What good is healthcare if you have no home and no stability? The problem with reducing poverty is the people trying to reduce it have never been in poverty so all they are doing is guessing, or worse, exploiting.
My explicit argument is $75 billion for healthcare to the poor goes in exactly which pockets? That's always been the scam: Help the poor pay your friend.
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.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/how-hea...
It is the old teach man to fish vs give him a fish thing, but with a twist. Someone who is physically unable to fish (ie disabled) will not eat for a lifetime no matter how much effort you put into teaching.
Your point about stability is important, but it not a major factor for large numbers of poor people. (don't get me wrong, for others it is the large factor)
We like to use empirical research studying many people in poverty, which strikes me as being better than a personal anecdote. Less salient, but also less skewed to my one life story.