My Medically Involved Daughter Is Not Trampling Your Pursuit of Happiness

“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, we made the decision, and I made the decision, to basically change the 401(k) plan.”

Tim Armstrong, CEO of AOL

The actions of AOL under the leadership of Tim Armstrong are extremely disappointing and epitomize not only the current state of corporate greed but also that of the wealthiest 1%.  Mr. Armstrong makes $12,000,000 annually; however, he cited the $2,000,000 of medical expenses incurred by two newborn babies as the strain on AOL’s resources necessitating changes to employee benefits rather that his own compensation.

Deanna Fei, the mother of one of the “distressed babies” wrote a blog in response to Mr. Armstrong’s comments during which she eloquently spoke to the harm of  Mr. Armstrong’s greed ridden comments, “Our daughter has already overcome more setbacks than most of us have endured in the span of our lives. Having her very existence used as a scapegoat for cutting corporate benefits was one indignity too many.”

I cannot agree more with Ms. Fea’s comments that express her frustration and dismay that Mr. Armstrong felt it appropriate to not only lay blame for changing AOL benefits on the Fea’s newborn born daughter but also the insinuation that it was the Fea family who was greedy rather than Mr. Armstrong:

“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.”

Deanna Fea

[caption id="attachment_1212" align="alignleft" width="239"] Caroline, my distressed baby, shortly after being released from the hospital.[/caption]

The physical, emotional, and financial toll of giving birth to a “distressed baby” is great.  Our lives were forever changed by Caroline’s entry into the world.  The medical bills, lack of sleep, and endless medical appointments were overwhelming. We had to figure out how to close the substantial gap between insurance and the medically necessary care that Caroline required. I cannot begin to imagine what it would feel like if the medical care Caroline received was cited as a reason my employer chose to change our benefits package. Especially since one of the benefits of employer-sponsored healthcare is that there are lower premiums when all employees (not just the sickest employees) secure benefits…meaning that by creating a large pool of insured the risk is shared among many so when the unexpected happens—giving birth to a “distressed baby”—the burden of the cost is shared.

I also find it interesting that employer-sponsored health insurance was offered as a way to entice potential employees when the federal government instituted wage controls during World War II.  Essentially, fringe benefits like sick days, health insurance, and the like were not considered compensation so they were in affect a loophole that allowed employers to skirt wage controls. Fast forward to today as healthcare premiums are rising quickly many employers are doing everything they can to reduce healthcare benefits. Both commonsense and research dictate that access to healthcare insurance leads to less time off of work just as increased access to sick and vacation time increases employee productivity and engagement. But for some reason, most employers are not willing to learn from the examples of the few responsible employers who have managed to be very profitable yet provide employees with access to benefits that increase productivity, loyalty, and employee satisfaction—Google, SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems), and the Boston Consulting Group  to name a few.

To be fair, AOL and Mr. Armstrong are not the only examples of corporate greed trampling not only the livelihood but potentially the lives of the medically fragile members of the workforce (and their family members)—who are the backbone of industry and progress in America—they are simply the most recent example.  It is my hope that as a collective we will demand that corporate America treat those who keep America running with the respect and dignity we so rightfully deserve and in doing so allow the American workforce the ability to pursue their happiness or version of the American dream.

And to Ms. Fea thank you for speaking up and sharing your story.