In an attempt to jump on the whole “Economics You Can USE and UNDERSTAND! Yippee, horray!!” bandwagon (and I do admit, Freakonomics was a great book), economist Steven Landsburg has been doing a series of columns over at Slate. As far as I can tell, the Slate spots are essentially Landsburg’s attempt at being edgy, and/or daringly controversial; in the end, he really just comes off looking like a bit of a dickhead.

Yesterday he laid down a piece about Tirhas Habtegiris, a not-as-white, less terminally ill Terri Schiavo whose ventilator was shut off by Plano, Texas hospital workers after she failed to pay her medical bills. Noting that many lefty bloggers (here, here) have been citing this case as an outrage, one in which “economic considerations” triumphed over “compassion,” Landsburg spends a good two thirds of his column jumping on the semantics; he pays particular attention to the phrase “economic consideration,” employing an overly literal, econ-professor-jargon-influenced reasoning that results in a bizarre and unintentionally humorous (if not outright annoying) column trying to break down a tragic case into a weird experiment in iconoclasm and controversial thought.

Landsburg’s early argument, as far as I can tell, essentially contends that “economic consideration” and “compassion” are not at odds in this case. As such, he argues it was right for the hospital to let Habtegiris die, because “there is nothing particularly compassionate about giving ventilator insurance to a person who really feels a more urgent need for milk or eggs.” Essentially, six months before she was diagnosed with cancer, had you offered Habtegiris a choice between buying ventilator insurance or paying for food (or picking up “a few CDs,” as he so delicately throws in), she’d pick the food and CDs. It’s a stupid anology, one that makes specific something that should be treated more generally; Habtegiris’ choice isn’t one between ventilator insurance and some milk and cookies, but really between those milk and cookies and some form of insurance that guarantees your hospital won’t up and let you die for lack of being able to pay. I’d like to think most would take the “Please Don’t Let Me Die If You Can Help It” choice.

To be fair, it looks as though Landsburg’s really trying to say that, if we’re going to spend the money at all, instead of paying for the use of ventilators we should be paying for health education, food-stamps and gym memberships––preventative measures that go a long way to help the poor (and everyone else) avoid ever needing a ventilator in the first place. And that’s a good point, albeit one he makes in a wittless, sloppy way. In that sense, as Julian over at AndrewSullivan.com somewhat alludes to, the whole Habtegiris controversy really just boils down to a cut and dry debate over whether or not government should guarantee some degree of universal health care––a debate in which the left just says “well, duh,” then waits for FEMA to come change their diapers, and the right removes the stick up their asses just long enough to mumble something obtuse and condescending about emerging markets and Joseph Stalin. It’s been done before. Landsburg may be thin and obnoxious (not to mention obtuse and condescending), but at least he’s something new.