>Because if something has even the hint of socialism, the discussion is considered over. It's why the U. S. doesn't have universal health care.
It is a complex issue and the socialism-word boogeyman isn't all there is to it--there is more than just the vocab.
From my anecdotal experience, I can say it isn't so much the socialism that tends to bother people, but the part where socialism is given to what are considered undeserving people. Those people might be immigrants that are perceived (incorrectly or correctly) of getting an unfair share of schooling and medical services. Those people might play off the older concept of the Welfare Queen. It varies from person to person that I speak to, but very few (zero?) people have told me they're against things like health care for all without also bringing up those parts as a con to why it either can't work, or shouldn't be implemented.
(then after all that, you still have regular politics to hurdle)
This is my observation as well. I recently read a FB discussion where an American friend was generally in favour of Obamacare.
The people who disagreed did so not because they necessarily disagree with universal health care, but because they thought it was unfair that they had to spend their hard earned money to subsidise people who they view as freeloaders.
This is pretty on the nose. It has a lot to do with the diversity of America and the fact that they see most other Americans as "the other", or an out group, and don't want to support them.
I don't have the details on hand, but Robert Putnam (Political science, Harvard) did a study about Americas breakdown in civil engagement that speaks to this point quite a bit.
Most of you state applies, but what I was specifically referring to goes back to the Truman days, and the history I read specifically called a reaction to socialist policies.
I really don't mean to be rude, but wow did you miss the point I was trying to make. I was making no comparisons, other than when a Canadian hears the word "socialism" they don't go into a mouthing-foaming knee-jerk fit.
I didn't miss it at all, your point doesn't hold water, lots of companies provide great health insurance to their employees so the "socialism" thing doesn't really explain anything about them not providing other benefits.
The biggest is that asking a company to provide parental leave means asking a company to pay somebody that they hired to do a job to not be there.
That means either, your value is low enough that you can be gone for that long without your company missing you OR that they have to pay somebody else to fill in for you with the knowledge that they'll be let go once you get back. Depending on what kind of work you do, this is no small task.
The types of companies who can afford to do this type of thing essentially boil down to subscription style, giant companies where the absence of any employee won't really effect anything from a business or customer standpoint...who also happen to be rolling in money.
If they're willing and able to provide that benefit...GREAT!
But different businesses provide significantly different cash flow models. Different businesses can't have their valuable employees AWOL for 52 weeks while paying them and somebody else to fill in for them at a higher rate.
You have to be in a money printing market position to even think about something like that.
The difference is that many Americans believe (I do not) that socialism benefits only lazy people who haven't worked hard. That is why they don't see a company providing benefits as socialism, because they think those people deserve it.
Their point does hold water, given that as soon as you decide not to work for the company, you're SOL. "Universal" would imply that I get it regardless of what company I work for.
I think it is sort of relevant because it reveals a certain amount of contradictory thought. Employer provided healthcare is often provided without any consideration of the actuarial cost of providing it. A group decides that everybody in the group should have coverage and shares the cost. But doing that for a bigger group, oh hell no.
I don't understand your point. We agree that American Express should not provide insurance to people that aren't working there. I bet we don't agree that the government should provide single payer insurance to all citizens so companies do not have to do it. Unfortunately, my opinion doesn't matter in the country because the elected officials right now do not feel the citizens deserve insurance.
Well, you'd be wrong. A business has earned revenues that its owners can spend or use for benefits however they please. A business can't force people to pay for their services. A government can.
If you look at existing employment relationships, it also depends a great deal on how much leverage the employees have, not just on what pleases owners.
Because if something has even the hint of socialism, the discussion is considered over. It's why the U. S. doesn't have universal health care.