The child's family should have had an insurance plan that would have added them to their coverage.
Actually, the child I'm thinking of did have them on insurance. Family went into bankruptcy anyway. Your point?
I mean, above and beyond the ridiculousness of having to be privileged by birth.
Furthermore, a child that is already acruing that great an expense in medical care may never be a productive worker. So it rather goes against your point that it would be an economic benefit for everyone to cure them if that's even possible.
Are you even familiar with medical costs in the US here?
You have got to be kidding me. The average American makes several million dollars over the course of their lives. To deny a child or even someone under the age of forty a hundred thousand dollars in medical care, you need to make the claim that less than one in ten will go on to live fully productive lives.
To put another way, even with the ridiculously inflated costs of modern medical care, a pretty simple exercise shows it's worth it:
1: 40 year old, below average American makes $40,000 per year. Over the next 25 years until their retirement - if they retire then - they'll make about ~1 million dollars, before taxes. Regardless, their employer - whomever they are - considers them to be worth it.
2: Person gets into an accident, loses all of their fingers on one hand, total cost after insurance is willing to pay - $250,000.
3: This person is useless to their job if they don't get their fingers back.
Let's make this your 'capitalist' world, though. He doesn't get any form of health care or support, he's let go from his job and completely on his own due to no fault of his own. In your perfect world, there's no such thing as food stamps. He needs food, he needs to support his family. He can't afford another education.
He has a gun. What is he going to do when he finally gets desperate?
In your scenario, society is out three quarters of a million dollars worth of productivity.
Actually there are such things as epidemics in my world. I just rather doubt that we can stop them. I view death as a constant that you can't stop with a really good social program. If there is an epidemic it may be necessary to contain it. On the other hand what the hell does that have to do with a national health care system? That's an emergency.
Epidemics can only be contained if caught early. But more seriously, our current health care system actively promotes their creation - not a good way to be.
As for the poor? Were it up to me I'd eliminate welfare for all those except those that are disabled to the point of being unable to work. Everyone else would be left to their own devices to make their way in the world as best they can.
In a nation where there is a gun for every man, woman and child, is that really what you want? Think hard.
Be given the option of comfortable poverty as opposed to truly having to wander where their next meal is coming from if they don't seek gainful employment leads to complacency and welfare recipients breeding more welfare recipients. Malthus has been right for several centuries, the grain dole and its sucessor welfare only results in a greater number of poor people than should otherwise have existed.
And so does failing to provide ladders for them to escape from poverty.
1: They need to know how (education)
2: They need to be capable (healthy)
As I mentioned, very early on in this thread, capitalism implies that people are making informed decisions and have the full capacity to do so. You are actively denying people this.