Thanks for the info.  All I'm saying is that your personal experience may not be representative of every poor person, and shouldn't be used as a basis to make blanket statements

Never heard before that such opinions exist tbh, but if one thing I found scary in being poor in the US is the sheer amount of 'poor people', i.e. whoever receive support in one form or another, amount of people without any kind of savings or retirement plan, overblown social sector in general not supported by the real earnings, pensions 'invested' in god knows where akin to IRC 401k plan etc. The situation exists in other places to various degrees of similarity, I know it's gonna blow and that's scary.

So your family made ends meet while getting around ( $600+$200+$100+Working a first job+Working a second job at times/a month ) really says a lot doesn't it. In other countries being poor would mean getting less than half what your family used to get.

PS: I always wondered do pensions and student stipends exist is America?

According to statistics (Feedign America) there are 15.3 million people under 18 who do not get enough food. Just because you're not dyiing does not mean that you're getting enough. Also, if you have a low income, how are you not going to live in a low income area? Also, getting a decent enough job isn't so easy for everyone, many people struggle to find good employment. Also, my uncle had to get a job because his brothers would steal everything from his parents (they were addicted to drugs, which is much more common for people in low income houses and areas).

Certainly, I understand that.  But these resources and benefits that I described are available to every poor person, whether they live in Philadelphia or the rural areas of PA. While I didn't describe the differences among states, I did mention that Pennsylvania is pretty average in that regard. 

I think there should be more emphasis on the socio- portion of low socio-economic status, as economically the poor have many opportunites and saftey nets. The problem seems to be primarily cultural, and that is the cause for the difference between inner-city poor persons and suburban/small town poor persons. The culture of inner-cities is what leads to these results. If anything, i think the inner-city persons get more resources. In Pittsburgh, where I live currently, people who make poor financial decisions get an aid who will teach them about a variety of finance topics. Charter schools and school choice is an actual thing. There are more job opportunites. So on and so on. I am sure Philadelphia has similar programs. 

My point of this thread though, is as far as benefits go I can't see how the U.S is supposedly lagging behind other countries in terms of safety nets for the "poor." A poor person in the U.S doesn't have to pay for health-care, food, and a sizeable portion of housing, just like poor persons in other first-world countries. One can argue that the middle class gets fewer benefits, but certainly not the poor. 

You specifically used the word "starving." Also not having enough of the right nutrients has much more to do with the diets of Americans than with the lack of the ability to buy food. I am sure there are many middle-class people who fall under that statistic. 

Definition of the word starve.

"(of a person or animal) suffer severely or die from hunger."

@ Bolded You move to an area where the cost of living isn't exhorbiant, but everyone's income is quite high relative to yours. There are plenty that exist. 

I don't think any number of benefits, besides rehabilitation for his family would've helped your uncle's situation. If he got more resources, they would just leech off him. But is drug addiction non-existent in other countries? I am certain it is not. 

The whole point made by people in other countries is that the U.S doesn't give enough to the poor, not that the cost of living is higher (it is actually much less, unless you live in a large city.) The second job she worked was to maintain her bad decisions and habits, despite receiving all of these resources. 

Yes, workers can get a pension depending on their job, and/or a 401k. Social security (a public pension) is mandatory for everyone, but it has been going bankrupt for years. Financial aid (from private schools) and government grants exist for undergraduate students, in addition to student loans. If you go to graduate school in a scientific field you get a stipend for your RA/TA work and a tuition exemption. If you go into a job that is  much higher paying, like a doctor or lawyer, you can take out loans to cover these expenses, but you will be more capable of paying those loans than a scientist would, so that is the reason why schools incentivize science degrees. 

If you make less than or equal to $1,300 on average per month in Pennsylvania (as a single person with no kids), you qualify for Medicaid. Medicaid plans are equivalent to, if not better than, gold/silver plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Copays are something like $0-2. Pretty much everything is covered, even things like chiropractical care and eye care. 

You also don't make that much though if you're poor.  You constantly see other people being more successful and have a happier life.  The work isn't as fulfilling or meaningful.  It can be very frustrating and depressing being poor.  It depends on if you care to get further in life or not.  A lot of people do want to get further and they definitely have the ability, but they latch on to drugs or alcohol to help make the frustration and pain of being where they are go away; and thus keeping them down longer and most of the time forever.

 If you don't care, it can be easy being poor or anything for that matter. But people usually do care so it's typically not easy.

Did he not have any health-insurance? Usually schools require you to have health-insurance, and it has to meet a certain standard. Was he from another country? If so, sometimes other countries can pay for their students to receive health-care in the U.S. Once you know the system, and yeah I agree that is confusing, those scenarios become rare. Anyway, students still qualify for medicaid in Pennsylvania even if they aren't working, I am not sure about other states. I think it is much the same, or otherwise they wouldn't receive the Federal funding. 

It is illegal, as far as I know, for any hospital to deny you treatment if you show up in the emergency room. You will be charged later for it, but they must give you treatment regardless of your ability to pay if you show up in the emergency room. Health-care - like any service - is a business. The doctors put a lot of their time, resources, and effort to go to school. They expect compensation for this, otherwise they would have never chose to become a doctor knowing how much it would cost them. The machines and technology used in hospitals are not free. Doctors in the U.S also make more money than any where else in the world (primarily because of the huge licensing fees and insurances.) Even in other countries it is a business. Your governments just say that they will be the only institutions paying the doctors, and that the doctors have limits for how much they should expect to be paid. This is good for some reasons, bad for others. 

The problems in the U.S started when people started to buy insurance rather than pay out of pocket, and the hospitals were able to charge the insurance companies prices they knew the individual would have never agree to on their own. The insurance companies then alleviated all of these costs to their consumers. This angered the consumers, so then the insurance companies looked for more consumers, but then the net effect is that the hospitals can charge even more. If the system went single payer, the difference is that everybody would be under one company (the government.) And again, that has its advantages and disadvantages. You trade less choice for cheaper prices. There is also no market mechanism for competition between hospitals and the effect of this as you noted - are long waiting times due to shortages.