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. http://www.redstate.com/2015/01/03/obamacare-subsidies-back-taxes-irs/ 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: http://www.wrywingpolitics.com/if-vikings-pick-punters-strictly-based-on-performance-they-should-bring-back-kluwe/ 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.