hospital administrators as well as entrepreneurs working on fixing it.

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

#139

Post by adwn » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:56 PM UTC

a3n wrote: post #79

pavlov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The race to keep younger and younger babies alive is fueled with ego and dollars. If you actually look at the global data on neonatal mortality [1], that doesn't seem to be true. Countries like Finland, France and Cuba perform better than the United States on this metric. These countries offer completely free healthcare to babies and pregnant mothers. Frankly, I find your assumption borderline offensive. Maybe you sh…

> contemplate the possibility that human lives are worth saving. Here fucking here. What do we want to accomplish with the most advanced civilization history has ever seen? Advertising? A flourishing human condition? Fart apps? All? None? Anarchic meritocracy? It's all on the table.

This is one of the most profound and insightful comments on this page, and I wish I could upvote it more than once.

Did we come all this way so that we could buy a second SUV for 25 people, or do we instead want to save a human being with a life full of potential (and spare incredible grief from at least two other persons in the process)? We should do a cost benefit analysis! [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7206436

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

#140

Post by lutusp » Sun, Feb 09, 2014, 7:57 PM UTC

jbapple wrote: post #121

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…

How often do self-insuranced companies run out of their set-aside? When that occurs, do their employees simply go without health care?

> How often do self-insuranced companies run out of their set-aside?

I don't have any figures at my fingertips, but I know it's more often than insurance corporations, which are highly controlled by governmental oversight to prevent that very thing.

> When that occurs, do their employees simply go without health care?

Yes, that's exactly what happens. Sometimes instead, a company will stop offering in-house insurance and require employees to seek insurance elsewhere.