Coming from a country where no one seemed to think it particularly disgraceful that a child with a brain tumour could be sent home to die because his father didn't have the wherewithal to pay a surgeon, or where an insurance company could be permitted by a state insurance commissioner to cancel the policies of its 14,000 sickest patients because it wasn't having a very good year {as happened in California in 1989}, it seemed to me admirable beyond words that a nation could dedicate itself to providing equally and fairly for everyone, whatever the cost.
In the passage, the author Bill Bryson reflects on the stark differences between countries regarding healthcare and support for those in need. He describes a situation in which a child suffering from a brain tumor might be sent home to die due to financial constraints, illustrating a lack of compassion in some nations. This commentary highlights the moral implications of prioritizing profit over the welfare of individuals, particularly the most vulnerable.
Furthermore, Bryson admires the dedication of a nation that strives to ensure healthcare is accessible to all, regardless of financial status. He acknowledges that this commitment to universal care comes at a cost, yet finds it commendable. His observations underscore the ethical responsibility of societies to provide for their members, especially in times of crisis, contrasting it with practices that neglect the sick for financial gain.
