This tweet is just stunning:
I mean really, this "double dipping" language is quoted out of an actual NYT article. No, it really wasn't the Onion by mistake.
This is so silly. There is no such thing as "double dipping" -- if the players are eligible for Social Security Disability then it is because they have a separate insurance program and one that is hard to get on. This reduces costs for the most vulnerable players who are also the ones who got injured in the process of a dangerous occupation. Now I know there are probably bigger social injustices but what stops the NYT from framing this differently?
Given the brutal nature of the sport, hundreds of former players apply for disability benefits every year. Currently, some inactive players collect up to $135,000 year, or $11,250 a month, in disability benefits. If they also receive, say, $2,000 a month from Social Security, they collect $13,250 a month in disability payments. The N.F.L. wants to end that “double dipping” and reduce the players’ N.F.L. benefits by offsetting the amount they receive from Social Security.
Why not just say that owners want to reduce payments to disabled former employees to redeploy that revenue elsewhere?
Is that hard?
Or another way to rephrase it the owners are madly greedy?
ReplyDelete