No, it isn't state based, if your mother wanted to she could have easily forced your father to pay child support.

As for universal healthcare, there is really only 1 democracy with true universal healthcare in the world (Canada) and it truly sucks. If you don't mind waiting 8 hours to see a doctor in a walk in clinic because there are no GPs who will take new patients, waiting 8 to 12 hours at the ER when you're seriously injured but not in threat of dying, or waiting months to see a specialist before you wait months/years for surgery you may not dislike it.

The vast majority of European (and developed Asian) nations use a two tiered healthcare system. Having seen this countless times, once you have a universal healthcare system any reform becomes impossible because large unions will spend a fortune advertising against any reform and try to scare people into thinking that it will lead to an "American" styled system that results in your streets being full of corpses.

The United States needs substantial healthcare reform but what it truly needs is to get third party payers (insurance companies and the government) out of paying for health benefits. It is fine to have insurance to cover unlikely events, but the second that insurance gets involved in paying for events that are certainly going to happen you add significant bureaucracy. Visiting a doctor will likely cost between $50 and $100 if it is paid out of pocket, but when you involve insurance companies or the government the amount of work required to get paid for the service they provided (and the likelihood that they won't get paid for some or all of the services provided) means that the doctor has to charge substantially more; and this would likely be in the $300 to $500 range. The reason for this is simple, if you have to hire additional people to fill out paperwork, you (as a doctor) see fewer patients because of the paperwork you have to file, you have to wait weeks or months to be reimbursed, and a large portion of your expenses don't get reimbursed you're likely going to start charging more to cover your increased costs/losses.

I live in Great Britain, not the United States , sorry i didn't make that clear

Britain has the NHS, which I believe is universal healthcare but it's not great. Long waiting times and some old hospitals!

Australia has a far better system, it has free, tax paid NHS but also some private healthcare companies. No healthcare based insurance companies!!! 

As for your last point, i agree that insurance companies need to be removed from healthcare. It just amazing how expensive it is JUST to see a doctor, $300 to $500 is a lot of money, just because of insurance! US healthcare is a bit of a mess really

Third party payment has to be removed from health benefits ...

It doesn't matter whether an insurance company or the government is paying, the third party payer dramatically increases the bureaucracy of delivering services; and when the cost of bureaucracy is greater than the cost of delivering the service you have a serious problem.

Yes and it is very wrong for it to be this way. It would be better, if you just had to pay for the healthcare service, instead of the service plus extra hidden fees. That would be a start, for the USA

It isn't just the American system though, if Canadians and British people paid for healthcare benefits out of pocket the total costs would be lower and access would be greater.

@HappySqurriel:

So, unwanted pregnancies are ALWAYS the result of a woman's "ignorance and selfishness"? Really?  How about rape, or incest?

Interesting how the self-righteous anti-abortion zealots are all going on about how abortion is murder (from the moment of conception onwards I might add) yet most of them will back down in the case of rape or incest and say "oh, well, um, in THAT circumstance than I guess it's ok for the woman to have an abortion"

Sorry, if anti-abortion supporters are going to stand on the self-righteous belief that abortion is "murder", then its ALWAYS murder, regardless of the circumstances. So unless they are prepared to force rape victims and 11-year old incest victims to carry the fetus to term, they can just STFU about that 'murder' thing.

Bottom line is that a woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body. You can keep to your god and your own moral standards and leave the rest of us to ours, thank you.

And again, what I originally wrote is SO appropriate to the abortion issue also.  The wrong side MUST NOT win.  

This issue here isn't simply one of just religion.  Considering abortion the taking of a human life is not akin to the same thing as communion, prayer, Ramadan, Passover or whatever religious issue you want to tap it to.  And no, life isn't a matter of everyone just doing whatever they want with their own body.  If what one does impacts others, then it is an issue.  This is particularly true in the case of abortion, which may involve a human life.  Whether or not it should be outlawed is an entirely different issue.

You do have individuals like this:

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

If you don't even to stop and take pause that maybe a second life is involved, and you reduce the unborn to be nothing more than a problem when the woman doesn't want the unborn, you aren't thinking enough on the issue, and aren't seeing all the angles involved.  You are free to, but spare the world your complaining it is some sort of religious issue, when it is deeper than that.  And that is the bottom line, one of a complex issue that has one side yelling about life, and the other side yelling about people having a right to do whatever they want with their body.  But, feel free to bottom line as you like, and I can call the moderators to lock it, since the point of this thread, which is the bigotted ignorance of partisans, is ignored.

Locking at the OPs request.