You're using an abstract argument and it's coming off as a strawman. What "children" are dying? Who is making the decision to kill them?

In the case we're talking about here, who gets to make this call? What criminals are exempted and which are not? Who decides THAT? Who is worth saving and who is not? What is the dollar cutoff?

There are a hundred questions here and there just aren't any good answers. As I said earlier, it's a bitter pill to swallow but it's one we have to choke down lest we let the government make decisions they shouldn't have the right to make. Criminals or not, those are human beings. And those human beings deserve rights, just like the rest of us.

I've said it half a dozen times in this thread and not a single person has answered it:

Who gets to make the call whether people live or die?

I have the feeling that no one is answering me because they realize that there isn't a good answer and that such a decision is above and beyond the rights the government has to rule over people. No court is trying this man, no jury of his peers. It's an execution without trial.

Its not about "which criminals" are allowed to die, it is about setting reasonable limits to the extent that the state will go to in order to save the life of someone. It doesn't matter whether someone is a criminal or not, being that the state has limited resources available to satisfy the needs of everyone, spending $800,000 to save the life of anyone is a foolish thing to do; and if it is a regular occurance, will ensure that the monetary resources are not there to meet other people's needs.

The entire accepting of the race to the bottom, and getting irate as others manage to fight back against it (like now only government workers have pensions, and everyone else is forced to fend for themselves and never see retirement ever), is a nasty trick happening.  Individuals want others to also go down the tubes with them.  We got rid of lifetime employment, and now employment is increasingly becoming temporary as people have to even have two or three jobs to barely make it.  And this gets increasingly accepted.  In America, look for rollbacks of even basic health coverage, as it becomes that even having health insurance will be a luxury.  Then, only government workers will have health insurance and there will be a movement to make sure even they don't get anything.  But hey, it is ok, we have emergency rooms.  But who says that emergency rooms won't get so taxed they won't also feel a need to turn people away and be allowed to?

But hey, this is all ok, if no one FORCED people into such situations.  If economic conditions brought about by free markets and mistakes and bad luck result in people in dire straights, it isn't anyone did it to themselves.  Make the consequences of actions such that people die, well it is the market that made it so, no one in particular.  Make the problems in society disassociated with everyone.  And shoot, if we drive dispair big enough, we can get people to want to off themselves.  Think of the opportunities to harvest organs and other elements of people who want to no longer live.  We could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue selling organs and body parts of individuals who can't take it any longer in life and just want to end it.  Nice and clean and no one's fault.  After all, why should anyone be another person's keeper?  Heck, we could make a reality TV series out of it for good ratings (the All-Suicide Channel suggested by George Carlin):

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdblpu_the-all-suicide-tv-channel-and-pyra_fun

(Warning on the language used in that clip)

Death Panels for the win!

I have said it. He should get the same care our servicemen get. Do our retired service men still under government care get this treatment? If they dont why should he? If our current men serving in armed forces would not get this care why should he? If they do get this level of care than i withdraw my disaproval of this. I am under the impression that he is getting care not even our armed forces would get.

Edit: Just to add dont insurance companies regularly make these kind of life and death decisions. Do they not say you are not covered and must foot the bill?

And then send the family a bill for the bullet.

Criminals deserve care. Yes. But there has to be a breaking point.

This man ruined children's lives, in which, I don't see why we have to treat him equally as everyone else. Why treat a monster as a human?

Define monster and who gets this care and who doesn't. Is a rapist a monster? How about a person nine years into a ten year sentence for possession with intent to sell? Is he a monster?

Where do you draw the line and who gets to draw it?

Raping is child... it is quite monsterous to me.

Sometime, drawing the line is not to be considered. There are shades of grey in life and we should use our judgement to help out. Not all things have to be black or white. That's where the law fail, IMO.

That's exactly my point. The government always fails when given the opportunity to have some leeway or decision-making power in situations like this. Some might consider that drug dealer to be a "monster" and may have him essentially put to death even though he's going to be free in a year or two. Others might show compassion for that monster rapist and let him have the surgery.

Again, who gets to make this call and why do you think that giving the government the right to make this decision will work in THIS situation when they almost universally fail in all others?

Remember that this is the same system that, through the use of guidelines and rules, often rewards  murderers with lower sentences than repeat drug violations.