DC 9/12 PROTEST RALLY

The rally was variously estimated at over 1 million. I can believe it, since it took us an hour just to get on the Metro train in Vienna, VA, the outermost stop on the Orange line. Here are some initial pictures.

We came unarmed - this time


Priceless


Obamanomics is a loser


Sarah Palin returns


Already in debt, and can't vote


A real army of Davids


A better "clunkers" program


More signs, crowd shots, some videos and other thoughts on Sunday.

SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA

Wow. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson finally exhibits a glimmer of understanding: “Perhaps we can never fully predict the consequences of our good ideas .... In the end, the least -- and, probably, the most -- we can do is try our best to envision which of our good ideas seems least likely to burden future generations. “

I may have to start taking him somewhat seriously.

THERE'S A REASON IT'S CALLED INSURANCE

Edwin L. Fountain is half right:

People buy insurance against risk, and they agree to pool their risks with other people. In exchange for others paying for the costs of your care if you eventually need it, you agree to pay your share of the costs of theirs. A person with a preexisting condition, however, is not pooling his risk of needing care; he is asking other insured people to pay for his certain costs of treatment. That is no longer insurance against risk. It is cost-shifting.

Uh, not exactly. Here's an example from the Austin American Statesman (August 18; no link):

I am unemployed. My COBRA expires in two months. Once in my life I was diagnosed with hypertesion. I take no nedication at all. But because the diagnosis is on my medical record, my attempts to get private insurance have been denied.

So I will ask ... the same question that I have asked of our senators (no response, of course): How am I to get medical coverage?"

I'm not eligible for "health insurance" either, other than on my/my wife's employer plan (which do not have a pre-existing condition clause) because I have on my record a cardiac catherization which found a minor blockage. The fact that my cardiologist considers it insignificant is irrelevant. My brother is ineligible as well: he felt a doctor-recommended test was unnecessary and chose not to have it performed.

Insurance is, as described, a risk-pooling mechanism. The premium cost is based on the assessed risk, which can easily be adjusted to accomodate "pre-existing conditions." Automobile insurance works in exactly that way by increasing premiums for young drivers, not denying them insurance.

Here's why Fountain is only half-right: the fact is that health insurance as currently constituted is not insurance - it is prepaid medical care.

NAIL, MEET HAMMER

"Hubris-laden charlatans" was the way ... a reader characterized the Obama administration.

One of the secrets of being a glib talker is not getting hung up over whether what you are saying is true, and instead giving your full attention to what is required by the audience and the circumstances of the moment, without letting facts get in your way and cramp your style.

Heh.

OBAMACARE 2.0?

Charles Krauthammer thinks Obamacare 1.0 is dead and proposes an exit strategy.

"[T]here is an exit strategy. And a politically clever one, if the Democrats are smart enough to seize it."

(1) Forget the public option.
(2) Jettison any reference to end-of-life counseling.
(3) Soft-pedal the idea of government committees determining "best practices."
(4) More generally, abandon the whole idea of Obamacare as cost-cutting.
(5) Promise nothing but pleasure -- for now. Make health insurance universal and permanently protected.

"And here's what makes it so politically seductive: The end result is the liberal dream of universal and guaranteed coverage -- but without overt nationalization .... Of course there is [a catch]. This scheme is the ultimate bait-and-switch [to] government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage [that] will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care."

The one saving grace is that the Democrats are not smart enough to listen to Krauthammer.

INVASION OF MEDICAL PRIVACY

This is worrisome. We have little enough privacy as it is.

ROBINSON STRIKES OUT AGAIN

Eugene Robinson, the Washington Post's (sub)premier columnist, is upset that medical personnel have participated in torture (without admitting that there are those of us who do not necessarily feel that enhanced interrogation is torture): "As for those who said yes, the law should hold them accountable."

Um, Eugene, three things: One,the Hippocratic Oath to which you appear to refer is a medical oath, not legal requirement; it isn't illegal to violate it.

Two, many parts of the oath are controversial even within the medical community. Are you aware that the original oath prohibits abortion? [I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.]

Three, the phrase "Above all, do no harm," usually attributed to the oath, doesn't specify an object, so the relevant question is "harm to whom?" I'd suggest you look up Asimov's Zeroth Law for a possible answer that you might find disconcerting.