>But it seems US citizens want to live like that. Why?
Well first, not all US citizens do.
Primarily this seems to stem from a free-market, conservative viewpoint. Central to this viewpoint is the thesis that not only is labor just, but the sociological outcome of labor is also, always, just (unless the government interferes). In other words, those who can afford healthcare have earned the right to it, those who can't were simply to lazy or ignorant to work hard enough to afford it.
Also, there can be a deep aversion to the government (any government) interfering with a person's property and income, where any program which requires people to give for the "greater good" is seen as not only theft, but an existential attack on the fundamental ideals of American individualism and personal liberty. The argument here is that governments are by definition corrupt, fascist and incompetent, and only a free market with as little regulation as possible could handle something like "healthcare" efficiently and fairly.
Therefore, advocates for limited government will see social programs as interference by an increasingly "big government" regime which has no right to force a moral imperative on people or relieve them of their property, and conservatives and free-market believers will feel that social programs undermine the moral principles of capitalism while insidiously creating a dependent class of lazy left-wing radical neo-immigrants.
Also, it's probably worth mentioning that not many Americans appreciate that there is a difference between liberalism, socialism and communism, and nor would they care.
Well first, not all US citizens do.
Primarily this seems to stem from a free-market, conservative viewpoint. Central to this viewpoint is the thesis that not only is labor just, but the sociological outcome of labor is also, always, just (unless the government interferes). In other words, those who can afford healthcare have earned the right to it, those who can't were simply to lazy or ignorant to work hard enough to afford it.
Also, there can be a deep aversion to the government (any government) interfering with a person's property and income, where any program which requires people to give for the "greater good" is seen as not only theft, but an existential attack on the fundamental ideals of American individualism and personal liberty. The argument here is that governments are by definition corrupt, fascist and incompetent, and only a free market with as little regulation as possible could handle something like "healthcare" efficiently and fairly.
Therefore, advocates for limited government will see social programs as interference by an increasingly "big government" regime which has no right to force a moral imperative on people or relieve them of their property, and conservatives and free-market believers will feel that social programs undermine the moral principles of capitalism while insidiously creating a dependent class of lazy left-wing radical neo-immigrants.
Also, it's probably worth mentioning that not many Americans appreciate that there is a difference between liberalism, socialism and communism, and nor would they care.