This is fantastic statement, but as a political message it’s misguided. Verone seems like a sincere guy who was simply responding to incentives. It’s a shame he didn’t find a better solution. But it’s important to think through this situation; it is not an argument against markets. If anything it’s an argument in favor of freeing markets to allow greater growth.
The author commenting on Verone’s story is making a free lunch argument, akin to saying, “if government provided cars, I would have a good quality car for free.” It would be great if that were the case, but the fact remains that there is no free lunch. If government provided health care means more spending on health care, it also means less spending on other things we value (like taking another trip to go see Grandma, or sending your kids to a better school) (it also means more spending on IRS agents).
As a student of economics I routinely see people ignore the nature of the market–the humanity of it and the drive for something better that has allowed civilization as we know it to advance so much over the past 300 years (it’s worth remembering that most everyone was poor before then and even kings lived a miserable life compared to the poor today).
If we look at a short-run picture of the economy, it is simple to redistribute resources to create a more egalitarian circumstance. However, this requires eliminating (or greatly reducing) private property rights, which are a corner stone of markets and civilization itself. By denying markets the ability to function, we freeze economic progress at best, and at worst end up with a broken system requiring too much paperwork for too little effective care.