ebbixx
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
And which values would those be?
In a society where transportation, communication and heathcare were far more primitive this would never have become an issue in the first place. The child would die, assuming he wasn't already dead from some other cause related to his disability.
Until we have universal, state-funded healthcare in the US, it is a form of a "government taking" to force a family to assume the (financial, emotional and other) burdens of a compelled decision to paying for something as hugely expensive as such treatments tend to be. Such a system amounts to slavery for all, (or at least all but a fairly small fraction of the more wealthy) as presently structured. In most cultures, when serious illness struck the young they were usually left to die, or at "best" given palliative care, since the cost of a cure is far more than the family or the extended clan could expect to get back from the productive labor of the sick child.
If this is such a value to society, why is society so reticent to cover the costs?
While I'm fairly sure the family are structuring their objections within a framework of belief, I have few doubts that the bulk of those who have become adherents to many "alternative" forms of medicine have done so in part because they lack the means to get any meaningful form of health insurance. This is hardly an isolated situation, though it tends to be portrayed as such in much of the popular media.
And I thought you were the one famous for going around kicking people in the nuts.
