Everything costs something, and maybe I'm looking at things through US centric politics, but in my experience people who are ideologically opposed to social programs use costs as a way to cloak their ideology in technocratic language and cast themselves as "the sober adults in the room" rather than ideologues.

In truth we waste a stupendous amount of money and human potential by, for instance, introducing a system of unnecessary middle men (insurance companies) to the healthcare system rather than negotiating with pharmaceutical companies as a nation with a stupendous buying power.

Human potential, I'll note, is worthy in it's own right, but is also a very valuable through a strictly economic lens. People who meet their potential contribute immensely to the economy, people who aren't able to because their society never bothered to invest in them may contribute not not nearly as much as they could have. Eg, if no one had ever taken a chance on Nikola Tesla, he wouldn't have developed AC electricity.

> ideologically opposed to social programs

It's hard to judge someones true intent, but I don't know that I've ever met a person that opposes benevolent programs of any sort if they aren't associated with costs. So if people truly do oppose social programs based only on the cost (both direct and indirect) I do believe that's an ethically defensible position. It's hard for me to imagine a person who doesn't want programs that help people, though and only uses cost as a way to shroud their ill-intent. I hope you're wrong about these people existing.

You've never heard someone say something like, "handouts make people dependent on the government" or "the government shouldn't have a say in our healthcare" or "the government shouldn't decide whether my child learns about X"? Because I've heard each of these ideological arguments used against social programs.

I think the confusion here may be that you're seeing things through your own ideological lens (as we all do) and so you've classified these as "not truly benevolent?" (I don't mean that as a criticism, just a shot in the dark.)

I've heard people say all of these things, but I don't think that saying these things has any bearing on whether those people disagree with programs that help people.

> handouts make people dependent on the government

This is a judgement based on cost - you or I may disagree with the value of the cost, but it is a centralization cost which increases risk. Playing devils advocate, but if your livelihood becomes dependent on a government program and you also watch government programs risking collapse (such as US social security) then the risk becomes obvious that it exists (and each individual will decide for themselves how likely this risk is to manifest)

> the government shouldn't have a say in our healthcare

I think this statement doesn't really fall into the category of things we're talking about. There's nothing about governments involvement in healthcare that means the program is better or worse or more/less benevolent. It would depend on the government and their involvement.

> the government shouldn't decide whether my child learns about X

I would a similar argument as the previous for this.

> I've heard people say all of these things, but I don't think that saying these things has any bearing on whether those people disagree with programs that help people.

This is what I meant about "not truly benevolent," it certainly is the case that these are arguments that the social programs don't help people. All well and good, but my claim was that they were ideologically opposed to social programs, not anything about whether they were opposed to people being helped or something. I never said that at all.

> This is a judgement based on cost

But it isn't. It's a view about outcome, not cost. If we reduced the cost to zero somehow (obviously impossible but bare with me), their objection wouldn't disappear because it hadn't been addressed.

> I think this statement doesn't really fall into the category of things we're talking about. There's nothing about governments involvement in healthcare that means the program is better or worse or more/less benevolent. It would depend on the government and their involvement.

I'm not making a statement about being more out less benevolent, I'm saying this is an ideological statement, which it transparently is. "The government shouldn't have a say in healthcare/education" isn't any kind of factual claim. It's a claim about how the world ought to work.