- Those billions are busy doing other things. There is a time problem.
- Even families don't care enough to visit their kids and elderly parents, so there isn't a lot of willingness to take significant action. There is a what people are willing to pay (in terms of time, money, and/or resources) problem.
- The scale of the problem is enormous and humans don't scale. Are there even enough sociable people you could hire in the USA for this?
Stuff like this does not replace human interaction, in both meanings.
1) No one "stops" visiting ill children because this robot exist, right? I know someone who is a "clinic clown", who keeps children a little bit happier by clowning around with a red round nose and funny make-up. Stuff like this will not "stop" because there is now a "better alternative".
2) This is in the same way a "solution" like a improvised splint is a solution to a broken leg. Not perfect in any way, not something forever, but it's better than nothing.
And "nothing" is the alternative for many people.
I worked in an elderly home after high school. Many of those people never had any visitors in a whole year, and the facility was severly understaffed, preventing us from "replacing" their families a bit. While I'm hoping that most childs in hospital get more visitors, I'm sure many are very lonely too.
I too would wish for it to be different. But we can't force people to interact with other people, can we?
If robots can emulate human emotions and affection close enough to at least ease the pain for those people, it's better than nothing, no? :-)
Make no mistake that if we are to blame anyone with this technology we should be blaming medical administration.