There are lots of things you have access to by having a great deal of wealth that are simply unavailable in even a reduced form to the average person.
Are we really down to "lobbying power" and "spaceflight"? That seems like a weak argument against capitalism.
For all of these practical reasons, I would imagine that many homeless people would probably forgo all but the most essential medical care, which they would receive at an ER. They're probably going to be waiting hours to see someone at the ER and when they do it will be an overworked resident. The president in 1960 would be able to see any doctor he wanted at the time of his choice.
Also, a lot of homeless people probably wouldn't be homeless in the first place if they were able to access mental health care.
In many states in the US, Medicaid or other insurance is not available to the homeless or indigent, not unless you have a disability diagnosis from the doctor you can't pay to see, and can get the necessary help to have that diagnosis recognized legally by the government. Otherwise cursory, rushed visits to the free clinic and ER are all that's available.
Hospitals may be as minimally need-blind as required by law (if that, its not like the homeless can sue), but they only offer just that. The number of options and quality of medical treatment is vastly greater for those who can pay than for those who can't.
Let's say that the homeless person develops a form of cancer that was incurable in 1960 but can now be treated with a very low rate of recurrence with chemotherapy. Your point, I assume, is that because this new treatment exists, this homeless person will receive better healthcare than anyone in 1960. But that presupposes that this homeless person has access to that treatment, which means that they need reliable transportation to a medical office on a regular basis for an extended period of time, they need someone to take care of them when they're really sick, they need some ability to get their medication and to take it regularly.
The treatment that a homeless person gets when they actually have a heart attack may be better since they would presumably have access to a defibrillator in an ER.
Disregard the homeless for a second. The life expectancy for white Americans without high-school educations has dropped since 1990. -5 years for women, and -3 for men. The life expectancy for white women without high school educations in 2008 was the same as all women in 1960.
Uninsured ER treatment is great when you want to get your gangrened limbs amputated. Not so much when you want insulin to control your diabetes. But yes, I'm sure that a homeless gunshot victim taken to a trauma center today is given better treatment then Reagan in 1981.
[1] http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/8/1803 [2] http://prospect.org/article/whats-killing-poor-white-women
But that was not the main thrust of my comment, which talked mainly about "injustices" caused by unchecked inheritance. If you want an example of the benefits allocated to wealthy, here is one - opportunities. I believe billionaire kids have a lot more opportunities in life compared to middle class kids, let alone poor ones.
Edit: tptacek, since I cannot reply to you, I will reply here - one example of what poor people won't have access to "tomorrow" compared to rich people : ability to be rich. And I already explained the advantages of being rich over being poor are already (food/health/shelter/education/...). And yes, your questions certainly helped clarify my thoughts, so thanks :)
Second, in this new argument, you refer to "opportunity". Opportunity for what? Wealth? If capitalism is generating competition which in turn generates innovation which in turn drives down prices which in turn raises everyone's quality of life, how much does the opportunity for wealth matter? What is the thing rich people have "today" that poor people won't eventually have comparable access to "tomorrow" as a side effect of capitalism? I'm sure there's something; what is it?
Incidentally: I sound like I'm an advocate for wealth inequality, but I'm not, nor am I a concern troll. I believe the argument were having here is positive, not normative; we don't even agree on the facts. We should get the "is" down before the "ought".
By what measure? Throughout most of the US public schools are funded through local taxes. The poorer the district, the less resources are available to educate children, which means understaffing, buildings which are falling apart, lack of classroom materials.
And is your comparison on funding per student meant to be against upper class families, who most likely send their children to pricey private schools? I just don't see how your statement is justified.
It's because the engine of all wealth in capitalism is investment. Currency gets less valuable over time. Like sharks, concentrators of wealth need to keep moving. One of the most effective ways to do that is to invest in enterprise, which is competitive, and thus generates innovation.
And in the end, the role of innovation should be to help people and equality, safety net and the like have great value for many. On the whole it's hard to argue social Democratic countries offer a worst deal for people than capitalism.