"Is health care for children a parental responsibility or a moral imperative for society?

My answer: an emphatic 'yes'.

Wherever parents can provide most of the care, they will want to, and should. Most of such care occurs in the home or not at clinics. When it occurs at clinics, those who can afford it, will make use of their own resources.

HOWEVER, that version of the question all but implies that responsible parents are in position to provide the care. The horrendous statistics which reveal how many children are not under parental care, or find their parental homes to dysfunctional, so broken, so broke, that they are beyond the range of even reasonable and sometimes of emergency care.

Parents are part of "society." "Society" can be an abstraction, but we remember that it is in the end, people, and people can be agents and use all kinds of agencies. There are voluntary institutions which perform many services. But in the end, societies have to reckon with the role of government. Talking about that leaves the faint-hearted faint. There are all kinds of excuses given by people who do not care if children suffer and die needlessly, and their not caring is based either in political ideologies or resentment or greed.

A generous society, especially one that claims to be influenced by biblical thought, will find ways to provide where other institutions and agencies do not and cannot. All the scriptures that I know commend the weakest, the most vulnerable, the littlest, to the care of the strong, well-established and larger people and institutions.

Other, poorer, nations provide care more readily than we. Rethinking the role of government is a top pirority item. If we can spend $2 billion, which is two-housand million dollars on one of our wars, we can peacefulliy find ways to do some reapportioing of assets and perhasp assauge te consciences of many (religious) citizens, and inspire others to find ways to meet needs.