I guess you and I will have to disagree that working two jobs is an American Hero ideal. I think there is hard work and working to the bone with no chance of improvement. As someone who worked in the high end restaurant industry through college, chefs are underpaid, overworked and that is a shame. Being a chef should be a valued skill, but they're treated like crap. And that's just one example where the idea of work hard and you'll be rewarded is just false. But also, I value art and music and if we as a society only value work, we are saying most chefs, and artists, and musicians don't add societal value and don't deserve food, shelter, healthcare like the rest of us. There is no correlation between working harder and making more money or becoming more successful (with the 1% Anthony Bourdain exceptions).
My husband decided to become a doctor even though he double majored in music theory because he knew there was no future in music. And the sad part is I think he would've been maybe happier as a musician. Americans act like no one matters unless they work and that is a shame.
In regards to my cousin, I don't think she ever was taught about birth control. I actually doubt she knew it was an option for her first. And unfortunately, I don't think her second was a consensual decision. But I guess that's my point. The last statistic I read was 30% of women are abused by their spouses. And that's the women who self report. We need to have things in place to help women (or men) and children leave abusive situations. And the reason the government started taking over those responsibilities is because communities weren't doing that. I have more experience with churches telling women to stay and be silent, "try to behave" than gathering around a woman and helping her leave abusive situations. It would be great if communities helped, but they consistently fail to help. Until communities do help, I'd rather have the government help than the alternative, a woman staying with her abuser.
I will say about wages in California, part of the problem is wages were allowed to stagnate for so long. That even when California forces wages to jump by a couple dollars, of course it doesn't help, because it doesn't even begin to catch up with inflation over the last 30 years. In 1950, my grandpa made $75,000 in today's money, in a low cost of living area. My principal grandpa made $100,000 and both had pensions. I haven't seen California pay it's teachers $150,000 which is what would probably even out the high cost of living versus low cost of living plus pension my grandpas received. Corporations need to be forced to catch up their wages and should have salary caps so top tier employees cannot make so much more than the lowest employees. In 1965, CEO to worker ratio was 20 to 1, now it's 250+ to 1. Meaning CEOS have increased their salaries at a much faster rate. And you saying government shouldn't step in. Well who else is going to force their hands? I don't see any corporation paying low level employees more than they HAVE TO. Which means the government HAS TO make them increase wages. I think you like to take this optimistic view that people would step in to help others, but the reason we had to create minimum wage was so people weren't exploited because a lot of people were greedy and didn't want to help. CEOs aren't cutting their salaries in this Coronavirus, pandemic time. They're laying off employees at a staggering rate. People don't help as much as you think.
About healthcare, I'm sorry I will always disagree. I think it is literally a basic human right. I don't think anyone should have to declare bankruptcy if they get cancer. I don't think anyone should have to decide between buying $3,000 insulin and paying for gas to get to work. And any private insurance will try to nickel and dime a person. Because they are a business and their whole business is to save money and try to not pay. An insurance company doesn't care about your health. They don't care if you are having to decide between gas or insulin. They just care if they can pay less to the hospital. I also don't really buy that universal healthcare would cost you so much more. Right now my husband makes $50k. Our health insurance premium is $10k with a $10k deductible. No way our taxes would be raised $20k a year for universal healthcare, especially when we already have veterans healthcare benefits. Most estimates I've seen, it wouldn't cost much more to reallocate the money spent on veterans healthcare plus Medicare to create universal healthcare for all. There are also cost saving measures like people with universal healthcare are much more likely to receive basic care BEFORE it develops into a serious health complication. But people who have poor or no health insurance will wait until it's an absolute dire emergency, which typically costs taxpayers. Also I don't want to increase your taxes to pay for universal healthcare. I want the ultra wealthy to pay higher taxes and I want corporations to pay more taxes. I want Amazon to pay Billions of dollars in taxes. I want Jeff Bezos to pay a billion dollars in taxes. That one thing could pay a large portion of Medicare for All.
To me, at the end of the day, even if government is slow, even with all the problems. I would rather ensure everyone in the richest country in the world has food, water, shelter, and healthcare, even if it meant people were lazier. Rather than inadvertantly punishing deserving people to selfishly keep slightly more money. And I think the only way to ensure that is through the government because if history has shown me one thing, it's that is Americans don't decide to pay more than they are forced.