This story is NOT about someone who could not pay medical bills and/or didn't have insurance. It clearly states in the article that the money was needed because the parents quit their jobs and was to be used for living expenses. Please do not recast the story to suit an agenda.
And for a ridiculously difficult procedure like this? Doesn't it make sense in a way for health care to pay for it?
The parents needed to quit their jobs because they needed to move to NC. They needed to move because of the procedure. Yes it might be a grey area but I'm okay with exceptions like this.
> Yes it might be a grey area but I'm okay with exceptions like this.
It's not really a gray area, a number of countries either have a concept of "caretaker leaves" or let parents use sick/parental leaves to take care of young children (in Sweden for instance, parents can take their paid sick leave — 364 days @80% then 550 days @75% — to care for children under 12)
You make a fair point, but either way, people in this country shouldn't have to worry about financial hardship as a result of a required medical procedure. Relocating the parents to be where a very young child needs to get treatment is all part of the same medical expense, as far as I'm concerned.
