Obamacare

Harvard Profs Loved Obamacare But Say Changes to Their Own Plans Are Like 'Taxing the Sick'

|

Harvard
Wikimedia Commons

The Harvard University faculty is among the most pro-Obamacare cohort in the country; many of Harvard's top professors even served as advisors to the president and Congress, helping to craft and approve the Affordable Care Act.

But much like a doctor who refuses to take the medicine he prescribes to others, Harvard elites seem to resent changes to their own health plans—changes at least tangentially related to the ACA, according to The New York Times:

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?

"Harvard is a microcosm of what's happening in health care in the country," said David M. Cutler, a health economist at the university who was an adviser to President Obama's 2008 campaign. But only up to a point: Professors at Harvard have until now generally avoided the higher expenses that other employers have been passing on to employees. That makes the outrage among the faculty remarkable, Mr. Cutler said, because "Harvard was and remains a very generous employer."

The story is filled with unintentionally hilarious quotes from professors consumed by grief and rage that they will be expected to pay higher out-of-pocket medical costs:

"It's equivalent to taxing the sick," Professor Green said. "I don't think there's any government in the world that would tax the sick." …

"It seems that Harvard is trying to save money by shifting costs to sick people," said Mary C. Waters, a professor of sociology. "I don't understand why a university with Harvard's incredible resources would do this. What is the crisis?"

I'm of course sympathetic to people whose healthcare costs have been negatively impacted by federal intervention. Still, most Harvard professors are likely in better shape to cope with such changes than the average person. They could even ask their colleagues to talk to national policymakers about fixing things. Most of the rest of us lack a direct line to the White House.

Or as Breitbart's John Joel Pollak astutely put it, "Unfortunately for Harvard profs, karma is a pre-existing condition not covered by Obamacare."

NEXT: A visit with China's Kaifeng Jews

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So they voted Republican in November?

    1. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

  2. It turns out some animals aren’t more equal than others?

  3. I can’t find a violin small enough.

    1. The chairman of the Econ Dept is hiding it in his codpiece.

      1. I suspect it’s otherwise pretty empty in there, and he’s probably a small man anyway.

  4. The salty tears of Harvard faculty members are yummy.

    1. I’m going to need a salty tears 12 step program after this. they are just so delicious.

      1. These would be cheaper:

        http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb…..eral+tears

    2. Aye, they’re the first deliciously tasty snacks I’ve thoroughly enjoyed in a very long time.

  5. We are talking about the same university that employs Russell Seitz.

    Long time commenters will know him as charmingly retarded commentator (and occasional Reason contributor(!)) Russell.

    These people stride like colossi over a very little ant-hill.

    1. “The only explanation I can think of for this sort of behavior is that Dr. Seitz must be unable to grapple with his own moral demons, because no rational person, and certainly no professional academic, would publicly taunt a person for a handicap that they suffer with daily.”

      Well, no. Dr. Seitz is merely a lefty asshole.

      1. You should read his blog and his posts here, his writing is so disordered that it is actually difficult to ascertain what the Hell he’s talking about most of the time.

        It really is a mystery to me how people like Russell can become academics when they are apparently only capable of writing rambling, incoherent garbage. I mean, sure exceptions for shit social science fields that are famous for fucktardary, but Russell is a physicist. On top of his writing seemingly being intentionally obtuse and unconventional, a lot of the “science” he writes about is positively bizarre. The kind of weird crap that the Soviet Union produced in quantity.

        1. Professional academics are professional academics because they’re only capable of writing rambling, incoherent garbage. They wouldn’t last 30 days outside of their little ivory towers (also referred to as “the real world”).

          1. The real world being outside said ivory towers, of course.

          2. Well, if you exclude honest Scholars, you have a point. There are people who are in academia because they love to research, write, and teach. Sadly they are, and always have been, outnumbered by work-shy drones; the “Professional Academics”.

        2. It’s partly because of the fetishization of academia that he feels he can do this. Normally, the world would tell him “you’re a physicist, which is great, and you’re probably great at physics, but your views on everything else are just as dumb as any peasant’s.” Just like on would tell a plumber or a janitor.

          However, many (especially those of the intellectual’ left) perpetuate the idea that being a faculty member somehow, some way, confers wisdom. Not just in one’s own specially, but one that entitles the holder of the position to believe himself to be part of a sacred class of the enlightened, who, if only the world weren’t so stupid, would make them philosopher-kings to rule over everyone else.

    2. That’s the prick that made me change my handle because I refused to have my posts confused with his.

  6. Still, most Harvard professors are likely in better shape to cope with such changes than the average person.

    But apparently not in a position to foresee the result of what they advocate.

    1. Intentions!

      *stamp feet*

      INTENTIONS!!!!

      … nope, still doesn’t work.

    2. Professor, Teach Thyself!

  7. Uh, why do they keep using that “sick” metaphor to describe themselves? Hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance, those are illnesses now?

    1. Of the mental variety?

  8. “Harvard is a microcosm of what’s happening in health care in the country”.

    No it isn’t.

    How many full time employees at Harvard had their hours cut to under 30 hours per week because of ObamaCare?

    How many unemployed people were never hired by Harvard because hiring them would put Harvard over the top–and subject them to the 50 employee mandate/penalty?

    So their premiums and deductibles went up, too? So what? Harvard isn’t a microcosm of anything, and it certainly isn’t a microcosm of what’s happening in healthcare in the country.

    1. Actually, adjunct faculty are getting their hours cut in order to assure that they are not classified as employees.

      This started in MA several years ago, courtesy of Romneycare.

      1. I’m being too mean to Mitt.

        The execrable Ma labor law also plays a role.

      2. Wasn’t that an ongoing trend, nationwide, before RomneyCare?

        Regardless, maybe Harvard is a microcosm of RomneyCare–and its impact on highly educated people in extremely well endowed institutions.

        1. usually, well-endowed is considered a good thing.

          1. They’re not that kind of well-endowed.

            1. Although they are, by and large, dicks.

    2. If a cloistered institution of self-regarded “Top Men” consider themselves a microcosm of America…have they now become the plebs they think they know better than?

      1. Oh, they’re just like the rest of us!

  9. I had a professor during my undergrad stint that went to and briefly taught at harvard. she was ignorant of her subject.

    1. I’ve heard they’ll hire anybody so long as you claim to be a Native American.

      1. she was awful… needless to say she didn’t appreciate me as a student and gave me lower grades that I protested. She couldn’t justify them and upped them to get me out of her office when I offered to bring my source materials to her to read, since she obviously hadn’t read on the subject.

        1. I had a history lecturer who didn’t know whether the French or the Russian Revolution happened first. Also, one lecture he brought in pictures of homeless people and taught us, no exaggeration, that homelessness was the Republicans’ doing; then showed us (on his slide show) a picture of the elite Democrats at the time, noting how there were women and minorities present, then showed a picture of several white male Republican senators, and proceeded to explain (as though it were course material) that the Republicans were trying to defend white male supremacy against women and minorities.

          Now, these colleges often have great STEM graduate programs (hell, I go to one of them), but on everything else they teach, they’re about as worth listening to as that syphilitic hobo wandering the streets telling anyone who will listen to him about the jews and freemasons taking over the food supply.

      2. Some of Harvard’s GRADUATE programs are excellent, still. Harvard’s undergrad programs have always been about daycare for the children of the elite.

  10. Of course they don’t want the changes. It’s all part of their brilliance. Obamacare is great because it forces people to do what they otherwise wouldn’t do. You can’t accomplish awesome like that if everyone just agrees to it. So, they have to be against it, so that they can be forced to do it, fulfilling the genius of and necessity of the system.

    Just drink a 12 pack and it all makes sense.

    1. Luckily I can handle my alcohol cause if these people start making sense I’ll have to do hara kari.

  11. “I’m of course sympathetic to people whose healthcare costs have been negatively impacted by federal intervention.”

    Sarc meter pegged!

    1. Yeah, the bank robber shot himself in the balls.

      Isn’t that a shame?

      I’m of course sympathetic to anybody who shoots himself in the balls.

      LOL

      1. Are they really angry about being pawns in the game? I mean, surely they were a protected class… right? Poor, starving, and tenured?

  12. I’m waiting for the day they complain about paying for food?

    “It’s equivalent to taxing the sick hungry,” Professor Green said. “I don’t think there’s any government in the world that would tax the sick hungry.” ?

    1. I think what they meant here was “taxing the sick for their illness.” or “taxing because they’re sick.”

      That’s how I read it anyway. Like having a poverty tax.

      1. The outrage!!

        It’s almost as if the people who are utilizing the healthcare system are the same ones expected to bankroll it.

    2. Professor Green is a freaking economist. He ought to know better.

      1. yes, but he’s a freaking HARVARD economist.

        1. Greg Mankiw seems to be able to find his way out of a paper bag.

          1. He’s a rare one. Of course a bunch of the undergrads recently protested an econ conference because they take issue with economics being one of the last bastions of quantitative reasoning in the social sciences, which of course should all be Marxist feeling-oriented fields.

            1. Mankiw is a New Keynesian, meaning he favors government intervention in the market for the purpose of “improving market efficiency” above and beyond what a free market would give on its own, and to support those views, he builds quantitative models. Even if his reasoning weren’t utter bullshit (and it is), the interventions that follow from it would still be unjust and incompatible with libertarianism.

          2. I think you’re giving Mankiw too much credit. The conclusions he reaches are perhaps more palatable and less harmful, but his reasoning is just as spurious as that of his colleagues.

      2. Listening to liberal intellectuals talk about economics can sometimes be like listening to creationists talk about evolution.

        They must feel the need to either correct their peers or bite their tongues–constantly.

        1. [Economists at Harvard] must feel the need to either correct their peers or bite their tongues–constantly.

          …I meant to say.

    3. I’m waiting for the day they complain about paying for food

      Really? What do you think “socialism” means?

      1. Not having any food at all.At least, that’s what it always means eventually,

        1. What did socialists use before candles?

          Electricity.

          1. Wouldn’t “lightbulbs” make more sense?

            1. Does it really matter? The the joke works just the same.

        2. To a socialist, the only thing worse than not having any food at all, is having food, but paying market prices for it.

      2. In theory, food is a form of preventative healthcare (depending on what one eats of course). So ultimately expect them to use the ‘right to health care’ ‘argument’ to justify socialize food as well. And also eyeglasses, ergonomic keyboards, and waterbeds.

  13. “Harvard is a microcosm of what’s happening in health care in the country,nothing”

    1. Harvard is a microcosm, period.

      As in, its own pocket universe, completely separate and isolated from the universe the rest of us inhabit.

  14. They must have just assumed the university would raise tuition. They do it for everything else.

    1. Harvard does have that humungous billions of endowment that they cannot parse out to pay for healthcare, because to do so would’ve violate fiducial responsibility by the trustee. So lesser cares for you all.

    2. Bingo!!!! Just like the minimum wage (or anything else). They expect those evil corporations to just eat the cost. Maybe now they will understand that all cost get passed along. Even by their fellow bleeding heart progressives. Funny how that works isn’t it?

    3. And those damn greedy banks would happily shell out the money to the students as well…all to make a profit, those bastards.

  15. 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.

    Paying for your healthcare is for vulgar mortals and not for the enlightened.

  16. “It’s equivalent to taxing the sick,” Professor Green said. “I don’t think there’s any government in the world that would tax the sick.”

    There are so many ways to go with that statement.

    Where’s my free lunch?

    Doesn’t this guy understand how ObamaCare reduces the deficit?

    The possibilities are endless.

  17. The condemned man looks up at the guillotine and says, “it’s not fair. I never thought they’d use the damn thing on ME.”

    1. It’s not only the condemned man; it’s the engineer who designed the thing.

        1. Which is totally why I stopped inventing stuff.

  18. CB: Hey what’s for dinner Rico?

    RS: Salty ham tears from Mass-a-two-shits.

    CB: EXCELLENT!

  19. “Richard F. Thomas…called the changes “deplorable, deeply regressive, a sign of the corporatization of the university.”

    I see. A law passed by government and implemented by government is the fault of corporations?

    Sorry, but these pompous “intellectuals” deserve their fate.

    Oh, and they’re racist to oppose Obamacare…

    1. Anyone want to break it to this guy that a university is already a corporation?

      1. Many of my progie fought to get a referendum on the ballot (it passed by a wide majority – ugh) to instruct the Massachusetts congressional delegation to support a change to the first Amendment to deny freedom of speech to corporations. These people are always filled with horror when I suggest that such groups as the Sierra Club and the SEIU are also legally “corporations”.

        1. And the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

  20. Still, most Harvard professors are likely in better shape to cope with such changes than the average person. They could even ask their colleagues to talk to national policymakers about fixing things.

    Robby, this is Harvard, not MIT!

  21. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015……html?_r=0

    Mary D. Lewis, a professor who specializes in the history of modern France . . .

    I think I’ve found where Harvard can realize some cost savings and insulate its poor, poor faculty from having to pony up more for health insurance.

  22. “It seems that Harvard is trying to save money by shifting costs to sick people,” said Mary C. Waters, a professor of sociology. “I don’t understand why a university with Harvard’s incredible resources would do this. What is the crisis?”

    Awesome. Does her teaching assistant tie her shoes for her?

    1. Oh, look. She has an email address.

      http://scholar.harvard.edu/marywaters/home

  23. There’s nothing inconsistent about this at all. Progressive politics are, by definition, for other people.

    1. Man, I have had that argument SO MANY times with my liberal friends. And it’s funny, I always get a chance to whip it out, because liberal policies ultimately bite them all. The government contractor who’s going crazy over her doofus affirmative action co-workers, the gardener who’s freaking out over having to buy insurance she can’t afford, oh and I have imaginary conversations with Johnny Depp about leaving France because of the high taxes.

      1. Interesting. In my imaginary conversations with Johnny Depp the subject of taxes never arises.

  24. In the words of Iowa Hawk Blog, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  25. There is literally no level of stupidity or basic sense of self-delusion with the modern left that would surprise me anymore. I defy anyone to find me a story with more cognitive dissonance being demonstrated. It doesn’t exist.

    1. On par, at least. From 10/5/13 an oldie but a goodie.

      “Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.

      Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law. Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.

      …….

      “I was laughing at Boehner — until the mail came today,” Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.
      “I really don’t like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family’s pocket each year, that’s otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy.”

      Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

      1. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

        Yeah, that piece of shit was hoping someone else would pay for it, in which case, she’d have had a dinner with those who griped and said: “It didn’t cost me anything; you must be some whacko tea-partiers!”

      2. This shit can’t be parodied. If someone made this up, nobody would believe it. The shameless lack of self-awareness is astounding. How do people say stuff like this, and think like this without realizing the moral bankruptcy of their beliefs? I can’t understand how seemingly intelligent people see the consequences of their preferred policies fuck themselves in the ass and not even pause for a second to question their premises. And it happens over and over and over again. I’m literally dumbfounded.

      3. Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

        BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!111!!!! *inhales deeply* HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!

        Oh, man, thanks Suthenboy, I needed that.

      4. The actual article is even worse.

        http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_…..s-bay-area

        They use a “breast-cancer survivor” as an example of someone whose rates will go down. I use scare quotes because the newspaper plays up “breast-cancer survivor” as if it’s an occupation whereas the reality is the person’s occupation is “artist” (also known as unemployed whacko).

  26. I am not going to call ‘collective guilt’ on them, because there are probably a few of them that opposed Obamacare. (Every group has its outliers)

    But for those who supported Obamacare: You pissed in the soup, you can damned well eat it.

  27. Academicians generally are like the human “Lord Baltar” in the original Battlestar Galactica who was quite surprized to learn that his payment for helping to exterminate humanity would be his own summary execution.

    Yes boys and girls, the law applies to you too!

  28. “It’s equivalent to taxing the sick,” Professor Green said. “I don’t think there’s any government in the world that would tax the sick.”

    Right! Like, when you get sick in Canada or the UK, you just call the Queen and she tells the government to stop taxing you for universal healthcare until you get better!

    1. That’s ridiculous.

      The government pays for these things so the taxpayers don’t have to.

      Don’t you know anything about how the economy works?

    2. I don’t think there’s any government in the world that DOESN’T tax the sick. The sick are a drain on society – government hates them and wants to get rid of them after performing a cashectomy.

  29. And once again…this truism is proven true:

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

  30. Im ready to head on over there man. WOw.

    http://www.AnonWayz.tk

  31. just before I looked at the draft four $9879 , I didn’t believe that…my… father in law had been truly erning money part time from there computar. . there dads buddy has done this for only 21 months and just repaid the dept on their apartment and bourt a great Land Rover Range Rover .
    Read More Here ~~~~~~~~ http://www.jobsfish.com

  32. but of course. they’re always surprised when put up against the wall.

  33. Unintentional hilarity. But where does Elizabeth Warren stand?

  34. Maybe we should just get rid of insurance companies. Robby, you mean I should be upset that rich people are bitching that they’ll have to pay a fraction more for their health care. Shrugs. Who cares?

    1. american socialist|1.6.15 @ 11:13AM|#
      “Maybe we should just get rid of insurance companies.”

      Maybe we should just ship lefty ignoramuses to Cuba.
      Shrug.

    2. “Maybe we should just get rid of insurance companies.”

      Then you rid the nation of a huge revenue source and thousands of people lose their jobs.

      Then whatever healthcare scheme the government comes up with has to be funded by the middle class.

    3. amsoc:

      Who cares?

      For someone who seems so frequently butt-hurt just by the mere existence of limited government ideas, I think it’s funny to watch you pull the whole “who cares?” bit. That kind of trolling is actually superior than your usual form, but it requires not constantly acting like you’re two seconds away from explaining how libertarians drive you crazy.

      1. I’m hurt by the existence of limited government ideas?!? That’s news to me. I think there’s way too many laws and that the military is ten times as big as it should be. Maybe where you and I depart is that I don’t think the sole occupation of libertarians is to defend the wealth and status of the rich. Thus, my apathy.

        1. For someone so apathetic, you certainly go out of your way.

          I usually find that whoever injects themselves into a discussion to say “who cares?”, usually cares.

          Also, people who begin every other post like this:
          “The question I have is, when are you going to admit that blah blah blah you’re really stupid?”

          It’s like being trolled by a member of an ideological cult who’s pissed that no one else gets it. It’s like libertarians have already trolled you, and you’re butt-hurt before you even get here. That’s usually the opposite of how trolling is supposed to work (i.e., you piss others off while maintaining an air of apathy, above it all, etc.”), but you go ahead and rock that. It’s like trolls don’t understand how to have fun these days.

          A butt-hurt troll is no troll at all.

          1. Welcome to my world, Brian. For the last 20 years or so I’ve looked at conservative economics and the effect that it has had and then wondered how anyone in their right mind could believe in this crap. You’re not the only one who thinks that their ideological opposites are motivated by pathology. Don’t get me wrong– there’s a few of the rich and powerful who argue that the government should keep their taxes low. Those people should be making those arguments. It’s the people that make 30k a year who make those arguments that I want to talk with.

            As for trolling I think you are reading to much into it. I just post what I believe– including, btw, a strong preference for a government that doesn’t send me to fight in a bullshit war or bother with what I put into my body. Does it come across as aggrieved? Trust me, for me, it comes from a place incredulity.

            1. Like I said: an ideological troll that’s butt-hurt himself before he gets here.

              Welcome to the new troll: ass backwards.

        2. So in other words, you apply the exact same moronic ‘reasoning’ neocons apply to the military (“the more we fund it, the safer we’ll be!”) to every other government bureaucracy, most of which I’m sure you want to grow? Correct? “If only we gave teachers more money, our kids would be smarter!”

    4. Why would we get rid of insurance companies? Where would we get insurance from?

      Man, those airlines are always delayed, I sure hate those airline, maybe we should ban airline companies!

    5. Maybe we should just get rid of insurance companies

      We don’t have health insurance companies in the US. We have way overpriced medical service companies.

      Robby, you mean I should be upset that rich people are bitching that they’ll have to pay a fraction more for their health care.

      You should be upset that you are overpaying for your health care, and you are.

      Rich people couldn’t care less. Heck, I couldn’t care less and I’m not even rich: the few hundred dollars my health care goes up per month hardly registers because it’s pre-tax and my employer just eats it for skilled employees they are trying to retain.

  35. Obamacare is nothing more that a pass-through to insurance companies.

  36. my buddy’s mother-in-law makes $61 an hour on the internet . She has been out of work for five months but last month her pay check was $19835 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here………
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  37. Did people really think we were going to cover more people and more illnesses with out additional costs? And did they really think that those additional costs did not have to be borne by some party? There really is no such thing as a free lunch.

    1. “Think” is the operative word.

  38. I think it’s funny how completely ill-suited for private enterprise Harvard staff truly is. They cannot even fathom Accounting 101.

    Employee health care costs are essentially wages. The are certainly NOT bonuses.

    Wages are day-to-day operational expenses and therefore must be paid from day-to-day operational income. If you start using the endowment to cover day-to-day operational costs, the endowment will shrink to nothing in less than 20 years. In theory the endowment can be used for anything, but in practice it is only the investment income of the endowment that is used that way.

    But if the Harvard faculty wants to allow the union staff to dip into the endowment principal for these kinds of day-to-day expenses, by all means let Harvard become the “Detroit Of the Ivy League” for all I care. Might finally wash away the economic delusion of the university once and for all.

    That is the MOST IMPORTANT FACT missing from the NYT article – the faculty are being put on the same health plan as the non-faculty. THAT is what is pissing them off, their precious caste system is being compromised.

    I find it fascinating that these

  39. I have no sympathy for anyone who supported that stupid law and then gets all upset when they realize what was actually in it would negatively impact them. But aren’t there some Harvard faculty members who didn’t support the ACA? I don’t want to hoist them on someone else’s petard.

    That said, it doesn’t look like the new plan is all that onerous compared to what most working Americans pay.

  40. Til I looked at the bank draft that said $9222 , I didn’t believe that my father in law woz like they say actualey bringing home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has been doing this 4 only about 1 year and just now repayed the morgage on there villa and bourt a brand new audi .
    Check This Out ………….. http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. Now, of course, your friend will have to refinance the villa and sell the Audi to pay for his health insurance!

  41. We all deserved a thoroughly, thought-out Affordable Care Act. What we got was piece-meal, hurried, hypothetical legislation. It’s wonderful
    to live in an ivy tower, not so good if you trip on the vines on your way to the hospital.

    I know some people are going to fall off their chairs, here it goes anyway…Government is going to have to get into the pharmaceutical
    business. Even if it’s only your top ten most prescribed medications.
    Honestly, how much would that deffer the money going into medicare and the VA systems. Pharmaceutical companies don’t give a damn how much they price their products. Where else are you going to get them?
    Many of the equivalent generics are now priced a couple of dollars cheaper than the original medications. An in other instances, the generic itself is discontinued because it is manufactured by the same pharmaceutical. Well gee, a monopoly is a monopoly by any other name.

    1. Nosea|1.6.15 @ 12:31PM|#
      …”Government is going to have to get into the pharmaceutical
      business.”…

      So you prefer bad meds and shortages?
      Fuck off, slaver.

    2. Sure, government pharmaceuticals, why not? If we just let them have one more piece of our economy, panacea will surely follow. I am 1000000000% sure that the only reason they are hapless spendthrift buffoons with their current allocation of money and responsibilities is because they don’t have ENOUGH money or responsibilities.

      The answer to government statist incompetence is more government.

      1. I can dream govt. can do one thing right
        without bureaucratic bloat and abuse.
        Wake me when it happens.

    3. I know some people are going to fall off their chairs, here it goes anyway…Government is going to have to get into the pharmaceutical
      business.

      Whatever for? Pharmaceuticals are extremely cheap.

      An in other instances, the generic itself is discontinued because it is manufactured by the same pharmaceutical.

      In principle, “generic” means it’s off patent and anybody can manufacture it. So why do you think generics aren’t being used for cost reduction? Why don’t other companies jump in? Simple: a system rigged by government regulations.

      Well gee, a monopoly is a monopoly by any other name.

      There is a monopoly, but it’s a monopoly created by government. And your solution? To make that monopoly even more entrenched.

      It’s because of morons like you that we have the excessive health care costs in this country in the first place.

  42. They should have read the bill before they supported it. They also should have thought intelligently, but that’s probably too much to ask for from the intelligentsia.

    1. Many of the intelligentsia’s communist heroes knew how to deal with an ungrateful, uppity intelligentsia. Ha ha haaaa~!

  43. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  44. Me thinks there will be some special new ‘one dickhead massages the other’ exemptions heading Harvard’s direction.

  45. Jonathan Chait is right. You people don’t know why you are happy about this.

    1. Whoa! Jonathan Chait is gargling with vinegar over this? Where, where? Got a link? No time, never mind. Google google. This I have to read.

    2. ‘You people’? Go back to stormfront you racist piece of shit!

  46. my buddy’s mother-in-law makes $61 an hour on the internet . She has been out of work for five months but last month her pay check was $19835 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here………
    ????? http://www.good-reports.com

  47. Robby,

    without knowing the position of these individual professors as the ACA was being legislated isn’t it possible that the anecdotes related in this article are coming from individuals who simply didn’t support the ACA in the first place? In my own case, I think health care should be paid for by the government through progressive taxation. True, I supported the enactment of the ACA as an incremental step towards the goal of insuring more people, but why would it be elitist hypocrisy for me to complain about increases in my employer-based health insurance premiums if I don’t support the idea of employer-based health care insurance?

    1. So…they didn’t support the ACA because it wasn’t full single payer, or somesuch along those lines?

      Here’s the problem…even if that were true, they are even more batshit insane if they think their costs will go down under full single payer. Especially in the tax bracket a Harvard professor resides in.

      1. You think everyone employed by Harvard is rich? Isn’t the statement that an increase in a health insurance premium amounts to a regressive tax unassailable? If I make 300k/yr wouldn’t I be in a much better position to absorb a $500 premium increase than a person who makes 50k/yr

        1. You think everyone employed by Harvard is rich?

          No, but I assume that members of the faculty are.

          From the article:

          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.

          Unless they’re doing this out of protest for a universal health care system, then, they seem to be doing it for the reason that they don’t like paying more money for healthcare.

          I would think they’d be happy with it, following your example and taking this pragmatic step towards ensuring other people get better health care. Instead, they seem to have some problem with it.

        2. If you’re adjunct faculty or a classified employee (teacher’s assistant, tutor, etc) then you probably don’t get healthcare in the first place.

          I was a college writing tutor a few years ago. They paid me 10 bucks an hour and gave me no benefits. Zip. Those are some fine progressives they have there.

  48. This is so funny I thought it was from the Onion. Aren’t these the same people that decry elitism and demand equality? Yet when said equality affects their pocketbook and they are treated like the rest of us they get upset. Hypocrisy is greatest (and funniest) when coming from isolated, out of touch, silver spoon, holier than thou elitists who work at the most recognized higher educational institution in the world and are pulling down 150,000 a year minimum with guaranteed tenure positions.

    They got what they wanted and now hate equality.

    1. Yeah, it’s pretty bizarre. You can tell by their comments that they’re really down with the idea of someone else paying for people’s healthcare. For some reason, they just assumed that someone else was someone else.

      I’m sorry, but if you’re working at the Harvard faculty, or, really, making more than $100K/year or so (probably less, really), when they’re talking about “taxing the rich” and “making the rich pay”, they’re talking about you.

      If they couldn’t figure that out, I’m not sure they belong at Harvard.

  49. “It’s equivalent to taxing the sick,” Professor Green said. “I don’t think there’s any government in the world that would tax the sick.” …

    A Harvard professor said that?

    I don’t think there’s any government that let’s anyone out of their taxes just because they’re sick. They more or less tax every single damn person.

    “Wait! I broke my arm this year, and I have the sniffles! I get out of my taxes, right?” Where the hell is that country?

    1. “Wait! I broke my arm this year, and I have the sniffles! I get out of my taxes, right?” Where the hell is that country?

      Somalia. I hear its great.

      1. So, this Harvard professor wants to move there, I guess.

  50. Or as Breitbart’s John Joel Pollak astutely put it, “Unfortunately for Harvard profs, karma is a pre-existing condition not covered by Obamacare.”

    hahahahahahahahaha!!! Now that is funny.

  51. You can’t make this stuff up. Atlas Shrugging.

  52. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good tome by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you

    won’t regret it!….

    w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  53. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good tome by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you

    won’t regret it!….

    w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.