[jwr]

I am from Europe and I can confirm that nobody would even consider the "costs involved". It's just not something you think about.

I am puzzled by why the richest nation in the world prefers to spend 3.1 billions of dollars on arming Israel, or spend $700 billion military budget (even though its territory isn't being threatened in any way), rather than provide universal healtcare and education to its citizens, who live in fear of becoming sick.

I mean, I can understand why if you own a military supplier company, you'd rather have it that way. But I don't get why voters do not want universal healthcare.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

It's a cultural thing. Americans, by and large, hate other Americans. The idea that someone else is getting something "they didn't earn" induces rage in the American brain. This is why you see people willing to spend $10 to avoid accidentally giving $1 to a welfare recipient who "doesn't deserve it" in their eyes.

[raincom]

Was this attitude common even before the civil rights act of 1964, despite the confederation?

[mnm1]

Last poll I checked, universal healthcare is supported by over 70% of Americans. We want it. We don't have a democracy to get it. It's that simple. A country where the person who gets the most votes doesn't win is not a democracy. And that's just the start of why it's not.

[sixplusone]

> even though its territory isn't being threatened in any way

It isn't threatened because of its powerful military; also why Europeans can spend all that money on healthcare instead of defense: a benevolent democracy to provide safety. Not to mention it stokes the richest economy and innovation.

[close04]

Nothing is for free so benevolence is out of the question.

Payment comes in many forms. When a dictator on the other side of the world needs a "democracy" shot, or a country needs some additional sanctions for national security, the fact that European countries offer support makes the difference between greed/aggression and a "righteousness".

[sixplusone]

A surgeon gets paid to cure my illness ... therefore he can't be kind or have good will toward me? How about a non-volunteer firefighter risking his life?

[close04]

Benevolence is performing kind, charitable acts, from a desire to do good. It implies that you do not ask or expect payment in return. And it would intrinsically apply to people, not countries. A fireman might help you regardless of being paid or anything other than the desire to do good. But international diplomacy and politics leave no room for benevolence.

You're saying all the US leadership chain (the people with the authority so decide strategy) agreed to spend billions extra just as a charitable act for another continent. The only way I can take the best interpretation of this is to assume you're joking.

[sixplusone]

Benevolence does not imply anything about payment, but the interest in another's well-being.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Benevolence.htm...

[jwr]

> It isn't threatened because of its powerful military

Seriously? You'd expect an invasion from Canada, or Mexico?

I am not against a powerful military, but it seems the US has gone way beyond that and mostly projects its force around the world, with poor results to show for everyone including the US.

[jdsully]

You’ll find the US already spends comparably per capita. They just get much less for the money.