[notacoward]

> That home then passes on to their offspring

Homes can be destroyed. They can be seized. They can be turned into debt obligations. Now try that with a vaccine.

> People who don't have the safety a home offers are forced to plan for the moment and not for the future.

People who don't have X are forced to plan for the moment, for many values of X.

> My explicit argument is $75 billion for healthcare to the poor goes in exactly which pockets?

$75 billion for X often goes in the wrong pockets, for many values of X. Why are you so stuck on the idea of housing as the one thing that's uniquely beneficial and immune to the problems affecting other kinds of aid? People who have actually studied the issue, including those who wrote the OP, seem to have reached a very different conclusion. I'm inclined to believe people who show their work, more than those who engage in evidence-free special pleading.

[hl5]

Because housing has a long lasting effect on improved health. There are a number of studies that have drawn this conclusion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/how-hea...

[notacoward]

Whether housing has an effect is not the question. Whether it's the most effective kind of aid is, because that's the only way you could reject alternatives in its favor. Nice that you spent hours looking for something to confirm your existing belief, though. It's learning of a sort.