Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Live Chat Today

Noon Eastern. You can submit questions here, or join in live. We can talk about whatever, but I'm hoping you all throw some "Top Chef" questions in the mix. I have complicated feelings on last night's quickfire.

By Ezra Klein  |  September 24, 2009; 10:46 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Like Rain on Your Wedding Day
Next: How the Government Helped Moody's Effort to Crash the Economy

Comments

In your chat re: controlling health care costs, you said that we aren't doing anything to address costs but then you wrote:

"We're basically creating the financial incentives and the knowledge infrastructure to move in that direction."

Isn't that how the bills are addressing costs? Am I wrong to think that we're doing this the "free market" way with incentives instead of with price controls that may work but are feared and loathed in the US?

Posted by: eRobin1 | September 24, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Just because I don't know where else to ask. How often would people be allowed to change insurance carriers within the exchange? 1 time a year is pretty standard for work insurance but I figured I would check to see if anyone knew what was being proposed for the exchange. The lack of denial for preexisting conditions seems to make this rather important.

Posted by: spotatl | September 24, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Ezra -
Be careful! The Jose Andreas restaurants in DC (Zatinya, Jaleo, Oyamel) tend to use gelatin in the desserts - the foam guys need cow bones to work their magic. I've asked - Zatinya didn't have a single dessert that was vegetarian.

Also, I also have the impression of someone at WaPo (Fred Hiatt) saying the same thing after the Froomkin firing blew up. Do a web search for your name and WaPo.

Posted by: GrandArch | September 24, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Re: changing plans

I haven't seen anything listed, but that's what Medicare goes with, and given the extent to which the exchange is modeled after Medicare, it makes sense. You need this to avoid adverse selection - people changing plans when they discover their plan doesn't cover something but another does. When you have guaranteed issue (companies have to issue policies to anyone), not having restrictions would lead to a death spiral.

Posted by: GrandArch | September 24, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I agree.... but it also seems to me that lots of people would BENEFIT by going uninsured under the new system even if they were eligible for the exchange. Then if they get sick then are allowed to buy into the exchange at any time for the highest level of coverage and the insurance companies would not be allowed to turn them down on the basis of a pre-existing condition.

You can think of the new system as a catastrophic coverage plan for whatever the individual mandate costs. And because the insurance company wouldn't be getting any of the individual mandate money they would have to price into their plans the likelyhood that someone will buy in knowing that they will need 100k of healthcare in the next year. Say they find a lump and the biopsy comes back as cancer. They could then buy into whatever exchange plan they want to and be fully covered.

Posted by: spotatl | September 24, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company