https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html — Good Article that describes controls and differences. It seems overall the jury is still kinda out, but leans a bit more towards conservatives. Also, churches often give 10–25% of the tithes to charity work of some sort though this could be lower if this includes donating to missionaries and missions trips (though some of these go to install wells or to do other community work in various countries so ?)
I’d be interested to see if those numbers include programs such as SNAP or TANF because some assistance is income driven and some is time driven which could affect numbers greatly. As well, recently state legislators have put drug testing and other restrictions on state welfare so this may skew numbers as well since some states shed 1000’s of welfare recipients when they added requirements. I also think the time calculation excludes tax benefits, school food programs, etc.
Lumping the various homeless groups together is disingenuous because vets should be 100% cared for (likely more VA failings). Those with mental issues should be committed and taken care of by family, however, voluntary commitment laws make that extremely difficult so some of them languish outside the system and their families struggle to find them. The rest aren’t taking advantage of charities and government programs that already exist to get them ready for a different job than they previously had (if they did) and taking away cell phones is a silly excuse since a prepaid phone is cheap and easily accessible as well as free public computers if they can’t afford one.
I’m also not sure about your VA statement as there have been cuts by both parties (House republicans voted to cut vets pensions by 1% below inflation, and senate dems approved, but that amendment was repealed by dems a year later though none of that has anything to do with the VA) Currently, Republicans appear to be pushing to add money to the VA, but for a Veterans Choice program (not getting care directly from VA) whereas democrats are opposing it. I think in the end, this is mostly a wash and is hard to back up either way.
With Charlie, if he has gotten the experimental treatment months ago (his parents raised the money way back in January!!!) he would have either been at peace already or living. Either way, would have served the greater humanity because both cases would have provided invaluable data to researchers (his was a super rare special case that) that could save many children’s lives. Also, your claim about not caring is absolute BS because families help each other even without health insurance and crowdfunding is a thing. Like, seriously, so many humans are willing to help others with their dollars so your straw-man is pretty much just another ad hominem. It’s also not a desperate attempt at all because it proves how much Big Brother will control when it has the power. There are also three things with healthcare you can get: access, quality, or cost and universal care controls access and cost, but quality suffers as a result (medicare and medicaid outcomes vs general insured outcomes).
Good rebuttal of that topic in this article. Also, your source pretty much say: yeah, the US is better in all but lung cancer (could be because Lung Cancer involves personal responsibility and we’re bigger on that). Study below also mentions that even though more Europeans smoke per capita, they smoke less packs per day — http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/03/20/mortality-versus-survival-in-international-comparisons-of-cancer-care/
Well, if the government took less of our money, this likely wouldn’t be the case as people would be able to put that money into the economy, which would lead to more jobs to hire the people who are out of work, or into charity where the less fortunate would benefit. Essentially, we complain about how much charities spend on administrative costs, but we don’t apply this to government. My guess is that out of every dollar collected by the government for a specific program, less that 5% actually goes towards that program. The rest goes to: government bureaucracy, regulators, IRS, government entities, etc. whereas even those like United Way give at least 10% to their charity work. There are also better managed charities that give way more!
This is because Republicans believe in free-market/local solutions (seriously, these programs could be way better handled by states or even better by local governments) whereas Democrats believe that the federal government should take care of it when this doesn’t make sense since the reason that someone’s poor in say California (besides insanely high cost of living) are way different than why someone is poor in Kentucky.