AIG's CEO Edward Liddy claims that in the cold, competitive reality for customers, revenue and employees, we (AIG) had to pay the bonuses.
I'd like point out that the people getting bonus were from the financial products division. This is the division that has often been cited as the source of failures which have caused, or helped cause, the implosion of the company and subsequent 180 billion dollar federal bail out.
A few questions for you Mr. Liddy: 1) Who is competing for these employees? The US government owns 80% of your private company because of these valued employees’ failures. If in fact there is such fierce competition for these folks, then I've got to wonder who would hire them. 2)Why would AIG want to retain anybody who contributed to such a catastrophic collapse. 3) Why is it that employees who cause a multi-billion dollar collapse get bonuses while manufacturing industry employees are fired, have their retirement stripped, benefits gutted, or simply have their jobs outsourced? 4) Why is it that 11, million dollar or more bonuses were paid to people who no longer work at AIG? In this case, it can't possibly be that AIG is competing for revenue, customers and its valued employees. It simply can't, for the obvious reason that at least 11 people who received the money don’t work for AIG.
This last point brings us to really the crux of the issue and why the issue has so much traction in the press. Liddy claims, - it was necessary - the reality is that the bonuses represent simple entitlement. It very may well be contractually legal. There may be rationales by Liddy and his like to justify these bonuses but, this simply stinks. While the public may not be able to understand collateralized, bundled, equalized hub-dub-ary, I think it has recognized AIG and it’s bonus collecting executives for what they are – a bunch of greedy, entitled, legitimized crooks.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
cake
Okay, I admit upfront that this is just another piece of pile-on, in the case of the dubbed octa-mom, Nadya Suleman. That being said, it’s truly a shame that Dr. Otto Octavious, the Spiderman villain, will likely have his name forever besmirched as a true villain by a over-fertilized, wana-be mom.
So we know that Suleman had 6 kids in her brood already. We know that she artificially womb-dumped 8 more into this world. We know she has no job. We know she is a single mom. We know all of this and yet what I don’t know is how any insurance company covering this allowed any of it to occur. I wonder because, just recently I had a root canal which is to be followed up by a crown. All told, I’ll spend a good chunk of change on what insurance doesn’t cover. I have a job, I pay my insurance premiums, I didn’t opt for the gold crown, and I don’t expect anybody else to pick up the tab for my dentistry.
Please don’t take this as an endorsement of the current insurance system that we like to call the best medical care in the world. I don’t like it, but it’s currently the only game in town. I play by the rules and say with in the monetary limitations set by the plan and pay out of pocket when I exceed the limits. That said, I’d support one-payer healthcare options or some sort of universal health care.
I wonder why is it that when octa-mom-to-be pushes out extra kid (and we all know kids aren’t cheep) it seems that there is money to pay for the procedure to implant, the birth, the after birth special care…and so on.
What happened to managed care? When I read my insurance plans, what little I can understand, it seems that there are dollar limits for everything. Perhaps Suleman has stumbled on a large (big enough for a family of 14 and a single mom) loophole which says, “Have as many kids as you like, ‘cause we’ll pay.”
Perhaps Suleman doesn’t have insurance, or perhaps she has dried up her insurance allowance (unlike her desire to have kids) which is where public support comes in, and it will come for a long, long time. Come to think of it, the state of California will be paying for these 14 kid for the rest of their live one way or another.
So now comes the question of should the state pay for these decisions and the consideration of tough love in this situation. Can we as a society truly consider turning 14 kids and their stupid mother out on the street to fend for themselves? The answer to this question is resoundingly NO! Why no? Look at what is already happening. Actions speak louder than words and stuff is being paid for to support Suleman’s selfish decisions. Even considering all the hand wringing and talk of how crazy she is, Suleman is still getting the care, the house and the money to live. By the photos I’ve seen, it seems she is living pretty well too.
Why, I ask, if we as a society are unwilling to turn out a crazy woman who can’t stop having kids, who will cost the taxpayers many, many dollars, who is ultimately very selfish, why don’t we seek to include people who do have jobs but can’t afford insurance, who have to choose between house payment, food and insurance premiums, whose only mistake is taking a job without an adequate insurance plan? Why is it that we allow ourselves to turn our backs on 50-86 million uninsured or under insure people?
With all this in mind, It seems to me that all those hard-core, anti one-payer types should really reconsider their position. Why? Because, if your mantra is something like, your gotta pay to play, which translates to you must have insurance to get medical care, then you really can’t have any sympathy (in the form of extra money) for this octa-reproduct-o-factory and her other kids.
In other words you can’t have your cake and eat it too!
So we know that Suleman had 6 kids in her brood already. We know that she artificially womb-dumped 8 more into this world. We know she has no job. We know she is a single mom. We know all of this and yet what I don’t know is how any insurance company covering this allowed any of it to occur. I wonder because, just recently I had a root canal which is to be followed up by a crown. All told, I’ll spend a good chunk of change on what insurance doesn’t cover. I have a job, I pay my insurance premiums, I didn’t opt for the gold crown, and I don’t expect anybody else to pick up the tab for my dentistry.
Please don’t take this as an endorsement of the current insurance system that we like to call the best medical care in the world. I don’t like it, but it’s currently the only game in town. I play by the rules and say with in the monetary limitations set by the plan and pay out of pocket when I exceed the limits. That said, I’d support one-payer healthcare options or some sort of universal health care.
I wonder why is it that when octa-mom-to-be pushes out extra kid (and we all know kids aren’t cheep) it seems that there is money to pay for the procedure to implant, the birth, the after birth special care…and so on.
What happened to managed care? When I read my insurance plans, what little I can understand, it seems that there are dollar limits for everything. Perhaps Suleman has stumbled on a large (big enough for a family of 14 and a single mom) loophole which says, “Have as many kids as you like, ‘cause we’ll pay.”
Perhaps Suleman doesn’t have insurance, or perhaps she has dried up her insurance allowance (unlike her desire to have kids) which is where public support comes in, and it will come for a long, long time. Come to think of it, the state of California will be paying for these 14 kid for the rest of their live one way or another.
So now comes the question of should the state pay for these decisions and the consideration of tough love in this situation. Can we as a society truly consider turning 14 kids and their stupid mother out on the street to fend for themselves? The answer to this question is resoundingly NO! Why no? Look at what is already happening. Actions speak louder than words and stuff is being paid for to support Suleman’s selfish decisions. Even considering all the hand wringing and talk of how crazy she is, Suleman is still getting the care, the house and the money to live. By the photos I’ve seen, it seems she is living pretty well too.
Why, I ask, if we as a society are unwilling to turn out a crazy woman who can’t stop having kids, who will cost the taxpayers many, many dollars, who is ultimately very selfish, why don’t we seek to include people who do have jobs but can’t afford insurance, who have to choose between house payment, food and insurance premiums, whose only mistake is taking a job without an adequate insurance plan? Why is it that we allow ourselves to turn our backs on 50-86 million uninsured or under insure people?
With all this in mind, It seems to me that all those hard-core, anti one-payer types should really reconsider their position. Why? Because, if your mantra is something like, your gotta pay to play, which translates to you must have insurance to get medical care, then you really can’t have any sympathy (in the form of extra money) for this octa-reproduct-o-factory and her other kids.
In other words you can’t have your cake and eat it too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)