
We blame the sick for being expensive': the mother whose baby cost AOL $1m - jhartmann
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/04/deanna-fei-aol-distressed-baby-healthcare-privacy
======
jacquesm
What a total dick, to single out two babies' cost, especially when compared to
his own compensation. One of my children was born premature and even though it
was nothing compared to what these people went through it makes me very much
aware of the kind of thoughts that go through your head during and afterwards.
To have the CEO of the company you work for use you as a scapegoat (and in an
easily identifiable context too) for cutting benefits is absolutely un-
acceptable.

~~~
ryandrake
I realize this rant doesn't add much to the conversation, but here's someone
who will never in his life have to worry about his OWN access to health care,
indeed will never have to worry about any kind of vital personal expense for
himself or anyone in his family, whining in public about the cost (that he
doesn't personally bear) of one of those commoners. It's really sickening.
Sickening that there will be no consequences to him for his comments.
Sickening that he will always have his next job waiting for him, no matter
what. Sickening that the US system is pretty much set up to keep people like
him rich in perpetuity, unless they deliberately do something to destroy
themselves.

------
revelation
That's just the insanity of having health care coupled with the employer.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Agreed. In my mind that is the second biggest problem the system has. The
first is the lack of an open market accepting only direct payments.

Oddly, neither one of those was fixed in with the recent reforms.

~~~
DiabloD3
The Republicans (representing the insurance companies, essentially lobbying on
their behalf as opposed to merely being lobbied to) were the largest
proponents against such changes, as it would cost the Republicans tens or
hundreds of millions of dollars out of their private investment accounts.

~~~
dantheman
The ACA was passed with zero republican votes - so it's hard to say their love
for insurance companies is the reason it is the way it is.

------
rayiner
I just can't get over how shitty a human being Armstrong seems to be. When you
offer health benefits to employees by self-insuring, paying for premature
babies is just part of the obligation you took on. Complaining about it
publicly is not only shameful and illegal, it's an admission that you're an
asshole that doesn't want to hold up your end of business dealings.

------
caseysoftware
> “This is what we do in the US. We blame the sick people for being expensive,
> but the same sick people everywhere else – in the UK – they wouldn’t be
> causing excess costs to the system,” said Peel.

This line bugs me.

Regardless of _who_ pays for medical care, the costs just don't disappear.
With a bigger pool, they're spread across more people so the marginal costs
might be lower but the total cost remains the same.

~~~
Kliment
Not the same - look at the per-person overhead costs of insurance compared to
a single-payer system, they're gigantic.

------
tome
Don't corporations insure themselves against these risks?

~~~
mcherm
Many larger companies self-insure. They still pay a traditional insurance
company to handle the claims process and negotiate with providers, but they
get a discount for taking on the risk themselves.

~~~
The_Fox
I wonder, is 2 premature babies in one year in a 5,000 person company very
unusual? Did their actuaries just do a horrible job? Or is that really a truly
extraordinary event for a company their size?

Reminds me of when I balked at my home insurance company trying to bump my
rates 20% one year- they said it was because of the 2011 Japan earthquake (I'm
in Canada). I laughed and walked right out.

~~~
cosmie
You're presuming their decision to self insure was based on an actuarial
assessment.

From my experience, it's also plausible that some poor schlep in the
accounting department was tasked with looking into self insuring, and created
a not-very-robust risk model. At AOL's size one would hope an actuary was
involved, but that may not be the case.

As well, even if am actuary was involved, that doesn't stop upper management
getting peeved when payouts are towards the upper bound of the model, as all
they likely saw was the potential cost savings of the lower bound of the
model, not the full risk.

------
xname
Let's skip the word "blame". Is it a fact that sick people is the cause for
being expensive? Our company also had to increase premium because a few
extreme cases last year, but the company did not identify them. The employees
figured out anyway.

Of course, blame the sick people could be wrong, when the sickness is not
caused by the sick people, like the one in the article. However, the implicit
message in the title troubles me: it is always wrong to blame the sick --
which is not true.

