...but spending ten times that to save the life of one of his employee's children is absolutely unacceptable.
It's not unacceptable according to TA. AOL insurance (pre-Obamacare) did pay for it:
"Two things that happened in 2012. We had two AOL-ers that had distressed babies that were born that we paid a million dollars each to make sure those babies were OK in general. And those are the things that add up into our benefits cost. So when we had the final decision about what benefits to cut because of the increased healthcare costs..."
Oh, I think I know. You are saying that ACA increased their costs, so they had to cut benefits to their employees because the federal government demanded that the company pay more money to the insurance companies so that the insurance companies could subsidize healthcare for unemployed and underemployed people? And Armstrong said he was cutting 401k benefits because of these cost increases?
It's not unacceptable according to TA. AOL insurance (pre-Obamacare) did pay for it:
"Two things that happened in 2012. We had two AOL-ers that had distressed babies that were born that we paid a million dollars each to make sure those babies were OK in general. And those are the things that add up into our benefits cost. So when we had the final decision about what benefits to cut because of the increased healthcare costs..."
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-07/aol-ceo-blam...