Perhaps He Gave Her a Free T-Shirt

by Don Boudreaux on February 6, 2010

in Health,Other People's Money

Here’s a letter that I sent to the New York Times:

You open your report on the President’s continued push for health-care reform with the following account: “For a moment, President Obama’s pledge to keep fighting for major health care legislation got personal on Thursday night as he told supporters at a fund-raiser about a former campaign worker in St. Louis without health insurance who had died of breast cancer.  ‘She insisted she is going to be buried in an Obama T-shirt,’ he said…. ‘How can I say to her, ‘You know what, we’re giving up’’? ” (“Democrats Ask, Can Health Care Bill Be Saved?” Feb. 5).

What have we here?  A politically successful multimillionaire stands idly by as an employee – who seems also to have been Mr. Obama’s personal acquaintance – dies because she cannot afford proper medical care.  Then Mr. Obama deploys this tale of woe not to apologize for, or to criticize, his own refusal to help a friend but, instead, to criticize millions of other people who never met this woman for their refusal to be forced into ponying up for her health insurance.

A truly ethical person voluntarily sacrifices from his own purse to help others when appropriate.  And he never pretends that he fulfills his ethical duties by calling upon the state to compel people to do what he himself refuses to do voluntarily.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

As Dave Schmidtz points out to me in the e-mail that he sent alerting me to this report, the entire story has a distinct air of unbelievability about it.  It’s likely untrue – a fact that raises a whole ‘nother set of issues.

View Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Tom_Maguire
    Great point, and she did meet Obama - he was in St Louis one week after declaring his candidacy - but... she had health insurance.

    She had a catastrophic plan with a $5,000 deductible and she had just maxed out her credit cards to expand her small business when she discovered a lump in her breast at age 37. Not having any more money handy, she ignored the problem (in one account for several years).

    Eventually, she was diagnosed, promptly qualified for Medicaid, and began treatment. Two years later she also qualified for Medicare (under their disability program.)

    But it was too late. To be fair (as I have been advised by commenters at my blog) someone that young must have a very aggressive cancer and it may have been too late even a year or two earlier.

    However, her position was that she died because of bad (i.e., expensive) insurance, and she was closed out of switching to a low deductible/high premium plan due to her pre-existing condition.
  • Methinks1776
    Unfortunately, with aggressive cancer, it is often too late at any stage. There are certain cancers that will kill you no matter how much medical attention you receive.
  • sherylminns
    What exactly is your point, mate? The fact remains that, in your country, if someone is not blessed with GREAT personal wealth or a job with perks, then they do not have access to anything but the most basic health care. What price anybody's life? Do you fork out for every personal friend to get all the health care they need? I reckon you probably don't. I am deeply thankful that I live in a country where I can have the care I need when I need it, regardless of my social status, personal finances or the generosity of my acquaintances.
  • brucedalcher
    Don,
    I agree with everything except your leter's concluding paragraph. As you point out, we have no ethical duty to the campaign worker because we've never even met her: likewise, those whom we might chose to assist are precisely those we regard highly for whatever reason. If we do so, that is not "sacrifice" at all -- it is putting our $$ where our values are. Regards-
    Bruce
  • the economic fractalist
    The Economic Fractal's Second Modest Proposal: The IRDC US Political Party

    The IRDC Super Party: The Independent Republican Democrat Centrist Super Party

    The global monetary-banking-financial system that forms the basis for possibilities of reasonably fair and socially beneficial economic growth is .... simply ... broken.

    The self designated defacto fixers of that broken system are in fact both the principal causal elements of the broken system and the members and beneficiaries of the current broken system.
    With the old system's failed and bad rules enforced by its current principal beneficiaries, the broken system will never be fixed.

    There will only be more disproportional rewards for the owner of the broken system: the self acknowledged too big to fail financial industry.

    Kindly consider this. The rewards and benefits of the members of the financial cartel are in reality much greater than the often quoted nominal 2009 over 2007 gains. That 2009 purchasing power of the cartel's members' earnings is denominated in surviving dollars in an environment of a 20 percent reduction in US citizen net household wealth over the last 30 months and a 5-6 percent increase in unemployment that reduces the demand side cost of wages. Real estate can now be purchased for both 15 percent less and with lower interest rates.

    (The leveraged damage done to US citizens are relatively greater than other world citizens and their fiat currencies... any questions regarding a rising dollar relative to other fiat currencies?)

    Those 2009 dollars earned, but for congressional intervention and tax-payer re bankrolling, by a bankrupted financial industry, can now buy 20 percent more than in 2007 more and likely 30-40 percent more later in 2010.

    The Financial Industry members have made out like the bandits they are.

    Cicero two millennium later speaks: Res ipse loquitor....

    What would be a sine qua non metric target for a successful stable fair real economy? One possibility would be a working citizen benefited monetary financial system where, for example, graduates going into an engineering careers or teaching careers earn more than graduates going into the financial industry.

    With the owners of the monetary system firmly in control of congress, is there any possible hope for remedy?

    Perhaps.

    Perhaps it is time for the establishment of a coalition super party - the IRDC party.

    The IRDC party, the Independent Republican Democrat Centrist party (the C could also represent Constitutionalists) likely already includes the philosophical, if not the I want to be re-elected - majority of US congress people.

    The Centrist IRDC platform is simple. Create a fair economic system that values hard work and economic creation of useful real goods and services and conversely implements effective new rules which restricts private citizen or corporate wealth creation from manipulation of the monetary system.

    Politicians could run either as an IRDC candidate, an independent, a republican, or a democrat supporting the centrist principal platform of restoring real fairness and worth to the economic system. After successful election republicans, democrats and independents who ran on their respective republican, democrat, and independent tickets and who supported the IRDC platform could then join a majority IRDC caucus and be a member of a majority party entitled to chairmanship of key committees.

    Think about it. The IRDC Super Party - a great reckoning for Wall Street and the Wall Street run world.

    The establishment of a Super Party Constitutional and Centrist majority offers the chance to begin anew with new rules and underlying new principles to engender fairness and a rationale allocation of wealth for the 21st century. (A drop in the bucket of time but so good for the world's grand children.)
  • perfectly done man. Well written article.
  • Very well written.. With each passing day my love for you deepens.
  • At Just One Minute:
    Eulogy To The Unknown Campaign Volunteer; Obama Misstates Facts

    From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, we learn that she had catastrophic coverage with a high deductible and skimped on routine exams:

    When Melanie Shouse began feeling ill, eventually finding a lump in her breast, she couldn't afford a doctor. She and her partner had just used their savings to open a business.
    A year later, doctors told her she had terminal, stage four breast cancer


    At Perfunction, Obama Forgets Name Of Lady Buried In Obama T-Shirt
  • Methinks1776
    Brings to mind Obama's refusal to offer any financial support to his impoverished brother in Kenya.

    Liberals dismissed the idea that he has any obligation to help the brother because they didn't grow up together, weren't close and only met a few times. Yet, Obama seeks to compel millions of people to financially support millions of other people who are complete strangers. The irony is predictably lost on liberals. They're just that intellectually superior to the rest of us mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers (to tie into a recent Cafe Hayek post).
  • brotio
    I think he was at the convention, but it may have been another speech, where The Anointed Won proclaimed that he, "is his brother's keeper".
  • rcrummett
    Right On, well written.
  • a fact that raises a whole ‘nother set of issues.

    That politics is about emotional manipulation of the electorate?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: