Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 23, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

WELCOME BACK....Ezra Klein had a momentary lapse yesterday and gave the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt over its new healthcare proposal. Today he reports that he's learned the folly of his ways.

Kevin Drum 1:07 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

C'mon -- just because they have been wrong and dishonest about everything since the campaign in 2000 doesn't mean we shouldn't trust them!

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on January 23, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Typo alert: "healthcare"

Posted by: Wendy on January 23, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Whenever one hears about a Bush administration proposal, one should always presume that it's a bad idea, undertaken in bad faith. It can be a rebuttable presumption, if one is hellbent on being an open-minded liberal type; but one should never begin one's examination of Bush's proposals without this presumption in mind, because of the chance of having to correct oneself later.

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 23, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

I will steal a page from someone far smarter than myself who, back in 2002, wrote about the Bush administration:

"Can anyone name a single policy proposal from this administration that a) is significant enough that I have heard of it, or should have heard of it, and b) has not been fucked up beyond recognition in the execution?"

That man never received a single answer from even the staunchest Bush supporters in his comments.

Five years later, Ezra finally notices a truism about the Bush government.

Posted by: Derelict on January 23, 2007 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

A few weeks ago the LA Times did a multi-part story on the difficulty of individuals purchasing medical insurance in California. If you were in certain professions, no sale. If your medical history showed certain conditions or prescriptions, no sale.

So, if no one will sell to you, what the hell good are tax breaks?

Posted by: Tigershark on January 23, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

A plan that will tax wage earners while giving more tax breaks to those who don't earn insurance as part of their wages does not deserve even one second of serious consideration. Bush just figured out one more way to collect from the middle class while giving a tax break to the rich.

If there are any more ways he's missed, I am sure he or one of his henchcritters will propose it soon.

Posted by: Scorpio on January 23, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin -- well, I'm not sure that took care of the original typo all that well. This is very unlike you.

Posted by: Wendy on January 23, 2007 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

For more on Bush's recycyling of his earlier dead-on-arrival health care prescriptions, see:
"SOTU Preview: 10 Things to Watch For."

Posted by: AngryOne on January 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

So wrong it is sad. ONLY single payer can control costs while also delivering universal coverage and quality health care. The quick reason is in two numbers 96% (% of $ spent that goes to care under Medicare) and 69% (% of $ spent that goes to care under private for profit insurers). Is single payer politically a difficult sell? That depends on whether you give in to the idea that the health insurance industry controls everything, and that neither the interests of the people nor that every other business (except the insurance industry, for profit hospitals/HMOs, Phram) would also benefit, matters. Also it would help if our "friends" who are incrmentalist-centrist-compromisers would study harder before they blog. As policy and economics single payer is actually the only plan that does make sense. Check out the resources section at http://www.pnhp.org

Posted by: DrSteveB on January 23, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

This blog entry seems to imply that people think Execrable Ezra is a serious policy analyst. Has he even graduated from high school yet?

Posted by: charlie don't surf on January 23, 2007 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Just for the record, about the taxing of benefits proposal: Seriously, if a person's income is X per year, and your employer is paying out Y for health insurance that a person with X + Y income would normally have to shell out of their "income" (whether or not the same exact amount of Y, just consider the principle of thing), isn't it only fair that the first person pay taxes on the total effective income X + Y that they are getting? Why should some workers pay less taxes than others by the subterfuge that their employer pays for some services directly instead of paying them more to begin with, for them to pay out of "their" pockets? Don't most of us complain about not taxing options and exectutive perks as income, etc? Fair play? Forgive me if I'm missing something.

Posted by: Neil B. on January 24, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly