I ran across this in the July 10th, 2008 issue of the Liberator. The sources are a Giving USA report and other related media coverage. I however was unable to find the report on their website.

According to Giving USA’s latest report:

• 2007’s record $306.4 billion in charitable giving is a rise of about 1 percent from the previous year, adjusted for inflation.
• Individuals accounted for the largest share by far. Indeed, most charitable giving — $229 billion or about 75 percent total – comes from individuals.
• About two-thirds of households with incomes under $100,000 give to charity.
• Half of individual giving went to religious groups. Religious congregations received one-third of the $306.4 billion, an increase of 2 percent from last year and a record dollar amount.
  
• As economic woes have increased worldwide, Americans are responding by redirecting some of their giving. Donations to international aid, environmental and human-services groups rose the most in 2007.
• Donations to international charities showed the single largest gain — a rise of about 13 percent.
• On average Americans gives 2.3 percent of their disposable income to charitable causes.
• Americans rank first in the world in giving as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), at 1.7 percent, followed by Great Britain (.73 percent). (These are 2006 figures.)

And this is after being taxed 50+ percent by federal, state and local governments. People ask how possibly could a free society take care of those in need… this is how. Just like it is now and was in the past. Real charity.

Defining Success Down, Massachusetts Style

Health Affairs has just published a new study of the Massachusetts health care plan by Urban Institute scholar Sharon Long. Media coverage has generally been positive, hailing the Massachusetts experiment as a success. But a closer look leads to a far less sanguine conclusion. Among other things, the study shows that:

• Slightly less than half of Massachusetts’ uninsured population actually complied with the mandate. True, the number of people without health insurance was reduced from 13% of the state’s population to 7%, but when the bill was passed, advocates promised that “all Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance.” Perhaps it depends on your definition of “all.”
• Most of those who are signing up are low-income individuals, whose coverage is fully or partially subsidized, proving once again that if you give something away for free people will take it. It certainly appears that it is the expensive and generous Massachusetts subsidies (up to 300% of the poverty level), not the unprecedented individual mandate that is responsible for much of the increased coverage.
• Adverse selection remains a big problem, with the young and healthy failing to comply with the mandate. The state refused to change its community rating laws which drive up the cost of insurance for young, healthy individuals. Not surprisingly, they don’t find this a good deal.
• The program is far exceeding its projected costs, with at least a 33% budget overrun in its first year.
• The program has increased demand for health care services without increasing the supply of providers. As a result, patients are having trouble finding providers and waiting lists (Canada here we come) are beginning to develop.

If this is success, I would hate to see failure.

I agree. I wonder if Romney would be bragging about this if he was still in the lime light?