According to the disclaimer on the GoFundMe page, Richard Mack did not start the funding campaign:

"Just a reminder -- As has been stated below from the beginning, “we” are local friends who asked permission from Sheriff Mack and his wife to start a fundraising campaign (including GoFundMe, a bank account, and other methods for people to contribute). We also requested assistance from their son with this campaign. These efforts were not originated by the family."

Not saying that Mack made a responsibile decision in foregoing health insurance, but it's not really fair in my estimation to say that he himself is begging for money through this GoFundMe campaign.

Last edited by opendoug (3/01/2015 7:31 pm)

I think it makes a difference.

"Richard Mack, Sheriff Who Refused Obamacare, Now Begs Strangers For Cash To Pay Medical Bills"

sounds a lot different than

"Supporters and Family of Richard Mack Start GoFundMe Campaign for Assistance with Medical Bills"

The latter probably wouldn't bring in the same amount of site visitors or ad revenue. I think it's also less likely to convince people that Richard Mack was irresponsible in not signing up for health insurance. If you start reading the article already working off of the assumption that Richard Mack is a broke and unhealthy beggar, you might be more liable to agree that he should have purchased health insurance from the new exchange. But if Richard Mack is in the same boat as, say, this gentleman who required financial support to pay medical bills after he climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro...then it's not exactly a national headline anymore. He's just another guy whose family and friends want to help him with medical bills.

Last edited by opendoug (3/01/2015 8:06 pm)

Goose wrote:

Mack campaigned vociferorously against the ACA, to the point that he chose to be uninsured as a point of political opposition.
His act was foolish, and highlights the fact that, to some opposition to the ACA became so virulent that he chose to act against his own interests.

I don't disagree. I'm just feeling ornery and don't like reporting that panders to one side of a debate by ramping up the rhetoric and playing loose and easy with the facts. But then, that's like 95% of the internet so I might as well live under a rock 

Last edited by opendoug (3/01/2015 8:24 pm)

I was thinking. Threads are funny things. You never know where they are going to go. Guess it helps make life interesting.
When I started this one, I never dreamt that the things I consider minor points (Is he soliciting funds, or did he just give someone permission to solicit on his behalf? Is it proper to use the word beg to describe a situation where someone asks for money for nothing in return.? And that whole "PC" thing.) would hold more interest than the major one.

There's a 500 pound irony sandwich on the table. A guy is an outspoken critic of the ACA. So outspoken that he forms an organization to combat it, and refuses to carry insurance because this is just a terrible, bad, socialistic type idea.
Then the guy and his wife both get sick, and lacking insurance, they end up with ruinous medical bills that he is having difficulty paying. In other words, precisely the catastrophe that the ACA is designed to prevent.

The cherry on top, in a cosmic sense, is that the guy turns to internet panhandling, I mean a unique form of fund raising, to pay the bill. The result is that healthy, other people are going to pay for the care related to the major ilness suffered by a stranger. Which is sorta like,,,,, well,,,,, Insurance.

 

Goose wrote:

The result is that healthy, other people are going to pay for the care related to the major ilness suffered by a stranger. Which is sorta like,,,,, well,,,,, Insurance.

In my eyes, this is like an irony onion. There are multiple layers of irony at play here.

Like you said, here's a guy who could have benefited from the very system that he has fought so hard against.

The deeper irony is that while everyone thinks it's super ironic that this guy fought against government health insurance when he really would have benefitted from it, he actually succeeded (for now) in surviving without it by taking advantage of private, voluntary donations. Which is the whole point that the anti-Obamacare folks are trying to make: his catastrophic healthcare needs have been paid for, all without using government force to accomplish the task.

Is it realistic to expect a nation of millions of people to get their healthcare costs covered through private donations? Hell no. But this is one of those weird situations where people on both sides of the debate point to the same facts and, in their differing perspectives, both feel as though they have been proven right.

I love America.