My bottom line: I disagree with your sentiment to get rid of the "nanny state" in this situation. If our laws reenforce the sense that life is to upheld, then if parents aren't able to pay for the costs of a severely-handicapped person, then the government, whose primary duty is to protect life, should assist. This is not a "quality of life" issue (welfare), but a case of protecting life itself.
"I disagree with your sentiment to get rid of the "nanny state" in this situation."
Thank you. That is all I was looking for.
I understand your reasoning of the gov't protecting life and thank you for your response.