Jots with dots 1/6/15

Chait stains / conservative schadenfreude du jour / hypocrisy watch watch. Chait says that in their glee to charge Harvard staff with hypocrisy, conservatives are hypocrites…or dumb. Whatevs.

…Cuz Obamacare was a conservative idea you know, and conservatives always wanted to shift a greater share of the cost to consumers so as to introduce some market discipline…

Chait is being too obtuse by half. A) I think ‘conservative idea’ is an enormous exaggeration, such that political support for the cost shift outside the righty think tank community was never well developed and / or to the extent various leaders in the GOP supported health care reform, they were kind of, you know, ‘posturing’, and needed a superficially market based idea to glom onto though they never expected to pass it into law B) conservatives didn’t perpetrate a lie to get Obamacare passed that health insurance would get cheaper, they didn’t present this lie that existing policy holders would not observe higher costs to expand coverage to those who couldn’t afford it previously C) Whatever the conservatives thought about the cost shift is irrelevant, the Harvard professoriates’ hypocrisy can stand on its own. They were for PPACA without thinking about it, you know, because they believed the lies and then lockstep support of Obama and PPACA is like buying your stairway to heaven in liberal circles D) these people are supposed to be happy to pay for a better you name it.

So yes, it’s completely apropos to discern hypocrisy and have schadenfreude at the liberal gold collar Harvard professoriate being annoyed at being exposed to the PPACA cost shift.

I’m looking at my last paystub of 2014. My employee contributions for health insurance were $13659 this year. Figure my employer kicked in $2000 maybe, as they cover half the employee premiums while the employee covers the other half and his family. It’s only going to take $100 a month in premium increases over the next several years to meet the Cadillac tax threshold.

The practical manifestation of this, I’d guess, is that a lot of people who were used to getting income tax refunds don’t get them. My additional knee jerk guess is that the size of the balance due for these peoples’ subsidy overages will run into the low thousands – $2k, $3k, whatever. And a bit much for people who were not used to the joy of having tax balances due in amounts of low thousands. This has the makings of a political problem, as it’s certainly not obvious you can just wave the executive order wand and make those balances go away. The IRS’ default instinct is to try and collect those balances.

Fanciful: The lament, I guess, is a rather childish notion of unfairness to Kluwe. Thing is, A) sports and athletics are not all that fair. Thing B) is, Kluwe is 31, was making $1 mil, and is a major distraction while being a mediocre punter…. It’s not ‘not sensible’ to replace him with a guy making $200k who’s somewhat worse. You weigh the utility of the performance drop off, which might not be that much, plus the money savings, plus the absence of distractions… and it might make sense. Ya know, it is what it is and I know a person can take outrage that the Vikings have to do PR massage of how they describe cutting Kluwe…. But Loveland is in PR and there ought to be an understanding of that. Unless the rule is say that we get to do PR for things that are egalitarianistic and social-justice-y and for other things we do not. PS: I was for marriage equality.


4 thoughts on “Jots with dots 1/6/15

  1. Joe Loveland

    If money was part of the issue, and I agree that it was, then the Vikings PR people would have been wise to say that: “Chris was unwilling to restructure a contract that is relatively expensive compared to other punters in the League. At the same time, Jeff Locke’s stellar college performance gives us confidence that he can be a great player at a great value. We appreciate all that Chris has done for the Vikings, but salary cap management is part of what we have to do as a team to succeed.”

    Why not just tell the truth? Treat fans like grown ups.

    When Vikings say the reason is “strictly based on football performance,” they open themselves up to strictly performace-based comparisons.

    As for saying publicly that they were firing for “distractions,” that gets a little dicey when the alleged distraction is speaking out about civil rights.

    1. pm1956

      Yeah, but….is there anybody in the NFL with good PR sense?

      I suppose the one other question i have–where is Kluwe now? Are all the NFL teams in cahoots? Or is his career over because of performance? If he were playing and performing somewhere else, then the Vikes would really look stupid.

  2. Joe Loveland

    I don’t know why Kluwe hasn’t gotten a job. I’m pretty sure the fact that he publicly called his coach (who said he wanted to nuke the gays) a bigot has something to do with other coaches not wanting him. He dissed the thin-skinned fraternity of whistle-tooters. But it very well could be that his performance at 33 has slipped too. I don’t know.

    1. pm1956

      The other possibility (the one i think the likeliest) is the Kluwe has grown up, and is over playing football. He made good money for a fairly long time, and hopefully has plenty of it still.

      The really hard thing for football players is creating a life after football.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s