Lib-retards Are Whining About Odumbocare!

[Yssup Rider]

ahhhh. You FTFM!

Well played. It's all so much easier to understand now!

HAHAHAHAHAH!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

you still haven't produced a shred of evidence that all if these faculty members aare "lib-retarded."

That's a fact substantiated in every article (e.g., "Odumbocare Architects") that's been cited, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. You do so enjoy getting 'pithed' on, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM:

Odumbocare Architects At Harvard Furious After Learning They Are Not Exempt From Odumbocare
by Tyler Durden on 01/05/2015 21:28

The brain incubator at Harvard, the place which according to legend, and certainly the US News and World Report's annual paid college infomercial, is the repository for some of the smartest people in the world, is furious.

The reason - Harvard's illustrious faculty has learned that they too will be subject to their own policy recommendations as relates to Osumbocare, which they themselves helped conceive. As the left-leaning NYT reported earlier today, "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."

Because Harvard's brilliant ivory tower economists and public policy wonks know precisely how to fix the world... as long as said fix never applies to them.

And sure enough, the faculty did everything in its power to make sure it never had to suffer the consequences of its own brilliance...
The faculty is enraged, ENRAGED that what it hoped would only apply to the plebian peasantry is just as applicable to the self-appointed smartest people in the world....

[Harvard worked] kinda like how America worked before the tax that is Odumbocare was forcefully shoved down everyone's throat thanks to Harvard brilliant geniuses no less who decided it was time to treat the free market like their own socialist lab experiment. But hey, at least it helped "boost" Q1Q3 GDP by 1%.

It has gotten so bad that Harvard, realizing it is not exempt for socialist utopia, is suffering from "distress " and "anxiety."

The president of Harvard, Drew Gilpin Faust, acknowledged in a letter to the faculty that the changes in health benefits — though based on recommendations from some of the university’s own health policy experts — were “causing distress” and had “generated anxiety” on campus. But she said the changes were necessary because Harvard’s health benefit costs were growing faster than operating revenues or staff salaries and were threatening the budget for other priorities like teaching, research and student aid.

In response, Harvard professors, including mathematicians and microeconomists, have dissected the university’s data and question whether its health costs have been growing as fast as the university says. Some created spreadsheets and contended that the university’s arguments about the growth of employee health costs were misleading. In recent years, national health spending has been growing at an exceptionally slow rate.

We also learn that the only reason why it was called "Affordable Care" is because, apparently, it was unaffordable.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...empt-obamacare

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

More 'pith' more you to wallow in, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM:





Once again, i'va my errors outnumber my sentences.


]

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Even with an emoticon, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp, your prosimian ass managed to fuck up the quote.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That's a fact substantiated in every article (e.g., "Odumbocare Architects") that's been cited, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. You do so enjoy getting 'pithed' on, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM:

Thas a lie. None of these articles state that ALL of these faculty members are "lib-retarded."

Even the last worthless piece of tripe you posted from the "fair and balanced" zerohedge.com

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!

You even spin the shit hats already spun. What a pathological liar you are!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Thas a lie. None of these articles state that ALL of these faculty members are "lib-retarded."

Even the last worthless piece of tripe you posted from the "fair and balanced" zerohedge.com

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!

You even spin the shit hats already spun. What a pathological liar you are!

It's not at all surprising that a lib-retarded jackass such as yourself cannot understand what you read, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. BTW, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, here's some more 'pith' for you to swim in:

Harvard's Delicious Bummer
By James Varney, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune January 06, 2015 at 1:39 PM

That Odumbocare's passage depended on lies was proven in 2014, and that the brains behind it thought the people they cajoled into supporting it are stupid. So it's not a surprise 2015 would open with another wrinkle.

But do you think the intelligentsia at the United States' best institutions believes what they preach? The left-wing owns the liberal studies departments of America's colleges so a philosophy of ever more concentrated government power and a shrinking sphere of liberty and individual thought reigns.

That's their unyielding ideology. It's about the only way to think if one desires a career or tenure - not to mention a friend or two on campus. Yet do they really believe it? That is to say, do professors at Harvard and MIT and elsewhere really think gigantic tax and wealth redistribution schemes wind up costing less? Or that they would be immune from paying their fair share of that higher cost?

Perhaps they see health care as something like public transportation - a wonderful theory for the masses, but a thing they will never deal with personally.

It's depressing so many professors think the same way. It's terrifying to think they don't understand what happens when their ideas jump the ivory tower leash.

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.s...mmer_jame.html

[Yssup Rider]

Really? I ask for proof, you respond with insults.

Well, I wonder why you haven't quoted THIS report? Cherry picking information? Yeah, that's 100% yiu, IBIdiot.

No wonder nobody responds to your threads with anything other than ridicule! You're a fucking clown, and a RHINO in the circus parade!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ve-bubble.html

Harvard, Obamacare, and the Conservative Information Bubble

January 5, 2015 4:32 p.m.
By Jonathan Chait

Conservatives have experienced Obamacare as a narrative of endless turmoil and failure, largely because conservative media systematically filters out positive reports while relentlessly hyping negative ones. The most recent grist for the machinery of doomsaying is a New York Times report that Harvard faculty are up in arms over changes to their health insurance, loosely related to reforms in the Affordable Care Act. The schadenfreude is flowing, from the Daily Caller to Jonathan Adler to Red State to Hot Air.

What makes this response funny, if not unusual, is that the reforms currently roiling the Harvard faculty are moderate versions of the reforms conservatives themselves not only have championed but continue to champion. The theory undergirding Harvard’s changes is that excessively generous health insurance is inefficient. If consumers bear zero cost, they will over-consume health-care services, thus driving up prices for everybody in the system. Harvard is imposing relatively modest increases in deductibles — a $20 fee for a doctor’s visit, and deductibles up to $250 a year for an individual. Faculty members accustomed to health insurance that covers 100 percent of their costs find a new plan covering merely 90 percent offensive.

As the Times reports, the changes are a response to Harvard’s own health-care experts, many of whom advocated for Obamacare. The story has thus entered the conservative mind as a case of liberal elites suffering under the yoke of a liberal program. “One imagines how all these pampered academics would feel if they were forced to use a silver (70% covered) Obamacare plan … ” gloats Red State.

But of course the conservative objection to Obamacare isn’t that its silver plan, covering 70 percent of health-care costs, is too skimpy. The objection is just the opposite. Conservatives hate, or claim to hate, Obamacare because its benefits are too generous. They propose instead to replace the law with far skimpier benefits, so that healthy individuals can enjoy the low premiums that come with bare-bones plans covering fewer claims and offering less protection. They don’t think the 70 percent of costs covered in the Obamacare exchanges is too low. They think it’s too high.

Indeed, Harvard’s reforms show that in some ways, Obamacare has pushed the health-care system moderately in the direction conservatives favor, by encouraging employers to shift more of the cost of care onto employees. Liberal health-care wonks (such as those advising Harvard) embrace this policy much more cautiously than conservative health-care wonks. The liberals generally support small deductible increases, while conservatives favor much larger ones. Indeed, the theory that giving consumers “skin in the game” will limit health-care inflation has become the right’s main prescriptive belief.

The Harvard story demonstrates two things. First, Obamacare is implementing some versions of conservative ideas. Second, even moderate versions of this reform tend to upset consumers. But neither of these interpretations is capable of penetrating a conservative media apparatus that relentlessly turns all news stories into either non-stories or confirmation of their increasingly discredited hysteria.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Really? I ask for proof, you respond with insults.

Well, I wonder why you haven't quoted THIS report? Cherry picking information? Yeah, that's 100% yiu, IBIdiot.

No wonder nobody responds to your threads with anything other than ridicule! You're a fucking clown, and a RHINO in the circus parade!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ve-bubble.html

[/B]Harvard, Obamacare, and the Conservative Information Bubble
[/B]
January 5, 2015 4:32 p.m.
By Jonathan Chait

Conservatives have experienced Obamacare as a narrative of endless turmoil and failure, largely because conservative media systematically filters out positive reports while relentlessly hyping negative ones. The most recent grist for the machinery of doomsaying is a New York Times report that Harvard faculty are up in arms over changes to their health insurance, loosely related to reforms in the Affordable Care Act. The schadenfreude is flowing, from the Daily Caller to Jonathan Adler to Red State to Hot Air.

What makes this response funny, if not unusual, is that the reforms currently roiling the Harvard faculty are moderate versions of the reforms conservatives themselves not only have championed but continue to champion. The theory undergirding Harvard’s changes is that excessively generous health insurance is inefficient. If consumers bear zero cost, they will over-consume health-care services, thus driving up prices for everybody in the system. Harvard is imposing relatively modest increases in deductibles — a $20 fee for a doctor’s visit, and deductibles up to $250 a year for an individual. Faculty members accustomed to health insurance that covers 100 percent of their costs find a new plan covering merely 90 percent offensive.

As the Times reports, the changes are a response to Harvard’s own health-care experts, many of whom advocated for Obamacare. The story has thus entered the conservative mind as a case of liberal elites suffering under the yoke of a liberal program. “One imagines how all these pampered academics would feel if they were forced to use a silver (70% covered) Obamacare plan … ” gloats Red State.

But of course the conservative objection to Obamacare isn’t that its silver plan, covering 70 percent of health-care costs, is too skimpy. The objection is just the opposite. Conservatives hate, or claim to hate, Obamacare because its benefits are too generous. They propose instead to replace the law with far skimpier benefits, so that healthy individuals can enjoy the low premiums that come with bare-bones plans covering fewer claims and offering less protection. They don’t think the 70 percent of costs covered in the Obamacare exchanges is too low. They think it’s too high.

Indeed, Harvard’s reforms show that in some ways, Obamacare has pushed the health-care system moderately in the direction conservatives favor, by encouraging employers to shift more of the cost of care onto employees. Liberal health-care wonks (such as those advising Harvard) embrace this policy much more cautiously than conservative health-care wonks. The liberals generally support small deductible increases, while conservatives favor much larger ones. Indeed, the theory that giving consumers “skin in the game” will limit health-care inflation has become the right’s main prescriptive belief.

The Harvard story demonstrates two things. First, Obamacare is implementing some versions of conservative ideas. Second, even moderate versions of this reform tend to upset consumers. But neither of these interpretations is capable of penetrating a conservative media apparatus that relentlessly turns all news stories into either non-stories or confirmation of their increasingly discredited hysteria.

Your lying POV is completely debunked by the actions and remarks of the ivory-towered Harvard elites you are pathetically attempting to defend, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

Richard F. Thomas, a Harvard professor of classics, called the changes “deplorable, deeply regressive, a sign of the corporatization of the university.”

[Yssup Rider]

You're a complete clown, IBIdiot. What "actions" have your so-called lib-retarded ivory tower Harvard elites (use of that word only reinforces your horrible and shameful inferiority complex) taken? None. So we can chalk up yet another clumsy lie to your two days free fall spiral into oblivion.

You can't prove the importance of this story. You can't produce any story that shows a contrary view or rebuttal ... which I did with one easy search. Further you can't prove your claim that all of these people are lib-retarded. Nor can you prove that the sole cause of this huge controversy (lmao) is ACA. Your OP says otherwise, though your headline (as illiterately written as it was) spins it the other way.

You're quoting yourself now? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

How fucking confused are you, IBIdiot?

You've stepped in RHINO shit again IBChickendick! You must like RHINO shit as much as, well, ER ... Never mind. We all know you love your own shit the most!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're a complete clown, IBIdiot.

You can't prove the importance of this story. You can't produce any story that shows a contrary view or possibility ... Which I did with one easy search. Further you can't prove your claim that all of these people are lib-retarded.

You're quoting yourself now.

How fucking confused are you, IBIdiot?

You've stepped in RHINO shit again! You must like RHINO shit as much as, well, ER ... Never mind. We all know you love your own shit the most!

One need only read the whining remarks of the ivory-towered elitists to know that your lying ass is full of shit, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

Richard F. Thomas, a Harvard professor of classics, called the changes “deplorable, deeply regressive, a sign of the corporatization of the university.”

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

One need only read the whining remarks of the ivory-towered elitists to know that your lying ass is full of shit, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

Now who can argue with that?

My "lying ass is full of shit."

I think its time for you to start a new thread. Maybe about how higher education is the devil!

You're done here.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

ahhhh. You FTFM!

Well played. It's all so much easier to understand now!

HAHAHAHAHAH!

I am grateful for your support, however transient in nature, and perhaps, not wholly sincere.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Now who can argue with that?

My "lying ass is full of shit."

I think its time for you to start a new thread. Maybe about how higher education is the devil!

You're done here.

Typical Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM deflection.

The Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM wants everyone to ignore the whiny remarks of the ivory-towered elitist who are genuinely surprised and chagrined to discover that they will actually have to pay for the changes they promoted for the plebeians.

Oh the irony!!!!

Too fuckin' funny!!!!!

But Gruber did say they were "stupid."

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You still haven't produced a shred of evidence that all of these faculty members are "lib-retarded." In fact, you've never produced a simple definition of that childish term.

Where dat assup hiding? I'm cumming to gitcha!

.

[Yssup Rider]

I thought it was LIB-RETARD season!

LMAO!