I still think that people should be more helped for this kind of problems.
Of course we don't must mutilate people to be "equal", but I find this novel a bit weird since the author is american and how the inegalities are high in america, and it's far to be "unevitable and unavoidable" (especially healthcare..and so protesthic reimbursement for example)
You think it's fair that in some countries, Emi would not helped at all to buy her prostheses and would be in a wheelchair ? you know, there is a difference between makes everyone "equals" and had some public services. (And many countries had many much better public services without being communist or ruined, if they are the firsts things to be canceled in times of economic crisis, it's because these are the only things that a country can stop paying if the production is poor, they can't do many much things about it except try to improves the compagnies and industries here, what is difficult, so they raise taxes and direct expenses; but before many countries were successful with excellent public healtcare, public education...it's not a big expense for a country with a normal economy)
It's a strange moral, you think disabled have the right to live normaly, unless they aren't rich ? or treat badly someone because he is disabled is bad, but treat badly someone because he is poor is OK ?
And for the "problem", it's that maybe, disabled who can buy this kind of stuff would be fine, but the others would lives worser because they would be less helped and less integrated ? who would want to hire someone who is in a wheelchair when you can hire someone who has artificials legs instead ? If it's not already the case, disabled struggles to have a job, except if they are highly qualified (also a question of money in some countries), and if they don't have a job and just a disability allowance (If it's even a thing, in Germany it does not even exist for example) and don't have a family able to help them, they generaly have a very miserable life in all domains.(The social life of a jobless disabled is not very active too, so it's not only economic and they generaly don't have other people around them to compensante their bad situation unlike most of other poor people who can still had a good life in friendship, family and romantic domain..and since wealth is a huge factor in suicide rates, it's not even totaly true)
The issues about social security aren't really separable from the issues about disabled, you knows. (If it's not only because it's incoherent to cares about disabled but not about others disadvantaged people)
And for the thing about "improve himself" is more problematic than what you said, you don't think than if a minority is mentaly and physically improved, they wouldn't use their superiority to exploit their inferiors ? and why an "equal" use of this kind of technology is more necessarily more justifiable than limitation to the richest ? I don't think the world of Harrison Bergeron is more a dystopia than a world ruled by an elit of transhumans.
I don't see what is your point here, what is the interest of progress if it's not to try to makes better the life of the greatest possible number of people ? it's also the interest of all society. (Obviously, it's not totaly possible but many inegalities aren't here because it's "impossible" to don't have them)
PS : Are you sure you would say the same things if you were in a another situation ?
(usually the ones benefiting from them) So on the contrary, it's to be expected that the author is American.