Whenever I read something like this, I always have to stop and think of how many people already have or will lose their opportunity to watch their child survive because people are reluctant to have the money spent to save them.

I must admit though, I am becoming increasingly ok with the idea of limiting the salaries that can be paid to the highest echelons of a company. Reading something like a salary of 12m is somehow ridiculous when he is talking about the one time fees for two babies that didn't even come close to his salary in one year. It just feels a little heartless how adament we fight to protect people who have so much and how easily we can accept the fate of the less fortunate by saying "who do you think you are?" Sure, CEOs have fought their way and worked hard to get there, but they will also get paid these crazy sums no matter what. How many of the bankers were paid exorbitant sums even after running the banks into unstable water and requiring bailouts? How much longer can we continue to give those single persons a pay increase that could be use to fund the pay raises for hundreds of employees?

I am curious though - why would the company be paying so much? Suppose I need to look around a little, but it seems like it should have been the insurance companies or the family that would pay.

I have noticed this in the past and fully agree. The author could have even gone a step further to point out all the cases of people who are labeled immediately as terrorists. Generally, if you are Muslim and attack people, you are immediately labeled as a terrorist. However, if a white Christian attacks people because they are too liberal/ruining your country/whatever, it was often just some guy that was "crazy." There seems to be a disconnect in the general willingness to label such persons as something other than crazy. There are perhaps some nuiances that need to be discussed, but I do think we need to work on how we address these topics in the U.S.