But let us say you are correct, this falls directly or indirectly on the taxpayer.
Is your answer to avoiding the cost at this time and this place right here and now to kill a child by starvation?
You stand on a principal that I concur with from a political standpoint, and in time it will come to pass as reality and the ability (or inability) of Government becomes apparent.
But how many shall die until we get there?
Losing sight of the human part of this will win you nothing, for it will only make the argument against our position strong in the eyes of those who have the final say, the good and decent people of this land.
The only way for you to have what you want right here and right now is for us to have never gotten to this point to begin with.
Of course the point maybe moot, it seems a deal has been struck and it is not uncommon for private hospitals to provide certain services as a “cost of business” or draw the funds from foundations and such.
The most important thing is that a life has been spared and given a chance to flourish, if it can, and I hope with God’s help it will.
Life, that is what I advocate for above all else, otherwise why "conserve" anything.
The choices are very clear.
A. We spend what ever resources it takes of tax payer money to save this one child.
B. We spend what ever resources it takes of tax payer money to save every sick child in the country by providing them with full medical care.
C. We let the family and the private funds that they raise pay for this baby's care.
Now, since I see nothing that would indicate that this one baby is more important that all the other children in America, the only logical answer would be C since we cannot afford B.