>I agree that 750,000 is way over the top for what medical care - even experimental care - should cost. However, that cost is based on many factors and typically a patient doesn't pay the cost - it is covered by insurance. However, when it comes to 'experimental care' most insurance companies will not pay for it here either. In this case, they are paying it out of pocket because they are not a U.S. citizen and they do not have U.S. health insurance and because it is experimental and not approved medical treatment yet. Besides, I disagree with your 'blanket statement' that it is over the top, because nothting is over the top when it comes to the medical care of your children.

What, you say "I agree that 750,000 is way over the top ..." then " disagree with your 'blanket statement' that it is over the top"

I never made that as a blanket statement. Sure one would give their eyes to get their kid better, but if you haven't got $3/4 million, I don't think they'll take eyes as a deposit.

I don't see why it should cost the price of building a big house to treat one kid.

I don't wish to argue where all the money goes, why; we all know that hospital billing is the equivalent of a drunkard getting his fill from a hotel mini-bar.

>
>
>
>>>>That does not prove that America is the best which was your assertion.
>>>
>>>Stories like this continue to back up my assertion. They seem to happen daily.
>>>
>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=FRLIVWT2WXRDFQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/01/22/nhealth22.xml
>>
>>Aye, but just look at the cost: $750,000 - totally over the top.