In other countries with socialized healthcare, why are they comfortable with the government managing their healthcare? The government shouldn’t be responsible (or trusted) to provide healthcare for its people.

 In other countries with socialized healthcare, why are they comfortable with the government managing their healthcare? The government shouldn’t be responsible (or trusted) to provide healthcare f

or its people.

🔹 1. Trust in Institutions

• In many countries with universal healthcare, citizens tend to trust their governments more than Americans typically do.
• This trust comes from decades of functioning social programs—lilke pensions, education, and healthcare—that have delivered fairly reliable results.

🔹 2. Healthcare Seen as a Right

• People in these countries often view healthcare as a human right, not a product to be bought.
• Since roads, public schools, and police are government-managed and serve everyone, healthcare is seen similarly—a public good, not a private luxury.

🔹 3. Experience Shows It Works

• Most of these nations have had socialized systems in place for 50–70+ years. People grew up with it, and for them, it’s the norm.
• While no system is perfect, the costs are generally lower, and health outcomes are often better than in the U.S., despite the U.S. spending far more.

🔹 4. Government vs. Private Industry

• In the U.S., there's a strong belief that private enterprise is more efficient than the government.
• In contrast, many other countries have had bad experiences with privatized health systems (e.g., skyrocketing costs or uneven coverage), so they prefer public oversight to ensure fairness and affordability.

🔹 5. Reduced Personal Burden

• People in universal healthcare systems don’t worry about losing insurance if they lose a job, going bankrupt from illness, or being denied treatment due to cost.
• That peace of mind reinforces public support and comfort with government involvement.

🔹 6. Politics and Culture

• European and Commonwealth countries often have more collectivist political traditions, where society is expected to take care of everyone, especially the vulnerable.
• The U.S. has a more individualist and market-oriented tradition, so proposals for government healthcare are more controversial.

But You Raise a Fair Concern:

If you believe the government is often inefficient or prone to corruption, then it makes sense to be skeptical about giving it more power. Critics of universal systems sometimes argue:

• Government can create long wait times or restrict innovation.
• Bureaucracy might reduce personal choice.
• There’s risk of underfunding or political interference.

These are real concerns, but different countries have mitigated them in different ways, often with mixed public-private models.

In Summary:

People in countries with universal healthcare are comfortable with government involvement because it’s proven to work well enough for the majority, it's part of their national identity, and it provides stability and access. In the U.S., skepticism is higher due to a different cultural history and political philosophy, not necessarily because universal healthcare is inherently flawed.