I'd say it boils down to American exceptionalism. Same thing whenever someone suggests something that works fin in other countries.

Actually I think some of the states already started considering other types of system (like single payer). I'm not too sure how that will work out but it does make some intuitive sense for me that these kind of reforms happen at state level. However I do not know if there is any kind of impediment or limitation at national level.

Looking at the question and the current answers, I have the feeling that this topic is primarily opinion-based. As far as I know, there are no reliable studies on this, so it boils down to political opinion.

I don't understand the "homogenous" argument. The US is pretty ordinary when it comes to cultural and linguistic diversity.

@isanae Do you really think that the concerns of an inner-city Detroit auto worker and a Colorado rancher are the same? The issue is not linguistic diversity, nor even particularly cultural diversity. The problem the US has is that different states (or even different areas in the same state) have very different welfare needs. So there isn't necessarily the same "all in this together" attitude where Americans appreciate each other as equals. This is exemplified by American "pork barrel politics".

@Graham "..different states (or even different areas in the same state) have very different welfare needs.." Maybe, but where would be the problem? Couldn't one just adapt the high-taxes, high-welfare system locally to the needs of each region? What I mean is that the assumption that the high-welfare system would need to be the exact same shape for everyone is maybe overly restrictive.

@Graham I would think that "different areas have different needs" is a problem faced by most countries, many which have welfare. I don't understand how the US is different in that regard.

If my answer contributed towards making this primarily opinion-based I will apologize. I'm not really familiar with what is expected at Politics.SE. Because I have actually lived on both sides of the Atlantic I wanted to share my observations.

Blaszard, I do apologize for not saying anything about Japan or Australia. I just don't know how they do it at all, and I speculated enough as it is. I think high-tax welfare would work well in Japan (may be they have implemented it!), but that would be pure speculation based on me entertaining a stereotypical impression of Japanese people being homogeneous (for the purposes of their welfare needs). I do think that a typical US state could implement a high(er)-tax welfare system. They could even learn a few things from us Scandinavians, but need to keep their own local constraints in mind.

@Graham Do you really think that the concerns of an inner-city Torslanda auto worker and a Skåne farmer are the same?

@el.pescado I think they'll have different day-to-day concerns, sure. But they'll have access to similar quality housing, similar access to running water and electricity, and so on. They'll even have similar weather conditions, within a few degrees of each other. :) And fairly importantly, their children are likely to receive a similar standard of education.

@Graham: It's not just a matter of welfare "needs", it's a matter of different cultural & personal values and perspectives. Your "Colorado rancher" (or many similar people) sees his hard work as being taxed mostly to support people who - from his perspective - are at best too lazy to support themselves, and who live by cultural values that are alien and often repugnant to him.

This question appears to be asking more about what argument particular people are using. I don't think there's a universal agreement on what you are supposing.

@jamesqf Europe has a lot of racism too, so not sure that, alone, is the reason.

@blip: Where does racism enter into what I've said? Unless of course you're being racist by assuming that the Colorado rancher is white, the urbanites are black, and that's the main reason for their differences. Which isn't necessarily, or even often, the case, despite relentless brainwashing by political groups who want to make everything about race. A black Colorado rancher (or Silicon Valley techie, or whatever) might well have cultural values much nearer to those of their white neigbors than to inner-city dwellers of whatever race.

@jamesqf context matters in in modern politics and the "western rancher" who hates "welfare recipients in Detroit" implies certain things (intentionally or otherwise).

@blip: But the Colorado rancher wasn't my example. You could replace the Detroit auto workers with e.g. latte-drinking Seattle techies, Las Vegas casino workers, or whatever, and have a similar contrast in cultures.

@jamesqf yes, I agree. It just so happened that the examples that ended up being used were rather specific and carried baggage on a level much more than a lot of the other examples. The conversation got derailed. It happens.

@isanae In some circles, that would be code for “Sweden is white“, further implying that there is something wrong with African-American for which the broader US society is not responsible.

@jamesqf That's why I didn't say individuals needed welfare, I said states, and I was careful with my examples. Famously, Colorado would dry up and blow away without large central-government funding of water projects. But as you say, the Colorado rancher may happily enjoy all that state aid for his own industry, but then question why Detroit expects state aid and can't stand on its own two feet. Like I said, each state has its own problems, but they see central government as a zero-sum cow to be milked as much for themselves as they can, not as a mutual- support structure.

"This is especially common among leftists, mostly Hillary Clinton supporters." I almost fell out of my chair, reading that, since that was the Republican mantra back in the 1980s.

Of course there are also the quite generous German and French welfare states - the first and second largest states in the EU.

@Graham: You don't seem to know much about the climate of Colorado. It's possible that Denver and a few other over-populated cities wouldn't be supportable without federal water projects, but that says nothing about the rest of the state, which would IMHO do even better without water being drained off to support urban areas.