[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

Based on the background of the mother, she would have been able to have had insurance even without Obamacare, and would have still been able to have insurance no matter what the Republican Congress passes. In this situation, no matter what the government did, her child would still have been able to get the necessary surgery.

In addition, Boston Children's Hospital is one of the premier hospitals in the world. Given the specialized nature of the problem and the fact that heterotaxy cases are pretty rare, even without insurance, the chances are high that the child would still have been treated and the hospital would have eaten the cost.

Thus, pre/post/no Obamacare, the child still would have had the treatment. Thus, you cannot derive a political position from this case.

[hkmurakami]

I am assuming that your statements are correct.

However, if we examine the author's motives, she seeks a society where any child who shares her son's ailment (or other life threatening but treatable -- albeit expensively -- diseases) can receive treatment, whether or not they share her fortunate circumstances or not.

In that light her rhetorical strategy remains reasonable.

[secabeen]

I'm not so sure that's true. While it's likely that the mother would have had insurance pre-Obamacare, it could have very easily had a lifetime maximum. Given that this is his 4th surgery (at $200k each), plus NICU and other costs from his birth, and they are probably looking at at least $1mil in total expenses so far. In a pre-Obamacare world, they could be reaching the end of the funds available for his care.