Sweet, sweet schadenfreude: Harvard faculty who championed #Obamacare angry for being subject to Obamacare

January 5, 2015
"Another Obamacare supporter learns the truth."

“Another Obamacare supporter learns the truth.”

Via Charles Cooke, this is too delicious for words:

For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.

Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.

The faculty vote came too late to stop the cost increases from taking effect this month, and the anger on campus remains focused on questions that are agitating many workplaces: How should the burden of health costs be shared by employers and employees? If employees have to bear more of the cost, will they skimp on medically necessary care, curtail the use of less valuable services, or both?

What’s the old saying? “Be careful what you wish for; you might get it!”

Thomas Sowell has observed that the problem with letting government regulate so much is that the regulators seldom have to live with the consequences of their decisions. It’s the ordinary people who suffer. The same can be said for academics at Harvard (and other universities): state-run healthcare sounds great in theory –the libraries are full of books and articles endorsing it, as well as the conversation in faculty lounges– but make them live by the rules they advocated and they scream “UNFAIR!!”

What they’re being asked to do, of course, is what many of us already do: pay an increased but still small portion of their healthcare costs, which are going up for the university. This, in turn has caused a ruckus, though Harvard argues that provisions of the Affordable Care Act for them to take these steps:

In Harvard’s health care enrollment guide for 2015, the university said it “must respond to the national trend of rising health care costs, including some driven by health care reform,” otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act. The guide said that Harvard faced “added costs” because of provisions in the health care law that extend coverage for children up to age 26, offer free preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies and, starting in 2018, add a tax on high-cost insurance, known as the Cadillac tax.

The quoted complaints are a treat, too:

Richard F. Thomas, a Harvard professor of classics and one of the world’s leading authorities on Virgil, called the changes “deplorable, deeply regressive, a sign of the corporatization of the university.”

Mary D. Lewis, a professor who specializes in the history of modern France and has led opposition to the benefit changes, said they were tantamount to a pay cut. “Moreover,” she said, “this pay cut will be timed to come at precisely the moment when you are sick, stressed or facing the challenges of being a new parent.”

You should take them seriously, because PhD’s in Classics and History are experts in the economics of health care. Apparently they need a refresher in one of the basic rules of economics: When you increase a business or other institution’s cost, it will deal with it in one of four ways. It will cease operation, deciding the expenses are too great; it will absorb the cost; it offset the cost by reducing other expenses; or it will offset the cost by passing all or a portion of it to the consumer. Harvard has chosen this last option. What, really, did these degree-bearing men and women expect?

I know, I know. A continued ride on the gravy train, because they’re educators, damn it!

On the other hand, Professor Lewis is right: this is tantamount to a pay cut, something many of us have experienced thanks to the skyrocketing premiums and massively increased deductibles under our new “affordable” system.

Why should Ivy League academics be exempt?

Congratulations, folks! You got what you asked for!

smiley popcorn

 


Couldn’t happen to a more deserving fascist

July 1, 2011

Aw, my heart breaks. Venezuelan dictator and coca-addict Hugo Chavez, who’s been hiding out in Cuba for weeks, now, finally went on television to admit he has cancer:

However, and in spite of the favorable general course, throughout the process of draining and healing, there appeared suspicion of the presence of other cellular formations that had not previously been detected. Therefore, a series of special tests was started immediately, cytochemical, cytopathologic, microbiologic, and pathologic, which confirmed the presence of an abscessed tumor with the presence of cancerous cells, which necessitated a second surgery.

(Translation by Fausta, who also has the video)

To say I have little sympathy for Chavez would be to assume I have any sympathy at all — and I don’t.

This loathsome commie-caudillo, who thinks of himself as the new Simón Bolívar, has destroyed democracy in Venezuela (admittedly a feeble thing before he arrived, but he put the bullet in it), has stolen elections, wrecked his nation’s economy, made common cause with our deadly enemies, sponsored terrorist groups against our allies, and is a dirty little anti-Semite.

And those are his good points.

Meanwhile, the Diplomad loves the hypocrisy of a supposed “Man of the People” fleeing his own country to get medical treatment elsewhere:

Don’t you love the men of the people? When, for example, crazy leftist Forbes Burnham of Guyana got sick, he got himself some Cuban doctors–he had minor throat surgery and the Cuban docs ended up killing him, so he might have been better off going to Massachusetts General. When Castro was at death’s door in 2006, he spared no expense in bringing Spanish doctors to save him from his Cuban ones. When Chavez gets sick, he, too, hightails it out of the country. Now we can all understand when rich, corrupt, rightwing dictators go abroad for medical treatment, but aren’t these lefties supposed to be of, by, and for the people? Aren’t they giving their people the wonders and glories of socialism, including state-run medical services? In fact, the Chavez-drafted Constitution declares health care a right, and obligates the state to provide it. 

It says something about the state of medical care in Venezuela under Chavez that he would prefer to go to Cuba. Or maybe he’s just afraid of an “accident” on the operating table in Caracas?

So, if Hugo is in danger of dying, all I can say is … good. And I hope the end is an agony for him.

Heaven knows, he richly deserves it.

LINKS: Iowahawk was having too much fun on Twitter last night when the news broke.

UPDATE: The Venezuelan Army insists Castro’s Mini-Me is still in charge. Is this like a president expressing “full confidence” in an aide, just before firing him?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Schadenfreude is oh-so sweet

March 21, 2011

For years I had to watch while the Kook Left slammed George W. Bush again and again over Iraq. While that was annoying, it was expected; they aren’t called “moonbats” for nothing. But what made it maddening was the cynical exploitation of said kooks by the Democratic party, the leaders of which put their short-term electoral fortunes ahead of the nation’s interests in a time of war. Foremost among them was one Senator Barack H. Obama, who said:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

My, how time flies. Just four short years later, and now-President Obama has launched his own war in Libya. Sure, he got the permission of the UN Security Council and the agreement of the international community (all bow), which is all that really matters to a progressive transnationalist, but he forgot that little part about honoring the Constitution and obtaining the “informed consent of Congress.” And that has the moonbats meeping and gibbering in outrage.

I love it:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.

So now the Kook Left*, which the Democratic leadership wielded like a baseball bat to bludgeon Bush, has turned on… the Democratic leadership.

Why yes, I believe I will have another helping of schadenfreude, thanks. It’s delicious!

via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt

*I mean, just look at the names on that list.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Their tears are like the finest liqueur

November 19, 2010

I admit, I’m enjoying this:

Dejected Democrats wiped away tears on the House floor Monday night while Republicans congratulated themselves on winning back control of the lower chamber.

(…)

Freshman Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.), who lost her reelection bid, wiped away tears as she hugged fellow members of the class of 2008, many of whom lost on Nov. 2.

Less than three feet away, ousted Nevada freshman Rep. Dina Titus (D) appeared to brush away some tears in a less obvious manner.

Ladies, after the crap your party inflicted on the nation over the last two years, you got what you deserved, so cry me a river.

While I laugh.

Via Allahpundit.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)