The answer to this is harder than just yes or no. It depends. I wouldn't be against very basic coverage universal health care that's economically sustainable. That's a lot different than the Cadillac plans people expect when they talk about universal healthcare.

We as a society need to be more frugal with our healthcare use. It's become such an industry. The vast majority of the population doesn't need to regularly go to the doctor every other week, but we've created this profit driven, consumeristic type of system that's not sustainable.

You don’t think that these unwanted kids deserve the same standard as others? This means much more than ‘a very basic coverage’. Don’t they deserve the same opportunities too?

They deserve the right to life. If their parents want to push harder in life and afford them better opportunities that's on them.

They don’t though (the parents). What next?

This post was edited by Chainsaw47 on May 30 2018 06:07pm

A wild logic & reason appeared

if you want an economically sustainable healthcare system you realize single payer would be vastly better than what you have now?

Literal slave holder logic

Im not triggered its called a discussion

Your language sayz youre triggered.

Try engaging with what I actually say instead if being a snowflake.

Billions of parents don't do enough. Life goes on. If they want to be fiends and smoke crack or be completely irresponsible we as a society should step in, otherwise most parents are sensible enough to know to take care of their kids at least in a very basic level.



Maybe, maybe not. It's a very big issue that no single person can say with 100% certainty things will be better or worse.

If their go to option was an abortion, clearly they don’t intend on taking care of the kid. That’s 650,000 more kids to take care of per year, hope you don’t mind taxes.