NFL - NEWS & NOTES

Eagles brought back in Jordan Matthews. They need a body at WR and he knows much of the offense.

 

It's not official yet but they just waived DeAndre Carter to call up Josh Adams. Very peculiar moves.

 

Hmmm. I was actually impressed by what I had seen from DeAndre Carter.

 

Preseason ya. He hasn't been upto par since though. Still it's weird. The Eagles are currently down to just THREE healthy wide receivers for Sunday’s game against the Indianapolis Colts: Nelson Agholor, Kamar Aiken, and Shelton Gibson.

 

desperate times call for desperate measures!

 

I know you didn't, I think you are confused on what consists of pre-existing conditions. My current insurance covers injuries that stemmed from High School injuries, which in your definition is pre-existing...

Yes, I know what Cobra costs and normal people with normal jobs have to pay it regularly to bridge from one job to another, you are suggesting someone that has made tens of millions of dollars over a 5 year period shouldn't be obligated to pay the costs of COBRA? And you are saying I am unreasonable.

You continue to say that new insurance wouldn't cover pre-existing conditions, even though you don't understand the meaning of the coverage for insurance purposes. YOU said it, I didn't.

I understand what you are advocating, I disagree that it is a former employees responsibility to pay insurance for life, simply because these people entertained you for several years. Why and how are they different than every other person with a job, union or otherwise? You have failed to differentiate them in any way to substantiate your advocacy.

And once again, you get frustrated from being wrong to tell someone to get their head out of their ass. How is that adding relevancy to an argument?

These players are talking about HOFers who have made millions of dollars and any one of the people in that group, you can probably google to find them in one of their many exotic cars and multi-million dollar homes. I am not dissing them for having cars and homes by the way. They earned their money and can spend it in any way they see fit. I would do the same thing if I had that kind of money, I won't lie... They aren't talking about getting insurance for the less fortunate in this case, these are players that were the best in the league and were paid more money than any others in the league at their time.

The entitlement issue is to something they are asking for that no one else other than government employees have when they leave a job, whether it is quitting, being fired or retiring.

Kind of like you are, you feel entitled to win an argument no matter how shallow of one you have....

No, lol, which is why I made my prior statement...ONCE THEY LEAVE THE ACTORS GUILD, THEY NO LONGER CARRY THE INSURANCE FROM THE ACTORS GUILD. You call me stupid, yet you don't understand the basics of employer obligations. These are the BASICS, I would hate to get into a more complicated subject with you.

It's frustration that makes me state the obvious... Your statements result in you looking like you don't understand the laws of economics and capitalism. That was about as simple as I could put it...but, it had the results I hoped for, you finally understood something.

I don't have the time or desire to explain the differences between socialism and capitalism to you, but take some time to study it please. The NFL is the epitome of capitalism.

Do you even understand how many markets profit off of the NFL? They are anything but closed.

The snarkiness comes from retaliation. Being called ignorant on a subject I clearly understand more than the person I am having the conversation with tends to lead to those results.

I'm done with this conversation as I am POSITIVE no one else is getting any entertainment from it....Have a nice night

 

Since I only answered BWW earlier, I will address this... COBRA is not meant to be the answer to anything, it is a means for continuing treatment on an existing condition and find a new means of insurance in the 18 months allotted to you.

My only suggestion was that the players, once they become ex-players, are responsible for getting their own insurance just like ANY other former employee in America that wasn't in a government job.

Why has this turned into an attack on me and my intelligence.

How is that not a reasonable opinion?

 

The only reason why the NFL could wind up responsible for ex players health care is because a court of law might site the violent nature of the game warrants it.

 

The union should negotiate with insurance companies to get a deal that covers players in full with the league offering not only approval but full endorsement (insurance companies would compete against each other for not only the rights to coverage but rights to be the official insurer of the NFL).

Every player that receives a paycheck from the NFL would receive coverage in exchange for a percentage of their contract set at a basic rate and in return the league would match up to a certain dollar amount.

The players could opt for more expansive coverage by paying more of their personal wages.




Seems pretty simple to me.

 

It's not simple when everyone wants more of the pie.

 

I was going to bow out of this conversation, but this only covers the current players. It still wouldn't cover any of the HOF players that are asking for a salary and health insurance, unless the League decides to send them a monthly salary, simply because they are now members of the HOF.

 

Speaking of... Where does everyone suggest that this program funding comes from? I will say, if they suggest the current players pool shrink at all, they will balk. If they suggest the owners pay for it, it will never fly. Also, there will be no stoppage of play, because the current players aren't going to lose paychecks to strike over this. The players never think about their future, until it is part of their present.

I don't see any reality where the owners think to themselves, you know, this small group of players in the grand scheme of things put us where we are and we owe them millions of dollars more, simply because we use their image, which we own as part of the contracts they agreed to years ago...But, I'm just ignorant, so you can all ignore this.

 

Not if you prorate it for the average lifespan of an adult male and give the players options to purchase lifetime upfront with the league matching half which would obviously change contract dollar amounts to reflect that.

And again, if players wanted expanded coverage it would come out of their own pockets.

 

How would you possibly plan for inflation rates of insurance? They are one of the least predictable commodities.

 

You're essentially buying in on a group plan with roughly 1,700 participants the first year and a few hundred each year thereafter.

You negotiate a deal that reflects potential increases with an average yearly mark up and use those totals as the whole number.

It's an obvious big win for which ever insurance carrier puts together a deal that the union agrees to. Their name gets linked to the NFL for an extended deal (think 8, 10 years) and it can be renegotiated at that point, but the players that bought in on that first series of deals are locked into their rate because it was paid in full at an agreed term.

It's just as big an investment for the growth of their product as it is a return on the policies they sell.

 

I think the NFL probably currently uses a group plan that includes all employees, not just the 53 man roster's of 32 teams. This would include team employees, NFL office employees, most likely NFL Network employees. Anyone that is directly associated with the NFL badge. This would be their opportunity to get the best rate possible. My guess is that the current number is closer to 8,000 employees. However, if this is enacted, you aren't adding approximately 300 per year, you are immediately adding all past retirees, unless of course you are only adding the HOF players. This recent ask was for HOF players only, not all retirees. BUT, if it were to turn into a plea for all retirees, then you are talking about 300 x about 40 years, which is about a 250% increase in premiums....Once again, if you are ONLY counting players and not their families.

If you are going to eliminate players, where do you draw the line? If it is only HOFers, as this story has eluded to, then I go back to my original view of entitlement. These players are the highest paid players in their profession. They have opportunities post football that no one else has. The NFL already took care of them, it's time for them to take care of themselves.

 

I was only including those on contract at the start of the league year and an estimated turnover from year to year.

I didn't research exact numbers (best guesstimate).

I specifically didn't include retired players because I don't believe it should work retroactively. The union could have taken steps years ago and had a chance to every single year and have failed to do so.

 

This I agree with 100%

That is where entitlement came into play in my original post. The ones asking for it now have been out of the league for years and are NOW coming back basically asking for back pay, for something the current union hasn't even agreed to. That is the embodiment of the meaning of entitlement. They were asking for something no other player has ever received, nor were they asking that any other players receive it, just those that have the honor of being inducted into the HOF. They are also the ones that made the most money while playing a game...It's an issue of "Give me more".

 

I think the players that are no longer in the league could have some options to work with if they pooled resources and had the union negotiate on their behalf, but it should be separate from a plan that the union should be actively working on for the players currently in the league. The focus for them should be health insurance for life off of a large sum buy (or multiple large sum buys) so that even if they only make it in the league for a couple seasons they could still have good health insurance for the majority of their adult life.

Probably the best thing to do for retired players would be to work with the AARP and enlist them to lean on insurers to maximize their leverage. The AARP would get to have their name associated with the shield and could have hall of fame players as spokespeople.

They could end up with coverage at a lesser rate than what they would individually but they would still need to pay into the plans in order to be insured.

If the union wanted to work with the players and the league to get them to donate a few dollars to ease the burden on the players it becomes a 'win' for everyone involved. The retired players get insured for less on the dollar while the union and the league get to promote it for PR purposes.

 

This seems like a simple fix. I agree with all you say, Tim. But whats puzzling to me is why all of a sudden is this an issue. Prior to these latest HOF'ers ive not heard of this problem before.

The NFL partnering with the AARP is a good idea, I wonder why this hasn't been addressed sooner?

The whole thing leaves me with lots of questions. Maybe its so much a simple fix, in my opinion, that it just wont get done.