Would adoption reform be possible without. . .?

access to high-quality: --medical care (including dental, vision and mental health) --daycare --education at little or no cost? Are we, people who want to keep natural families together, obligated to be voting for universal health care and systems of care that include housing and food for those who need it? I am not arguing that all relinquishment happens because of lack of money (my children's did not), but I do know that much of it does. In fact I would argue that several cases where children are taken by the state would come down to economics. Is adoption reform possible right now as we do not have government systems that can truly provide for families who need help? Is it a "choice" to relinquish when poverty is the possible result of keeping your child? My intent is not to stir up anger or animosity, but rather to examine more fully the recent question about what adoption reform meant to everyone. I started thinking about some of these larger concerns. I'm just wondering what we would really need to have a system that would allow true choices for those who want to parent their children but are prevented becuase of financial concerns.
--------------------
Personally I am all for a universal health care system. There are too many people like me that are uninsured and cannot seek adequate medical care because of that. Yesterday I was in a car accident and was unable to seek treatment for a sprained foot because I lack health insurance and would not be able to pay the high doctor's bills. I think that lowering the costs of medical care and making daycare and education more easily available to everyone would help get rid of a lot of the reasons kids are relinquished. Not only that it would give those who are trying to coerce women into relinquishment fewer reasons to do so with. I think that everyone can benefit from a universal health care system
Source