There's no way to enforce a “care for your own family members” value, even in the leftist illuminati force-certain-generous-behavior world, but it would be a better country if individualism was left by the wayside.

1) Community: Social Insurance leads to a “We are all in this together”, i.e. considering a plan for US rather than for THEM. A Welfare plan, on the other hand, divides the community into the Richer, and the Poorer, e.g. The Givers and the Takers, thus leading to more polarization of the society.

2) Empathy: Social Insurance leads to “empathy” relative to the plan. If it applies to all, then all will “feel” how it effects them and thus plan it to work right for them. On the other hand if it only applies to some, then the “richers” can only guess how it would apply to the “poorer” and thus even if the “richer” wanted to design a good plan, since it does not apply to them, they are designing it for others intellectually rather than considering how it would apply to them.

3) Simplicity: a universal plan, perhaps with some augmentation for the richer to add on, probably is easier, e.g. less expensive to manage, where as a welfare plan requires continuing monitoring as to how is eligible and who is not. For example, with Medicare, one walks into the Doctor, and there is only one system, where as with individual systems each time one needs treatment the Doctor must check with a different system, see if I am NOW covered, etc.

As a fellow incrementalist, however, none of this is to say we can't do better than we do today with respect to bestowing benefits on fewer of the non-needy.