So you tend to support socialized medicine then?
Meaning the government should step in and pay for medical conditions for people who need help?
Well, at least you only waited till post number 3 to show plainly that this was a bait thread with the intent simply to put a very extreme, emotional situation with a very defined state of circumstances to then use it as a means of saying that if you support something with that therefore you must support it with all.
This of course is ludicrous.
Believing perhaps that a child, born into this world without any choice on its own needing medical attention right off or dying and having no ability to support itself, should have its medical expenses cared for does not equate to having to believe in all of socialized medicine nor that those who need help must be supported.
There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who is 25years old and chose that having money to for a new video game every few weeks and happy hour every night instead of buying insurance and then gets cancer.
There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who is sick and someone needing medical attention and can't pay for it because he's made no strong effort in the past months to get a job.
There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who can't keep a job because they continue to drink, smoke pot, or do hard drugs that causes them to either repeatedly miss work or fail drug tests causing them not to be able to keep down a job.
There is a large difference even between a newborn baby and a person who just unfortunantly has fell on a stretch of "bad luck" and can't afford care.
In just about every single one of the situation above those individuals at some point in their life did things that likely lead to the situation they are in. The young guy chose to go for leisure over insurance. The next guy chose to coast in life rather than focus completely on finding a job, any job, until he got one. The next guy chose to take his substance of choice. And even the one with "bad luck" chose to not take time to save previously in case of situations where "bad luck" may happen.
The baby made no choice. The baby was born and then had issues. One could blame the parents, but that is no different than blaming the parents of the drug addict or the irresponsable youth for bad upbringing.
Your attempt at equating two things that are largely different, hoping and praying to prey on peoples emotions by using the example of a baby, is a disgusting debate tactic and one that frankly is plainly transparent.
Does the situation we have currently work 100% of the time or with utmost efficiency? No. Are there situations, like the one you describe above, that throw it out of whack? Definitely. Does that magically mean that the only answer, or the main answer, to solving those situations where there are issues is to socialize the entire system for everyone? Absolutely not. The dishonest attempt to present the situation in such stark either or options is based in anything but reality.