Can't find the right spot for your comment? Post it here, in this open forum. Real Time Comments: parked here, 24/7. (Earlier editions.)
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
37 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was idly flicking through USAToday.com this afternoon, and I was surprised to see ads disguised as stories at the bottom. Things like "why are razors so expensive?" are not stories, but ads, plain and simple, linking straight to an advertisers site.
ReplyDeleteWhich genius decided it was okay to do this, to sell the last few shreds of editorial integrity for a few bucks?
Nothing to see here, just the same 1 or 2 bitter people who hate USA Today and criticize anything Gannett does.
DeleteYeah, why are razors so expensive?
DeleteLatest circulation figures for USAToday and all U.S. newspapers released today by Audit Bureau. Figures cover period from April to Sept.30th. How did Gannett papers do?
DeleteUSA Today is just a horrible brand. Been that way for a long time. It is actually is a symbol of one of the things wrong with America and the general dumbing down of the culture. It has been a leader in marketing gimmicks and questionable business practices since the beginning. The only difference now is that it's more widespread because of the digital product. Just a train wreck of a newspaper/website run by people who think a lot of themselves, or at least project that because of their hidden insecurities.
Delete5:10 PM, that was actually the first time I have ever posted here, but it's good to see that there are plenty of people who jump in, make unwarranted assumptions and don't bother to answer the question I raised. That seems to be the Gannett way these days...
DeleteIgnore 5:10 pm. Undoubtedly the same genius who repeatedly thinks that tiresome, speculative attack is clever. .
Delete4:14 is another of Jim's butt flossers. They lurk in all the dark corners here. Igor had more dignity.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteACA, contrary to what Gannett indicated in the memo, has nothing to do with the rates, coverage and structure, of the insurance plans that a company offers to its employees. Nothing needed to change for 2014. Heck, Gannett could even have lowered the rates, and make it more affordable, if they were so inclined.
ReplyDeleteGannett was looking for "someone" to blame for the increased premiums and the new model they are rolling out next month.
Nothing in the law that is ACA, directed employers/companies to reduce coverage, increase premiums or change the structure of the plans.
What Gannett did was reducing their cost, passing it on to the employees, and selling it as we have to be more involved, make smarter choices and be more responsible for our healthcare needs.
Now my out of pocket cost for me and my family will be about $10K a year (including premiums), before I can start "collecting" on my policy, and even then I still have my deductibles for each visit and prescription.
For someone making $10 an hour, that is half the paycheck, before taxes (minus the meager tax credits).
I understand, that healthcare cost is going up each year, and that we have to pitch in a little more each year, but blaming it on ACA is unethical.
On top of this, we are all paying the same, be it on a $10 an hour paycheck, or a salaried position that includes 6 figures. That is the icing on the cake, or a slap in the face, depending on where you are in the Gannett food chain.
Sorry, but you're just misinformed. Adding tens of millions of uninsurable people to the rolls overnight, imposing politically-oriented micromanagement of the terms and details of coverage (including private employer plans, contrary to your assertion), all while limiting competition, is driving up costs and sowing chaos throughout the whole system. Look it up.
DeleteYou're right in that a benevolent employer could voluntarily choose to eat more of the costs, but it is simply foolish to deny that the train wreck is a huge factor.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteTo the kids at 8:28 am, 8:35 am and 8:45 am: No fair. You're already into the Halloween candy and on a silly sugar high that makes you think you're amusing. Wait till later, when mommy and daddy say it's OK to eat your treats. Meanwhile, refrain from interrupting the adults with your inane posts. Thanks, kids.
DeleteYou mean the adults who call managers names and post idiotic claims? Those adults? Hahahaha! Great examples, 8:51.
DeleteTo 3:23...
DeleteI beg to differ with your your statement, that adding millions uninsured has anything to do with how Gannett structured the insurance plans for 2014.
This was Gannetts choice.
They didn't just add employee cost to the plans, as they have done previous years, but they totally changed the rules.
Let me for a minute entertain your idea, that added benefits for those who before had none, increase the premiums for the rest of us.
What about the outcry by the insurance industry, HMO's and hospitals, that uninsured people who had treatments, that they never paid for, was a huge part of driving up the cost our premiums. Now that everybody has insurance we should expect a drop in our premium payments. Right?
Technically those figures should even each other out, possibly with a positive cash flow, because not everybody who now will have insurance are going to the emergency rooms for treatment.
It was very telling, that you didn't commented on the last part, in regards to we all pay the same now, no matter our income level.
There plenty of people, like yourself, who don't think, that people without jobs deserve any form of insurance.
I am glad that you are doing so well for and by yourself.
Just to clarify to Jims readers on the Blog, Happy who has some very good points is not the original Happy, That would be me AKA Happy, AKA Happy Pressmen.
DeleteIf you look up past comments from me, you wil see that I am in the loop and would be Happy if Happy changed his name to Happy whatever :) Thanks guy, nothing personal, but it is causing me questions amongst my fellow bloggers.. Peace brother
The Original Happy Pressman
I have kept this moniker for about a year, and I never intended to be confused with the Happy Pressman.
DeleteAs long as I only use Happy as name, there is still a distinct difference in the names we use.
BTW. I haven't seen many posts from the Happy Pressman in a while.
It is no do different than Bill and Billy, and if you make sure to add Pressman to your name, I am sure everybody can keep figure out who is posting.
Here you used Anonymous, and there are quite a few of them around.
Point well taken taken Happy
DeleteHP
In its third-quarter earnings report, Facebook just disclosed that it has 1 million advertisers, a figure that's still growing. Also, 20 million small businesses worldwide now have Facebook pages.
ReplyDeleteand some of that is being sold by Gannett salespeople as the Gannett products fade away.
DeleteAnd when it's being sold by Gannett salespeople, you only get to keep half the money and send the rest to the googleplex. Not the most profitable business to be in these days, especially with the competition out there. At best, this gives you a year or so of relief, but then it's nothing but a commodity to be bought at the lowest price possible.
DeleteHow's it feel to be working three jobs for the price of one while making sub-standard wages? That's our Gannett.
ReplyDeleteSo sad to see some of our best colleagues being shown the door. Does the endless bleeding ever stop?
ReplyDeleteThere has been a few comments posted here about The Indianapolis Star absorbing the Lafayette Journal & Courier and the Richmond Palladium-Item.
ReplyDeleteIs there any truth to this, Jim?
How would that even work in Indiana? Lafayette and Richmond look to be about 60 or so miles from Indianapolis. Would readers in those locals want to read Indy news?
I've also heard Lafayette and Richmond have lost reporters/editors for various reasons yet none of the open spots are being filled.
Indiana also has the The Star Press in Muncie. Would it also be folded into the Star?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI have no firsthand knowledge about any such merging of papers.
DeleteBut it's theoretically possible from a printing standpoint. After all, The Cincinnati Enquirer is printed in Columbus, Ohio, more than 100 miles away. So, 60 miles wouldn't be any big deal.
I think you're asking about content, however. I'm sure readers in Lafayette and Richmond are already getting Indy news. What they wouldn't want would be very, very local news: school board meetings, small business openings/closings, high school sports, etc.
Richmond and Muncie already are printed in Indianapolis, and have been for quite some time.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteGracia and Dickey in Phoenix this week ! what's up ?
ReplyDeleteGracia a no-show, only minions sent. Guess looking to fill M. Rimby old job. Just what's needed, another mid-management position that does nothing but cut more workers.
DeleteNo introductions, no greetings. They're here to cut.
Delete3:23, or anyone who is dealing with the upcoming sharp hike in premiums and deductibles that Gannett employees will make: Regardless of market forces, companies also did have choices they could make. For instance, compare figures for the rate of increase between Cox Enterprises employees and Gannett employees. Two very large communications companies with tens of thousands in their workforces, operating in the identical multimedia journalism world of revenue challenges, and yet the difference is startling. A Gannett employee in a family of two will see a monthly rate increase in their premium of about 34-37 percent. A Cox employee in a family of two OR three has a monthly rate increase of about 17-20 percent. The Gannett family of two must pay $3,000 in deductibles before they get to 80/20; the Cox family of two will pay about $1,600 in deductibles before they get to 80/20. Gannett employees must pay in full until they reach their deductibles; Cox employees will still have the ability to pay co-pays and use billing.
ReplyDeleteMarket forces will affect all health care in ways we can't even see yet. Don't get hung up on intention or emotion; that weakens the argument and makes us easier to brush away.
No, not quite identical. Cox is three times bigger, and moreover two-thirds of its revenue (i.e., 2X GCI) comes from cable, a very robust business.
ReplyDeleteAgreed on both counts, 12:40, though Cox isn't quite that big; Macroaxis says Gannett has 30,700 total (ft and pt) and Cox about 50,000. Also, Cox is private, Gannett publicly traded. I still think that they are similar enough companies to compare rates for employees and to see that the gap is wide.
ReplyDelete