But what if that deathbed story were the locus of a sweeping policy that encompassed a huge slice of a nation’s economy?
And what if the individual who told the story were the president of the world’s most powerful nation?
On the same day that President Obama peevishly walked out of debt-ceiling negotiations with congressional leaders, The New York Times reported that the White House had declined to challenge an account in a new book about Obama’s most compelling argument for health care reform – the tale of his mother Ann Dunham’s final days fighting with insurance companies about coverage for her cancer treatment.
No one who followed the 2008 presidential race could have missed the story, which Obama told more than once, of Dunham’s death from uterine and ovarian cancer at age 52. As told by Obama, his mother was fighting until her last breath with an uncaring insurance company about payments for her treatment. The company wouldn’t pay, Obama reported, because his mother’s cancer was considered a pre-existing condition. Eliminating pre-existing conditions as an obstacle to insurance coverage was a central tenet of health care reform and the Affordable Care Act that has resulted.
The story touched hearts and swayed judgments. How awful. How could a compassionate country tolerate such cruelty? Life is a pre-existing condition, after all.
Thus, the story of Obama, Ann Dunham and corporate America’s inhumanity toward pre-existing conditions became an inviolate holy trinity of immense political power.
If only it had been true.
It is too much to say that Obama told an intentionally tall tale to mislead the public. But it is also incorrect to say that he told a true story. According to Janny Scott, a New York Times writer and author of the book “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” Dunham’s cancer treatments were covered by her employer’s insurance policy. She was denied disability insurance, which would have helped Dunham pay her deductible or unreimbursed medical costs. These apparently ran into the hundreds per month.
A distinction without a difference? This is a question for Americans to decide. Yes, it’s true that Dunham was denied disability and she hired her son, whom she identified as her lawyer, to pursue legal recourse. But it is false that she was denied coverage of her treatment, as Obama clearly said.
On Wednesday, the White House did not dispute Scott’s rendering of events.
We can all understand memories dimmed by the passage of time, though some memories demand greater accountability. Surely he might have expected that someone eventually would fact-check his account.
Papas maintains that the president’s story, if not exactly as Americans may have understood it, still stands as commentary on “the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs.” This would be a reasonable argument except that disability insurance, which is usually intended to cover wages lost to illness and not treatment, was never part of the debate in the health care reform act.
The president likely will be forgiven this exaggeration in the service of a greater truth. But it was never, in fact, quite true.
Kathleen Parker’s email address is firstname.lastname@example.org. Parker writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.