Tuesday Highlights


  1. Natural for a library, I guess.
  2. ‘Tis the month for scandals, apparently.
  3. Employment and healthcare reforms. Twas a cunning plan I suspect. (Perhaps this should be noted as a preface before the introduction of any Legislature for consideration by our August bodies of state¬†¬†“Am I jumping the gun, Baldrick, or are the words ‘I have a cunning plan’ marching with ill-deserved confidence in the direction of this conversation”).
  4. Ah, if these walls could, err, blog?
  5. Why “or” and not “and”.
  6. Young atheists and what they say.

Well, not much garnered … I took daughter #1 to a baseball game last night … 1 hour fog delay? What’s up with that? Seriously, fog?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One comment

  1. Boonton says:

    3.Employment and healthcare reforms.

    Seems an acceptable trade off to me. If you want to have health care essentially provided by employers then at the border between a full time job and a marginal one, there’s going to be pressure to choose one or the other. In this case a 30 hour part time job becomes a 28 hour one to avoid paying $2,000 into the pool to help those who buy from the exchanges. The flip side is you probably will get more actual people working since 14 workers giving up 2 hours a week means you can add another worker who can earn 28 hours a week. (Or if the department is smaller than that a temp company can periodically be hired to fill in a few hours here and there during busy times). In an alternate universe, the response might be to have fewer workers but make their jobs serious full time affairs with benefits (or at least kicking in the $2K to help those who buy from the exchanges).

    Now is it rational to link health care to employment? That’s a good question. Probably not. It makes the job market less dynamic on both sides of the equation. But the health care bill was essentially a consevative reform. Breaking the link between employment and health care would be a radical reform that would disrupt the health insurance of maybe 60%+ of the non-elderly. On the other hand lots of people seem attached to the idea of health insurance provided by the boss and the system has evolved over decades. It very well may be there’s hidden wisdom there and we should be slow to break up the foundations of the house because we don’t like the wall paper.

    What’s good, IMO, about the ACA is that it does allow for that link to be gently broken. If employers lean towards dropping coverage and putting in for workers to buy plans individually via the exchanges, a ‘new norm’ might evolve where full time workers buy plans themselves which puts small and med. size businesses at an advantage since they no longer have to compete with huge corporate HR benefit departments figuring out which health policies make workers happy at the least possible cost.