Social policy =/= economic policy.

I think people should really stop using the term baby in this case, an unborn child is called a fetus. It's called a baby once it's born.

Anyway i think the limit should be at the moment the fetus starts to show brain activity, wich i believe is after about 5 months. After that you're killing a consious being.

Is it right for us to be taxed to pay for others' health services?  I would say it is not. 

I wouldn't even be opposed to states running these so-called health clinics.  Although we know that they are by and large abortion clinics.  I just don't think the federal government has any business getting involved and taking care of people in this way.

If we as a society decide that we want state-run health clinics, then so be it (even though I personally don't see why I should be taxed to pay for it if I or my family doesn't use it), but it should be done on a state level, not on a federal level.  Let the states deal with their health services as they choose, and let the pro-life states limit abortion services, and the free-wheeling liberal states have as many abortions as they want. 

Living in a country with a collective health system i really can't understand how people can look at it this way. Without a collective system you get a situation were people with more money can afford basic health and people with little or none can't. Also more expensive medical conditions can happen to anyone, but for a lot of people this healthcare is unaffordable on their own.

Abortion is only a tiny part of what these health clinics offer. The Planned Parenthood organization, for instance, has only a miniscule fraction of their budget alloted to abortion services.

These are "women's health" clinics, first and foremost, which is why i have a hard time believing that Texas is doing anything but deliberately stomping further on women and the poor.

That is the way it has always been.  There are always people with money and people without money.  You cannot take care of everyone, nor can you ever legislate poor people into prosperity by legislating the working class into poverty.  The most humane (yet still imperfect) system is to have an economy where the most amount of people as possible can keep as much of their money as possible, and be allowed to be successful.  Then you have more prosperity, and thus more people with more money to give to those less fortunate.  Increasing taxes in order to pay for ever-increasing medical costs is simply going to bankrupt everyone, and instead of some people going without, we'll simply all be left with nothing.

You are not debating in good faith here. For one, you labor under the hilarious notion that the poor are not "the working class." The poor are *the* working class. Your so-called "working class" is the "leisure class," an unfortunate number of whom have no idea of what it is like to really live in the working class.

And state-run health systems have *lower* health costs than private systems, because the state (as the sole consumer of health care, who merely dispenses it to the people as-needed) can then operate as a consumer-monopoly and have economies of scale work vastly in its favor, similar to how a corporate pension fund will always work better than an individual 401k. We would save money and eliminate economic dead weight (dead weight being the for-profit health insurance industry which just exists to profit off of our crazy system and contributes nothing to actual health care) by socializing in this case.

Trickle-down economics has failed. The rich are richer than ever, but they sure as hell haven't made life better for the people who make their wealth possible.

So it is now accepted that the role of governent is to provide health care to it's citizens?  Since when?

And what happens when we run out of money and the government is forced to cut back on healthcare costs?  We are to be treated like cattle.  Rationing of care, loss of doctors (already happening due to prohibitive Medicare/ Medicaid bureaucracy and legal fees), and long wait times, lack of specialists, and ultimately the state gets to decide who lives or dies.

I don't think so.

Right, because the poor today don't live better than the poor ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years ago, when the rich were taxed as much as 70%. I just don't understand this argument in the U.S revolving around the poor and how much of a horrible life we live. My mother is poorer, as a single parent who worked a minimum wage waitress job her entire life and raised three children, she was able to afford more than my great-grandparents who had a relatively middle class income status and four children. There doesn't exist poverty in the United States today. The poor are still in the top 10% of the world economically. Furthermore, better standards of living are noticed by income level. The U.S is third on HDI. Tricke-down economics is the only explanation for the plethora of wealth found in the U.S and all other developed nations since industrialization. It might not always work as quckly as we want, but it does work. 

Such a response is wholly unfounded. You just assume that the system would not be properly funded, for one. Two, it is the role of the state to provide goods for which the free market is an inefficient provider, health care being a *huge* thing here. Third, different countries use different systems, and not all of them (indeed, not many of them) involve the government seizing direct control or totally monopolizing the system (just mostly monopolizing it. The United Kingdom still has a small private health system that the very rich can take advantage of). In many countries, it's simply a matter of the government distributing funds to a system that otherwise looks much like our own, just that the bill ultimately comes from the top. In Japan, everyone pays into national health insurance (including anyone on a visa more than 90 days), and they pay according to their income, and get deductibles set according to their income. The wealthy pay more into the system, and are on the hook for more when they get care, but everyone is guaranteed to get it, which is simply justice.