Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tab dump

1) Jay Rockefeller on Howard Dean's calls to kill the Senate bill: "It's nonsense and it's irresponsible and coming from him as a physician, it's stunning."

2) The final paragraph of Max Weber's 'Politics as a Vocation' has some good advice for the final weeks of health-care reform.

3) "To see how the difference between ressentiment and simple schadenfreude matters, consider Palin one more time."

4) As always, you should be reading Jon Cohn.

Recipe of the day: Zeke Emanuel teaches you to make rugelach. (Doesn't he have a health-care reform bill to pass!?)

By Ezra Klein  |  December 16, 2009; 6:22 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is health care the stimulus redux?
Next: Toward a better bill


The murmur of disapproval about Howard Dean's statements that is emanating from this blog today is an alarming sign. Does Mr. Klein not appreciate Dean's extremely relevant contention that Democrats need to get tough? Does he not understand toughness? There is too much "Mr. Nice Guy" going on here.

Posted by: michaelterra | December 16, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, you're falling into the Joe Klein mindset of dismissing the dirty f'ing hippies. Here's a policy answer:

I love how folks like you are angrier and stand up more to Howard Dean (and soon, Bernie Sanders) that Lieberman.

Have the Dems ever done ONE thing to help people over corporations?

They could pass and sign this bill, then push the public option and medicare buy in through reconciliation. But they won't -- they care more for corporations than people And that is the irreducible fact.

Posted by: AZProgressive | December 16, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Man, the ressentiment piece is accurate and terrifying.

Posted by: adamiani | December 16, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I read Jon Cohn all the time and, as he frequently does, that article glosses over some significant problems when it comes to comparing what is on the table with what is in place in other systems.

The mandate in this bill is nothing like the Swiss or Dutch example. In both of those countries the mandate is *universal*. Everyone is responsible for paying for his own insurance...everyone. Between 40%-60% of residents in those countries are eligible for subsidies.

In the Netherlands, employers are required to reimburse employess but the responsibility falls on the employee to choose and manage his own plan. In addition to strict insurance regulation, the Dutch system features a risk equalization provision to avoid adverse selection by insurance companies. And the individual mandate is complemented by a national longterm care program. In otherwise, it is a component of a comprehensive health policy, not a half-baked plan targeted at people who have little political power.

A mandate that applies only to people who don't have someone else paying their bills is inherently unfair and cannot help but prove unpopular.

Posted by: Athena_news | December 16, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Zeke Emanuel prepares rugelach? mmmm, appetizing! Tomorrow on food channel: braised pork legs on a bed of arugula, prepared by Jack Kevorkian.

Posted by: truck1 | December 16, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

More answers. But I guess these don't warrant consideration:

Posted by: AZProgressive | December 16, 2009 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Yglesias beat you on the Weber quote.

Posted by: tblogg | December 17, 2009 3:09 AM | Report abuse

For the umpteenth time I ask for answers and details and not political based exhortations....

People like Ezra and Nate Silvet have no business recommending (or dissing) the NEW plan if they can't answer the following types of questions about the NEW plan:

- Will the NEW plan allow insurers to charge older or sicker Americans more for the same policy as younger and healthier Americans? If so, how much more?

- How much savings will occur under the NEW plan in the next two decades?

- Will recisions be banned and exactly what mechanism will exist to ensure that policy holders are not being denied health care payments? Will we have to hire a lawyer or call a watchdog agency?

- If someone is denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or they can not afford the quoted policies, how will he/she obtain insurance if no gvmt option or subsidies exist?

- How high will co-insurance or deductibles be allowed to go?

- Can insurers establish arbitrary maximum annual and lifetime deductibles and change them after I get sick?

- Does the NEW plan require states to substantially expand and increase funding of medicaid? If so, how does my currently bankrupt state afford this?

Posted by: Lomillialor | December 17, 2009 8:05 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company