A Jew, a pastor and a Catholic are sitting at a restaurant... sounds like the beginning of a joke, right? Nope- it was our table at a Rotary lunch meeting with the St. Pancras Club. It seems that wherever Rotary is located, beyond just doing good, diversity converges and conversation flows freely. The three of us got into a really interesting conversation about charitable giving- obviously an interest of mine from my work with NGOs and my desire to work in the third sector in the future. The Pastor argued that one of the disadvantages of a welfare state, such as England, is that there is significantly less charitable giving. People are less likely to contribute to prevailing social ills because they believe that the state should and will take care of the issue. This conclusion is quite rational since people pay relatively high taxes and the state finances most basic needs. I thought about this as I walked home- Do Americans give more on average than other nations? Would this decrease if the US instituted national health care or nationalized other programs? What are other repercussions of such a policy shift that are currently not being discussed in the media?
Of course I had to check the facts for myself. Turns out the Pastor was right; According to Philanthropy UK, in 2006 Americans contributed £145 billion (or 2.2% of the GDP) to charities as compared to Brits giving £15 billion (or 1.1% of the GDP). So the previous question stands- what are the hidden consequences- good or bad- of nationalizing health care in the US? Readers (all two of you) feel free to post your thoughts in the comments space.
1 comment:
From a fund raiser's perspective this presents a paradox. However, at the end of the day, it is better for the state to provide the vital services, because that is where the most significant source of funds is and the entity that has the best chance at the most distributed impact to the greatest amount of people. The reduction in charitable giving is worth it.
Post a Comment