Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tab Dump

No tab dump today. Instead, here's Glenn Beck killing a frog.

Well then.

By Ezra Klein  |  September 23, 2009; 6:37 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Medical Malpractice Costs
Next: Meat Your Emissions


James Fallows will not be pleased.

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | September 23, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

pseudonymousinnc, I think he may. This proves his point: if you want to boil a frog you have to throw it into scolding hot water. The other method doesn't work at all.

Posted by: bendreyfuss | September 23, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

@peudonymousinnc, that's hilarious...

looks like he's already posted something about it:

Posted by: Chris_ | September 23, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

That made my day. Thank you very, very much for posting that.

Posted by: goinupnup | September 23, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

It makes me wonder if Beck knows the etymology of the word "galvanize." Doubtful, but linguistically amusing nonetheless.

PS: More frog death is involved.
PPS: Luigi Galvani induced spasms in severed frogs' legs with electricity

Posted by: rmusci | September 23, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

This is your brain

This is your brain on Glenn Beck

Posted by: Jaycal | September 23, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Glen Beck = one man death panel for frogs.

Or, in the words of Miss Piggy, "Oh Kermie..."

Posted by: rpj1 | September 23, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Where are the animal rights groups when you need them?

Posted by: mainer2 | September 23, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

the real "mad men" are not on amc,
they are on fox.

Posted by: jkaren | September 24, 2009 2:29 AM | Report abuse

There are other ways that Beck could've gotten his point across, but I guess that he doesn't realize that there's more than one way to skin a cat. Which, come to think of it, is probably a good thing.

Posted by: you-dont | September 24, 2009 3:20 AM | Report abuse

I actually used to use this proverb back in the day when I did speech and debate.

I was rudely corrected once, though, by someone who insisted that if you put a frog in lukewarm water and slowly heat it, it will eventually get uncomfortable and jump out (prior to being boiled).

Now, it turns out that the other half of the proverb isn't true either.

Posted by: rusty_spatula | September 24, 2009 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Just treating this as an open thread I'll just put something out there and hopefully people can respond. I understand how the exchanges and the individual mandate are supposed to work. Say that I am a 26 year old healthy male making 40k or so. I don't really need health insurance and currently I am going along uninsured with no problem and just paying the routine stuff out of pocket. Under the new plan, the smartest thing for me to do is just pay the individual mandate and treat it as a catastrophic insurance plan. To pay whatever small stuff I need out of pocket and then if I get in an accident or get sick THEN buy into the healthcare exchange and the companies would be prohibited from turning me down because of my pre-existing condition.

This cost is suppsoed to be offset by the individual mandate that I have been paying- that should mean that all along I have been putting SOME money into the system. But that money is going to the government, not to the insurance companies. So the insurance companies will still have to jack up their rates to account for this free rider problem because they cannot deny someone who has a pre-existing condition and they get zero benefit from the individual mandate money that I have been paying all along. From the POV of the insurance company they HAVE to make the rates high because anyone can come along needing day 1 100k worth of payouts and they would be prohibited by law from turning them down.

Is there anything in these bills that addresses this problem?

Posted by: spotatl | September 24, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Umm... I'm not frog expert.. but i'm pretty sure those were toads.

Posted by: emmas | September 24, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

" Say that I am a 26 year old healthy male making 40k or so. I don't really need health insurance and currently am going along uninsured"

dear spotatl

i cant comment on any of your questions, but i read what you wrote, and this jumped out at me.
it doesnt matter what age that any of us are, we can never assume that we dont need health insurance.
it is fine that we see ourselves as part of an actuarial statistic, but we never know what will happen to in the course of a day.

so whatever determinations you make, never take the need for health insurance forgranted.

Posted by: jkaren | September 24, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Jkaren- many people choose to be uninsured even though they are eligible for insurance. The whole point of the individual mandate is to coerce young, healthy people to buy into a program to subsidize older people who need more healthcare.

Posted by: spotatl | September 24, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Assuming spotatl has described something that is a real issue, a solution would be to let every third or every fourth such case suffer in the streets rather than allow the youngster to jump on the insurance wagon when convenient. This could be done randomly so it would be fair (according to some meanings of the word). Just add that new "behind the veil" feature to things, to encourage the others.

Posted by: bdballard | September 24, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Are those Depends underneath his jeans?

Posted by: StefW | September 24, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

*Assuming spotatl has described something that is a real issue*

And that's where his argument breaks down!

Posted by: constans | September 24, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

" many people choose to be uninsured even though they are eligible for insurance."

i understand the point you make.
but it is a sorry day when a person of any age, has an accident or gets sick, and doesnt have health insurance.
just feel a sense of concern for people who have no health insurance, whether by choice or circumstance.

Posted by: jkaren | September 24, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

18 USC 48 / PUBLIC LAW 106-152

Sec. 48. - Depiction of animal cruelty
(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.
Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Exception.
Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.

(c) Definitions.
In this section
(1) the term ''depiction of animal cruelty'' means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; and

(2) the term ''State'' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States

Posted by: vegacura | September 24, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't this be a real issue? As far as I can tell thats exactly how the system is set up. That individuals are basically automatically enrolled into the most basic of all catastrophic insurance plans (all expenses out of pocket and emergency services provided) for around 80 dollars a month with the explicit guarantee that they can buy into an insurance plan at any time they wish if they have a problem where they need more care.

To take it to an extreme example they could find a lump and pay for the biopsy out of pocket. If it turns out to be cancer then they could buy insurance on the exchange and they could not be denied coverage because of their pre-existing condition. I can't imagine how much insurance companies will have to raise prices to compensate for this.

And the existence of a public option does not at all reduce this problem. The public options under discussion exist fully on incoming premiums. The public option would also have to raise prices ot compensate for this.

Actually this is more of an argument for a single payer plan where everyone is covered all the time and they are constantly paying into the system. But this seems like a massive problem that democrats are creating by this plan they are pushing forward.

Posted by: spotatl | September 24, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

This Beck clip was really an IQ test, and you (Ezra) failed, along with most people commenting here.

He did not boil a real, live frog.

Posted by: enoriverbend | September 24, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse


you've got to be kidding.

we didnt fail the iq test. glenn beck did.
if he was pretending to put a cat in a pot of boiling water, it would be the same thing.
it was sadistic.
and it's not clear at all, that he didnt put a live animal in the water.
whether he really did kill the frog, or pretended to, it was a cruel and senseless gesture.
soon, glenn beck is going to overstep his bounds. he cant help himself.

Posted by: jkaren | September 24, 2009 10:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company