3 ms·

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

scarmig 13y ago
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.
- MattBearman 13y ago
  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.
  - dmm 13y ago
    Don't take financial or healthcare from online forum comments ( in other words the parent is full of shit).
  - icebraining 13y ago
    What about cases like this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/aug/24/avastin-too-expensive-for-patients 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.
    - lmm 13y ago
      A national healthcare system doesn't take away any of the things you get in the US. Many employers offer private medical insurance, and one can choose to pay for individual treatments privately if one wishes. So if you're wealthy or have a good employer, you're in just as good a position as you are in the US (and if you're poor, you're better off).
  - ars 13y ago
    The reason you can't wrap your head around it is that it's not actually true. People love saying that about America, but it's not true and never has been. For cases like that there is government insurance. It's called Medicaid, or Chip, or a bunch of other names, and it's available everywhere. (And it doesn't help that the person you replied to is doubly confused and combined two unrelated things to confuse him even more. The CEO was saying that Obamacare was an added expense - it had nothing to do with the babies.)
    - scarmig 13y ago
      To be absolutely clear: The CEO is the person who rhetorically conflated Obamacare and having to pay for the babies, not me. Don't try to poison the well by trying to shift his misspeaking to me.
- mp99e99 13y ago
  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?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    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.
    - mindcrime 13y ago
      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.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- josephfung 13y ago
  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.
HarryHirsch 13y ago
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.

scarmig 13y ago

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.

MattBearman 13y ago
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.
- dmm 13y ago
  Don't take financial or healthcare from online forum comments ( in other words the parent is full of shit).
- icebraining 13y ago
  What about cases like this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/aug/24/avastin-too-expensive-for-patients 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.
  - lmm 13y ago
    A national healthcare system doesn't take away any of the things you get in the US. Many employers offer private medical insurance, and one can choose to pay for individual treatments privately if one wishes. So if you're wealthy or have a good employer, you're in just as good a position as you are in the US (and if you're poor, you're better off).
- ars 13y ago
  The reason you can't wrap your head around it is that it's not actually true. People love saying that about America, but it's not true and never has been. For cases like that there is government insurance. It's called Medicaid, or Chip, or a bunch of other names, and it's available everywhere. (And it doesn't help that the person you replied to is doubly confused and combined two unrelated things to confuse him even more. The CEO was saying that Obamacare was an added expense - it had nothing to do with the babies.)
  - scarmig 13y ago
    To be absolutely clear: The CEO is the person who rhetorically conflated Obamacare and having to pay for the babies, not me. Don't try to poison the well by trying to shift his misspeaking to me.
mp99e99 13y ago
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?
- DanBC 13y ago
  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.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    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.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
josephfung 13y ago
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.

HarryHirsch 13y ago

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.