AOL CEO and blaming "distressed babies" for retirement fund cuts

[redfox]

And on the same day they reported peak earnings. What a bully.

This article is by the mother of one of these babies.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/02/tim_armstrong_blames_distressed_babies_for_aol_ben efit_cuts_he_s_talking.html

[bae]

AOL? People still use dialup modems?

[Lainey]

redfox,
it's a shame, but sadly I think this CEO is saying what so many others are thinking. How horrible that he singled out this family to the point that co-workers realized who he was talking about.
Hence, it's that much stranger to me that companies did not press Congress for universal health care -Medicare for everyone - when they had the chance. Now that healthcare is continuing to be a budget item for them, they'll use it as a tool to deflect blame away from them for their bad business decisions.

[JaneV2.0]

A very powerful article. I'm surprised the baby's father wasn't fired.

"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. For me and my husband—who have been genuinely grateful for AOL’s benefits, which are actually quite generous—the hardest thing to bear has been the whiff of judgment in Armstrong's statement, as if we selfishly gobbled up an obscenely large slice of the collective health care pie."

And I hope Armstrong--and others like him--for whom the only value is the bottom line someday have the opportunity to contemplate the rot in their souls.

[bae]

I'm surprised Armstrong isn't being hung out to dry for HIPPA violations.

[ApatheticNoMore]

And the AOL employees probably still get more benefits than most of the country.

[iris lilies]

And on the same day they reported peak earnings. What a bully.

This article is by the mother of one of these babies.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/02/tim_armstrong_blames_distressed_babies_for_aol_ben efit_cuts_he_s_talking.html

This mother's article was reasoned and poignant. I'm glad she recognized in the early weeks of her daughter's life that those heroic measures may not be the best thing for her daughter.

The reality is that million dollar babies cost someone, be it AOL's insurer or the American taxpayer, a lot. Oh yeah, it's a million dollars.

[flowerseverywhere]

And the AOL employees probably still get more benefits than most of the country.
No excuse for the comments he made. Shameful. Your comment isn't very nice either. So they have great benefits. Aol is probably very selective and to attract the best candidates good benefits are a draw. You did notice the day she went into labor she had a young child, was five months pregnant and he was traveling on business. These companies expect a lot from their very intelligent well educated employees hard working employees.

[flowerseverywhere]

This mother's article was reasoned and poignant. I'm glad she recognized in the early weeks of her daughter's life that those heroic measures may not be the best thing for her daughter.

The reality is that million dollar babies cost someone, be it AOL's insurer or the American taxpayer, a lot. Oh yeah, it's a million dollars.
How much is a life worth?

[gimmethesimplelife]

How much is a life worth?For me, this is a very powerful question that is not easily answered. The basic dignity of human life is a big issue for me and I'm sure by now the regulars here have heard plenty of my posts along those lines. But on this one I just don't have an easy and pat answer. I see this one from both sides. There is only so much money and money does not grow on trees and these days, it seems as if it is harder and harder to get. (For example, the fruit trees I just planted were entirely paid for by doing online surveys. That sounds great on the surface, but.....Surveys are not paying anything like they were before the economic meltdown. They pay less and expect much more, just like any type of employment these days).

I am a big believer in the dignity and value of life in general - human or otherwise. But once again, money does not grow on trees and there is only so much of it - where do we draw the line on this? I don't have an answer - this one I could debate in my mind for months before I have an answer.

Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

I read the story provided by the link above a second time and I found myself with the urge to cry. I still can understand that money does not grow on trees but what a beautiful baby who has survived crushing odds. I find myself utterly dazzled and impressed with woman who wrote this story and how she herself has survived the roller coaster ride this experience must have been for her. I still don't have an answer to how much is life worth but what a beautiful and special baby. My gut tells me she is destined for good things in life.

Rob

[bae]

I am a big believer in the dignity and value of life in general - human or otherwise. But once again, money does not grow on trees and there is only so much of it - where do we draw the line on this? I don't have an answer -...

How many children in deepest darkest Africa could you save for $1 million?

Or heck, kids in Detroit?

[ApatheticNoMore]

I think it's generally agreed that employer provided insurance is problematic. But many single payer systems wouldn't choose to save every million dollar baby either I'd bet.


And the AOL employees probably still get more benefits than most of the country.


No excuse for the comments he made. Shameful. Your comment isn't very nice either.

that's an odd take, first I wasn't commenting on the baby at all (kid stories are really not clickbait for me), just the retirement benefits being cut, all they did was change how matching was paid to the 401k. Very few companies are even giving matching much anymore. My match is $500 a year, no that's not a percent of anything, that's a lump sum. Jealous and wish I had AOL level matching? Oh boy do I! But I should have solidarity with AOL workers because workers getting poorer, even richer white collar workers doesn't do anyone else working for a living any good? Yea pretty much. But I have zero say over what AOL pays anyway (I can't even boycott what I don't buy) and I sometimes cynically wonder if that solidarity also extends downward and if those workers support say fast food or Walmart workers that go on strike.

[ToomuchStuff]

AOL? People still use dialup modems?

I am not sure if AOL still deals with them, but yes. (brother lives in the country/county area, and was only able to get "high speed" internet access in the last two years)


I'm surprised Armstrong isn't being hung out to dry for HIPPA violations.
Probably face employer fines first, since not in the HR department, or personal liability before Deanna's choice to publically respond.
Something that might make him think twice, that might be a better way of fining him, would be to take from his salary/bonus, the money to pay the insurance company back (effectively paying for the right to use/privacy issue).


How much is a life worth?

Depends on who you ask. Insurance companies definitely have a number that deals with income, expected/projected income over your lifetime, etc. etc. etc.
Also, how old of person? I expect if a child and a 35 year adult were in the way of an oncoming car, your apt to try to save the child first. From a moral standpoint, that is the normal thing, but from a fiscal standpoint, unless the child is an actor or legally producing income (no child labor), someway, they are actually a drain and saving the income producing adult, so they could care for the rest of their family might be better.
Now, say the situation dealt with the same kid, and their retired grandparent? It isn't always the same situation and that is part of the reason companies use statistics.
And while you think I may sound heartless, I have grown up around the funeral business, dealt with loss all my life (young death, older death, transplants, dismemberment's, suicides, etc) and just had a friend let me know Friday, he was given 30 days to live. I have to emotionally detach and look at life from a bigger picture sometimes, for perspective.

[redfox]

I'm so appreciative, always, that this community goes right into the deepest questions!

[Miss Cellane]

Picking on the babies was not a good move. Really bad PR for the chairman, there. Better just to say, "rising insurance costs," or something like that.

This hits home for me. I have a nephew who, at the age of 15, is probably a 2 or 3 million dollar baby.

They knew there was something wrong before he was born, but no test available at the time could determine what exactly was wrong. He was born by Cesarian (more expensive) and because of breathing difficulties, given less than a day to live.

He spent 6 months in NICU (very expensive). He came home with a ventilator and massive amounts of other equipment. He had 16 hours of home nurses a day, and still does (very, very expensive). Until he was 12, he had therapists come to his house for physical, occupational and speech therapy, as well as getting these services at school, staring with a special pre-K when he was 3 and a half.

I have no idea how much the various back, neck and leg braces cost, or the adaptations for shoes to fit the leg braces, or the various standing and walking frames he's had. He's on his second power wheelchair (they start at about $5,000 plus you have to add in the cost of modifications so it will fit him and he can use it). On his third manual chair.

Somewhere around 20-25 hospitalizations in his first two years of life. Two foot surgeries, one back surgery, with more in his future.

Hearing loss in both ears, requiring hearing aids.

For the first two years, during the winter months, he needed a vaccine that must be administered monthly, from October to April, at a cost of roughly $3,000. Per month.

He's got at least 9 doctors that he sees regularly, from his pediatrician to the orthopedist to the ENT guy to I have no idea.

The need for extensive modifications to their house, so he could have an accessible bathroom and bedroom.

The need for a wheelchair van.

The need for a hospital crib and then hospital bed.

Constant expenditure for trach supplies and other on-going necessary medical supplies.

And I'm sure I'm not covering it all.

Then there are the expenses insurance doesn't even consider.

The one-on-one school aide. The modifications the school had to make to accommodate his needs. (The school was already handicapped accessible, but there were specific modifications that had to be made.)

The visits to the only doctor they found with experience treating his condition--requiring a 1,000 round trip for every visit, plus a hotel stay.

The extra cost of babysitters for the other kids, because of his many doctor's appointments.

Special equipment for his computer, so that he can use it. Special chairs.

On the flip side, he is an intelligent, articulate young man, always getting Honors in school. He's active in wheelchair soccer and Boy Scouts. He loves video games. He has a wicked sense of humor. He is determined to be as independent as possible.

Is he worth all that? Would all the money have been better spent some other way? Is there any way to judge?

But, if you have read this far, my brother's employer did not like the fact that the cost of insurance went up after Nephew was born. My brother stuck it out at that workplace for several years, getting pay cuts and demotions, because he could not find another job with anywhere near the same benefits. He had to listen to Nephew being blamed for every rise in the cost of insurance, or inability to raise salaries. Obviously, Nephew wasn't named, but just as people knew who had the "distressed baby" in the article, it was clear who was meant.

[ApatheticNoMore]

It's kind of the same question of whether you keep really really sick old people with very little chances of recovery alive no matter the cost. It's usually conceeded that at some point, you can't.

[flowerseverywhere]

How many children in deepest darkest Africa could you save for $1 million?

Or heck, kids in Detroit?

I know you did not mean your comment this way, but it it did not appear to me that this CEO was saying "think of all the good I can do with the money if it was otherwise allocated"
Not everyone who has extra money lying around uses it to make a positive impact on someone other than themselves.

[lhamo]

I read the story provided by the link above a second time and I found myself with the urge to cry. I still can understand that money does not grow on trees but what a beautiful baby who has survived crushing odds. I find myself utterly dazzled and impressed with woman who wrote this story and how she herself has survived the roller coaster ride this experience must have been for her. I still don't have an answer to how much is life worth but what a beautiful and special baby. My gut tells me she is destined for good things in life.

Rob

I know Deanna, the author of the Slate article. She is awesome. Her daughter will be, too.

I had no idea her family had been through this. I remember her posting on Facebook about being pregnant.

I think it was incredibly stupid of an overpaid, empathetically challenged CEO to frame things in these terms. I'll take the potential contribution 12 distressed babies who survive can make in the world as a trade for one year of his "contribution" to society any day.

[The Storyteller]

As the father of a "distressed baby" who has grown into a wonderful young woman, I find this discussion depressing.

I will flip the earlier question... how much is YOUR baby's life worth? What would you want done, and how much do you think should be spent?

For me, I know the answer to these questions. It isn't hypothetical.

[Miss Cellane]

It's kind of the same question of whether you keep really really sick old people with very little chances of recovery alive no matter the cost. It's usually conceeded that at some point, you can't.

Well, yes and no. Some of the issues are the same.

But for most severely ill elderly people or those suffering from advanced dementia, at some point, it becomes clear that their quality of life is deteriorating and nothing can be done to stop that. Yet.

With a baby, even a distressed baby, there's a lot more gray area. It's harder to test a baby. It's harder to know what to test.

My brother was told that my nephew would be paralyzed from the neck down, that he had suffered severe brain damage, that he'd never have any voluntary movement except his eyes and mouth. Tests done when Nephew was a year old indicated that he had no control over his arm muscles.

The reality is that Nephew had no brain damage, that anyone's aware of. He's in the top 5% of students in his state on the standardized exams and has nothing but straight As in school. He has some control of his arms, with a limited range of motion. He has surprisingly good fine motor control in his hands, it's just that they are very weak. He's walking with leg braces. He plays wheelchair soccer. He fences. He plays every video game system known to mankind, without the need for any adaptations. He can't do a lot of stuff, that's true. But he can do a whole heck of a lot more than the doctors thought when he was 6 months old, when he was a year old, when he was two years old.

And he freaking enjoys life. I watched him swim the length of a pool once. He needs a snorkle to swim, as he can't turn his head enough to breathe. He needs a parent right there with him every second, in case he can't breathe, to pull him out of the water. It takes him a good 10-15 minutes to go one length of a pool his sister can swim in less than a minute. I asked him once why he worked so hard at swimming. He gave me the look that says "adults sure can be dumb," and burst out, "Because it's FUN!"

When my nephew was born 15 years ago, it took nearly two years to find a doctor who could diagnose his condition. There was no pre-natal test for it. No one knew if it was genetic or random or what.

Today, it is known that his condition is genetic and they are working on a test for it. In the meantime, there are methods of using ultrasounds to determine if a baby is at risk. More doctors are becoming aware of the condition.

The interesting thing is that my brother and SIL decided on a "Do Not Resuscitate" order for Nephew when he was a week old. He coded at least twice after that--but the doctors and nurses revived him.

[flowerseverywhere]

As the father of a "distressed baby" who has grown into a wonderful young woman, I find this discussion depressing.

I will flip the earlier question... how much is YOUR baby's life worth? What would you want done, and how much do you think should be spent?

For me, I know the answer to these questions. It isn't hypothetical.

So glad you posted. As a mother and grandmother I know how I feel about my children. The worse thing about all of this is what better use does someone have for the money? More plastic crap from walmart? Eating out? A fancy car a year earlier? Vacation?

we live in a wonderful time in history, where childhood diseases are eradicated or controlled, where kids with cystic fibrosis don't die in their teens, and heart defects in babies can often be repaired. Instead of celebrating here is someone saying boo hoo.,a my life is worth millions but these lives are worthless. Should have let them die. So I could have more millions. Greed is ugly.

[iris lilies]

Well, yes and no. Some of the issues are the same.

But for most severely ill elderly people or those suffering from advanced dementia, at some point, it becomes clear that their quality of life is deteriorating and nothing can be done to stop that. Yet.

With a baby, even a distressed baby, there's a lot more gray area. It's harder to test a baby. It's harder to know what to test...
The interesting thing is that my brother and SIL decided on a "Do Not Resuscitate" order for Nephew when he was a week old. He coded at least twice after that--but the doctors and nurses revived him.

That's something. They are gonna do what they are gonna do. Every case is different but that's not the first time that medical caretakers ignore the stated wishes of parents. And it's hard enough to make that decision as the parent of a newborn. It's best to stay out of "their" hands if at all possible.

I am so glad, Miss Cellene, that your nephew is bright and enjoys life.

Over on Mr. Money Mustache there is the same discussion going on, and a health professional observed that only in the past 30 - 40 years have we been able to ship off family members to professional care situations. The true cost in pain and invasive procedures are not recognized by the average family member because they don't see it. They only see grandma when she is clean and tucked into her bed, nodding and smiling.

I honestly don't think I could stand to see a tiny, new baby poked and prodded and stuck and cut into without a clear message that the work would result in good outcome. But then, I've lived a long time and have gone through pet treatments that, when caught up in it, seem to be "the thing to do" but looking back, ugh. Really WTF was that about.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The true cost in pain and invasive procedures are not recognized by the average family member because they don't see it. They only see grandma when she is clean and tucked into her bed, nodding and smiling.

I think you mean maybe the non-financial costs. Because Medicaid will pay for long term care, but don't assets have to be spent down to zero to qualify pretty much? So if grandma owns a home or anything else of any value it's sold to pay the long term care, which is plenty expensive! And then if more long term care is still needed after the house and all other assets are liquidated only then does Medicaid kick in. So I think people know the financial cost VERY WELL - basically they will liquidate houses that took 30 years out of a lifetime to pay for, so it can all be used up in the last few years. Of course most people may not appreciate how hard the caretakers work and so on - non-financial cost and they aren't paid well for that labor generally.

[Teacher Terry]

Having worked with people with disabilities for my life there is a big dilemma. When people get older it is easier & often better to let nature take it's course. With babies/kids it is hard to know. Are you going to save them for a good life or do you save them for a horrible life? Unfortunately often we don't know the outcome until we have done it. All of us with kids know we would give everything in the world for them to have a decent enjoyable life -if it is only to survive & suffer we would be sorry but there is often no way to know until we take action. There really is no answer and we just make the best decision we can at the time.

[redfox]

And, what is "a good life"?

[catherine]

And, what is "a good life"?

If you're Catholic, a good life is life itself when it comes to the ethics of choosing birth and death. (which is why they are against birth control and euthanasia)

So then, where do you draw the line? Peter Singer (that very contentious ethicist who I really enjoy reading) would say that the parents get to decide whether or not the child will be a burden that is too much for them to bear. If the author felt that the long term costs were too much for the family, it would be her right to tell the hospital to discontinue treatment. Since she so desperately wanted life for her daughter, she had every right to expect and get all the healthcare resources available.

So what are these billion dollar health insurance companies good for if not to pay for these million dollar babies? Haven't they already built these scenarios into their risk assessments? If not, that's not the parents' problem.

[ApatheticNoMore]

If you're Catholic, a good life is life itself when it comes to the ethics of choosing birth and death. (which is why they are against birth control and euthanasia)

totally dismissive of human suffering - that stinks. In the case of euthanasia it's often very clear human suffering, say people dying some incredibly painful death of late stage cancer or something with almost no chance of recovery. I think in ths actual world we live in with penny pinching healthcare and so on it can be problematic (just euthanisize because the insurance company doesn't want to pay or something), but that's quite apart from my belief that one has a right to end their own life if the pain of living gets too much to bear.


Peter Singer (that very contentious ethicist who I really enjoy reading) would say that the parents get to decide whether or not the child will be a burden that is too much for them to bear. If the author felt that the long term costs were too much for the family, it would be her right to tell the hospital to discontinue treatment.

Well if the child is a burden that is too much to bear, they are unlikely to have a very good childhood anyway, with parents overwhelmed financially and emotionally with the strain - I mean it's going to be complete chaos, dysfunction central. If it's just an ordinary considering of abortion, adoption can work, but DNR orders on a million dollar baby are not that case, and in that case the parents may actually think it's in the best interest of the child to have DNR order.

[Miss Cellane]

If you're Catholic, a good life is life itself when it comes to the ethics of choosing birth and death. (which is why they are against birth control and euthanasia)



Just to add a bit here, Catholics are not required to use extraordinary measures to prolong life. My family is Catholic, and my brother's priest was included in the deliberations on Nephew's DNR order. You can't do anything to end life, but you do not have to use every possible means available to sustain it. You are allowed to refuse treatment for cancer, for example.

In my nephew's case, he was on a ventilator and being fed intravenously. But the decision was made that if he coded, he would be allow to die, without heroic measures. My SIL is a doctor, and she knew where this could lead, and just wanted him not to suffer. This is compatible with Catholic beliefs.

He was also baptized before he was an hour old, so that had been taken care of already.

[catherine]

Just to add a bit here, Catholics are not required to use extraordinary measures to prolong life. My family is Catholic, and my brother's priest was included in the deliberations on Nephew's DNR order. You can't do anything to end life, but you do not have to use every possible means available to sustain it. You are allowed to refuse treatment for cancer, for example.

In my nephew's case, he was on a ventilator and being fed intravenously. But the decision was made that if he coded, he would be allow to die, without heroic measures. My SIL is a doctor, and she knew where this could lead, and just wanted him not to suffer. This is compatible with Catholic beliefs.

He was also baptized before he was an hour old, so that had been taken care of already.

Thank you for the clarification! Yes, I think it makes sense that if what is happening is following the natural course of events, it's allowed; if it's "mechanical" or technological interference it is not allowed (as in BC) or optional (as in extending life).

[Teacher Terry]

"A good life" is what the person & family think that it is. Many severely disabled people live what they and their families consider a good life so it is very individual. Ultimately the parent's decision on how much technology to pursue in saving a life.

[flowerseverywhere]

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/12/aol-distressed-babies-insurance/

this is explains why this was such a big deal. To save money they self insured.

[creaker]

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/12/aol-distressed-babies-insurance/

this is explains why this was such a big deal. To save money they self insured.


A lot of larger companies do that. Good article. I didn't know how the stop-loss insurance works. It sounds like AOL shot itself in the foot by taking a much higher risk on the stop-loss insurance than most companies do. That was their choice. They gambled and loss. I would put the blame there than on the parents, who were just using the benefits they were given.