And yet, it happens everywhere and most assuredly has happened inside the walls of S-L. *Stuff* happens and it is not always Harvey Weinstein *stuff*. Yes.. of course it is wrong.. but, if it happened, the wronged parties are within those families and if they haven't gone public with it why should the S-L? Even if a wronged party wanted to punish such people, why should the S-L cooperate? Is it just for views.. for money? Is Rutgers and the the people harmed more by the alleged affair or by forcing out an effective executive and/or going public with the private matter? Resignation and even forced resignation is likely the correct thing for Rutgers for various reasons if the rumor is true.. but it should end there and hopefully it has.It’s not about an “affair”..it’s about having relations with one of his subordinates..which is a no no almost everywhere
Many of us said the way the resignation happened was questionable (e.g., no press conference, why no LOA in interim, no comments immediately afterwards). Now there's rumors emerging, albeit on Reddit, and posters supporting them.It's Sunday morning and nothing from the Star Ledger or any legit media company. Some of you conspiracy donuts need to get a real life!
Getting your news from Reddit??
I heard he was banging the women's gymnastics coach and that she/he was covering up what a lousy job she was doing.
If that's the case then he's an idiot and a scumbag. It's all over Reddit.
You lack discipline. Once someone is on ignore, you don't need to peek in and see if they have anything interesting to say. They don't. Stay strong and don't peek and above all, don't respond. I have no idea if any of the 10 or so morons I have on ignore ever respond to a post of mine. They suck.
So spreading rumors that turn out to be true is ok. Spreading rumors that turn out to be false? Scumbaggery. Check.
What if you believe the rumor you are spreading to be true but it turns out false? Partial credit? Just a douche?
Yup, that’s a fireable one. Open up the organization to a bunch of trouble if it’s not addressed.It’s not about an “affair”..it’s about having relations with one of his subordinates..which is a no no almost everywhere
It's Sunday morning and nothing from the Star Ledger or any legit media company. Some of you conspiracy donuts need to get a real life!
Getting your news from Reddit??
It's not fair to make shit up or pass along rumors as fact.Many of us said the way the resignation happened was questionable (e.g., no press conference, why no LOA in interim, no comments immediately afterwards). Now there's rumors emerging, albeit on Reddit, and posters supporting them.
It's fair to question, and where there's smoke there's usually fire.
Oh and it's a huge event on FB message board.
Lesson learned - don’t share info unless you’re prepared for the usual suspects to come out, guns blazing, that you’re either trolling or are looking to start troubleI already told you the facts lol. They match the rumor. I know this because person X, who is someone that would know, told me. But, to you, unless I expose who person X is, you won’t believe me lol.
Hence the standstill we’re at. Not sure what you expect me to do man…
He simply was speculating. He also said he didn't know anything other the the statement from HobbsPoliti did put out an article foreshadowing that something would come out. But look your right - if Patrice Hobbs (his wife) has a job with adequate medical insurance coverage he could switch to immediately, then all the strange surrounding circumstances are, in fact, speculative. Or perhaps even, her insurance is better, and they are already on her plan?
I hate to say it though - but if that’s not the case - nobody as close to 65 years old (Medicare eligibility) as he is would proactively elect to forego a leave of absence that would allow him to retain medical insurance that he needs. By resigning, unless his wife’s coverage is an option, that would mean he chose COBRA coverage to support his major medical problems. It’s not speculative to say nobody would ever do that.
Patrice is an Administrative Judge for the State of NJ. She is a very nice person.Politi did put out an article foreshadowing that something would come out. But look your right - if Patrice Hobbs (his wife) has a job with adequate medical insurance coverage he could switch to immediately, then all the strange surrounding circumstances are, in fact, speculative. Or perhaps even, her insurance is better, and they are already on her plan?
I hate to say it though - but if that’s not the case - nobody as close to 65 years old (Medicare eligibility) as he is would proactively elect to forego a leave of absence that would allow him to retain medical insurance that he needs. By resigning, unless his wife’s coverage is an option, that would mean he chose COBRA coverage to support his major medical problems. It’s not speculative to say nobody would ever do that.
It never did. There is only one poster who claims he "knows" something. Maybe this is someone who has an axe to grind against the gymnastics coach?It’s not adding up
Just to be clear - I'm not speculating about Hobbs at all - I wish him the very best. My post above was genuine curiosity how health benefits through a public employer like Rutgers differ (if at all) from the private sector.Patrice is an Administrative Judge for the State of NJ. She is a very nice person.
That information on her employer is readily available on LinkedIn. So now we can stop the speculation on his insurance coverage.
Looks like Hobbs wife has good benefits.Just to be clear - I'm not speculating about Hobbs at all - I wish him the very best. My post above was genuine curiosity how health benefits through a public employer like Rutgers differ (if at all) from the private sector.
And media... why should the S-L or NJ.com care if anyone has an affair? How about they firs publish a list of everyone in their corporate hierarchy who has had affairs.. if that is what this is.
Whether we like him or not, Politi is not stupid and knows his article, whether we consider it clickbait or not, will generate views and have people talking, which, combined with Pat's resignation, is already on a 12 page threadOne thing that doesn’t square with Shelby’s interpretation is a forthcoming S-L expose.
If such is already planned and on the way, Shelby doesn’t think Politi would write the ‘unanswered questions’ article. At a minimum he’d know of the bombshell story and wouldn’t play dumb.
So he doubts that’s already in the works and the S-L tipped RU off. But Shelby still finds the cardiac issue explanation unconvincing.
It's a good question. I had a discussion about this with a football staff person abut what what happens when one turns 65. If the employee remains employed at 65, they are required to enroll in Medicare Parts A and B. IIRC, Medicare Parts A and B are significantly more expensive in premiums than the employee coverage.Just to be clear - I'm not speculating about Hobbs at all - I wish him the very best. My post above was genuine curiosity how health benefits through a public employer like Rutgers differ (if at all) from the private sector.
Your top paragraph doesn't ring right. Everyone has to enroll in Part A Medicare at age 65. But those who are covered by group health insurance at work do not join Part B until they retire. This is no different for those employed by the state. When one does retire, one's spouse must join Parts A and B upon reaching 65.It's a good question. I had a discussion about this with a football staff person abut what what happens when one turns 65. If the employee remains employed at 65, they are required to enroll in Medicare Parts A and B. IIRC, Medicare Parts A and B are significantly more expensive in premiums than the employee coverage.
Further, if I understand this correctly, even if the spouse does not also work for the State, health benefits are available:
"The Retired Group of the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) or School Employees’ Health Benefits Program (SEHBP) offers medical, prescription, and dental coverage to certain retiring members and their eligible dependents. Members must have been full time employees who were eligible for health insurance coverage until their retirement date."
Also, when spouses both work for the State:
"State law prohibits two members who are each enrolled
in SHBP/SEHBP plans from covering each
other. Therefore, an eligible individual may enroll in
the SHBP/SEHBP as an employee or retiree, or be
covered as a dependent, but cannot be both."
I'm not familiar with Medicare parts A and B. I should have preceded my first statement with "if I understand correctly" as well. I just looked at that "Fact Sheet", and here it is quoted. Is it wrong, or did it change recently. The date of the fact sheet is April 2024. This ain't my area of expertise, which is why I looked it up, but I could also be reading it incorrectly.Your top paragraph doesn't ring right. Everyone has to enroll in Part A Medicare at age 65. But those who are covered by group health insurance at work do not join Part B until they retire. This is no different for those employed by the state. When one does retire, one's spouse must join Parts A and B upon reaching 65.
I know of several couples who both were employed by the state. Each has his or her own state health insurance while employed. When one of the spouses retires, he or she is covered as a dependent of the work who is employed.
So your take is the SL is holding the story??? Putting their info to be stolen by another media company?Whether we like him or not, Politi is not stupid and knows his article, whether we consider it clickbait or not, will generate views and have people talking, which, combined with Pat's resignation, is already on a 12 page thread
I look at as, if the speculation is true (and I hope it's not - I like Pat and appreciate everything he's done for the university), but for all intents and purposes, if it does turn out to be true, the first article is the bait and the follow up smash piece is the "cherry on top" for him and the SL as it'll generate clicks and ratings
Why would both spouses have their own insurance when working ? Wouldn’t it be cheaper for one to be on the others state insurance as a dependent. Usually the spouse that makes less money can get the premium cheaperYour top paragraph doesn't ring right. Everyone has to enroll in Part A Medicare at age 65. But those who are covered by group health insurance at work do not join Part B until they retire. This is no different for those employed by the state. When one does retire, one's spouse must join Parts A and B upon reaching 65.
I know of several couples who both were employed by the state. Each has his or her own state health insurance while employed. When one of the spouses retires, he or she is covered as a dependent of the work who is employed.
NoSo your take is the SL is holding the story??? Putting their info to be stolen by another media company?
We'll find out soon enoughWasted 40 minutes reading this entire thread from soup to nuts, FFS is the guy out there laying pipe or not?
This I agree with. As stated I doubt the 'cardiac issue' is the reason but I also don't think the SL has anything yet. I think RU found something out and proactively dumped him....or rather allowed him to retire immediately to keep some benefits and craft an excuse else they'd fire him.So your take is the SL is holding the story??? Putting their info to be stolen by another media company?
It's a good question. I had a discussion about this with a football staff person abut what what happens when one turns 65. If the employee remains employed at 65, they are required to enroll in Medicare Parts A and B. IIRC, Medicare Parts A and B are significantly more expensive in premiums than the employee coverage.
Further, if I understand this correctly, even if the spouse does not also work for the State, health benefits are available:
"The Retired Group of the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) or School Employees’ Health Benefits Program (SEHBP) offers medical, prescription, and dental coverage to certain retiring members and their eligible dependents. Members must have been full time employees who were eligible for health insurance coverage until their retirement date."
Also, when spouses both work for the State:
"State law prohibits two members who are each enrolled
in SHBP/SEHBP plans from covering each
other. Therefore, an eligible individual may enroll in
the SHBP/SEHBP as an employee or retiree, or be
covered as a dependent, but cannot be both."
So you do believe they are holding the story.As mentioned earlier, SL could have found out about it, alerted RU, who told Hobbs, etc.
Or, it could all be BS
We'll find out soon enough either way
my post above does cite evidence of wrongdoing.The S-L isn't a fan of Rutgers or Hobbs, to put it mildly. If there were even a smidgen of evidence, the S-L would happily run a story reporting that Hobbs is accused of doing something wrong (having an affair with a subordinate). Q.E.D. There isn't a smidgen of evidence that he's done anything wrong.
Maybe that evidence will emerge, but to me it's wrong for people to be speculating and spreading rumors when there's no present evidence of wrongdoing.
Which invites the question, "why would the S-L hold such a story?" It's hard to think of why that would do that. Running the story (if there were any evidence for it) would be great for the S-L.So you do believe they are holding the story.
As @Knight Shift's post indicates, the state simply doesn't allow that.Why would both spouses have their own insurance when working ? Wouldn’t it be cheaper for one to be on the others state insurance as a dependent. Usually the spouse that makes less money can get the premium cheaper
Explain why SL is holding the story. They never have before! But all of sudden they want to protect Rutgers😂😂😂 Funniest crap I've ever heard on this board!This I agree with. As stated I doubt the 'cardiac issue' is the reason but I also don't think the SL has anything yet. I think RU found something out and proactively dumped him....or rather allowed him to retire immediately to keep some benefits and craft an excuse else they'd fire him.
The key words are "upon retirement." If you continue to work after age 65, you do not need to be in Medicare Part B so long as you are covered by group life insurance.I'm not familiar with Medicare parts A and B. I should have preceded my first statement with "if I understand correctly" as well. I just looked at that "Fact Sheet", and here it is quoted. Is it wrong, or did it change recently. The date of the fact sheet is April 2024. This ain't my area of expertise, which is why I looked it up, but I could also be reading it incorrectly.
But the person I was discussing this with may have only been referring to Part A. He may not have specified. I was surprised by this rule.
"Medicare Coverage is Required if Eligible
Upon retirement, if you and/or your dependent are age 65 or have been on Social Security Disability
for 24 months or more, you are required to enroll in Medi- care Parts A and B. If you have not enrolled
in both parts of Medicare, you should contact Social Security to apply 90 days prior to your retirement date."
See my post. Great minds think alike!Explain why SL is holding the story. They never have before! But all of sudden they want to protect Rutgers😂😂😂 Funniest crap I've ever heard on this board!