You think giving birth is free? There are usually 3 or 4 professionals present, along with a bed for the day, instruments to measure various things, drugs for (pre) and post delivery, etc... it's far from being like a regular doctor visit.
This is a straw man argument. Nobody is suggesting public healthcare is without cost. Civilised societies provide services like policing, fire and rescue, criminal legal defence, and education, because these are deemed rights. The United States is an outlier in not regarding healthcare a right to be supplied as a public service.
One argument doesn't mention the subtext of socialized medicine, and the other doesn't mention the subtext of insurance.
Of course it's not free. It's about who takes care of the costs. You should not see a bill from the hospital as your health care provider should fully take care of this.
Story time: When I was a little kid, I stumbled with a glass jar in my hand, fell into the shards and cut my right hand open. Half a centimeter more and I'd have lost three fingers of my right hand completly. Tendons and nerves were cut and the fingers were immobilized immediately.
Never did anyone worry about what it might cost to fix this. Not my family, not the hospital, possibly not even the health care insurance provider.
Instead I was taken to the best hospital for this kind of damage and several high trained professionals operated for 8 hours to fix it. After my hospital time I got movement therapy to get my hand fully working again.
This is a real indicator for a developed, first-world state: Whatever happens to you, professionals will take of you and you won't have to worry whether your family will go bankrupt because you stumbled as a kid or not. Because the society as a whole has build a net that will catch you when things like this happen.
Why?
Who builds the net?
So, obviously since 1884 the society has build this net with their monthly dues. Currently it's around 15% of your loan.
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_der_Sozialversicher...
Sure, someone has to pay for it, but why not all together?
Because kids are a private luxury only rich people should be able to afford? Sounds kiiinda fascist to me.
When did "fascism" became a tag for "things I don't like" again ?
edit: I can't reply to your reply but you should research more on fascism, it goes way beyond "bad people are bad", most of these regimen were actually pro healthcare/welfare. I'd be glad not to make it meta but every single controversial article turns into that kind of lame "oh that's fascist!" thing when it almost never is related to fascism.
Also, could we please not make this meta?
If anything fascist states want their citizens to get more children, not fewer. More children means more workers, more soldiers, more future mothers for yet even more children, all to propel the State (with a capital 'S') to greater heights.