Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul explains that the US approach - while good for the soul - is woefully inefficient. It can cost up to six times more to raise funds this way than through taxation, while the taxpayers still contribute around eighty percent of the money. Their "reversion to charity has brought with it, to a degree not seen even during the Renaissance, an indulgence of the ego of donors".
Would the fifteen percent contributed by wealthy benefactors, corporates and foundations offset the costs of fundraising? Would the money be better directed at the public good if guided by the wealthy, or by representative governments?
We should look very hard at such questions before once again going down the American path.