under socialism behavior which is praised is not rewarded and behavior that is condemned is rewarded. The cases provided support this thesis, and I think it's completely fair to debate whether they are representative or cherry-picked, or whether they represent unwanted side effects of policies that are overall a net positive.

Desire to improve one's life is natural, regardless of system. The issue are limited resources (potentially) not allowing for everyone to achieve the plateau where most people are content. What differs are the means of aiding less fortunate people. What doesn't is that there will always be a subset that abuses whatever system they're under.

A medical condition requiring surgery is not a behavior (if it wasn't something like a liver transplant for alcoholism), so it seems like a peripheral example.

No, but delineation here is moot: both are required for continued survival regardless of behavior. The burden on one's life afterwards, however, shouldn't be predicated on accidents -- of birth or otherwise.

The insurance from his job paid $28,920, leaving a debt of $10,092.

To my knowledge, not everyone in the US gets health insurance at work. And $7400 per year is no small expense, regardless if it comes from tax to the state or private provider. I'll look more into this, but I do distinctly remember all US postdoc applications I've seen emphasizing you're gonna buy your own.

Perhaps when the state does more of the humanity and empathy work, people feel less obligated to contribute.

This is a much, much broader topic, though I'd like to apologize if you thought I implied Americans are less humane or empathetic. For what it's worth, people contribute to WOŚP and our tax application includes an opt-in way to donate 1% of your returns directly to a cause or foundation. Many do so. Some will never. Most think it's enough, and prefer to give it to a reputable foundation instead of some by-cause. Many give money )often not insignificant money) to church, and that's another can of worms, but the distribution of this charity differs by parish. Not all are equal, so you'll see ones with shelters, soup kitchens, care and active programmes to help people get on their feet... and places sporting some bitchn' marble statues.

As for helping people on the street, there was some study where they put a kid without shoes or coat outside in different countries and looked how long it took for someone to lend aid. Poland was also on some ludicrously low in that rank, but that's because I can guarantee you that most folks believed it's a setup for pickpockets or, what article argues, people believing that person probably already abuses social aid, doesn't contribute etc etc etc. Because that's the anti-social aid propaganda here, and has been so for years. We also have a 500+ program, where (skimming the details) you get extra 500 PLN per child per month and some extra perks/aides regarding school and daycare, and if the father can't pay alimony, the state covers the difference or pays some it's-complicated sum. There's been a huge stink over some couples abusing it that completely ignored tens of thousands legitimate cases, too.

I prefer to help on the off-chance the person is in genuine need. I remember buying some extra food, giving them to a homeless man, and he just tossed them away after making sure there's no booze. So instead of writing a think-piece about perils of charity perpetuating abuse and laziness, I took it out of thrash and gave it to someone who used it. I wish to be able to offer some book that'd serve as a good introduction to Polish condition that's simultaneously in English and not utter garbage though.