That's not what he said.

He said he doesn't give money to the homeless because there are government programs to take care of that absolving him of personally getting involved.

Political belief replaces personal compassion.

Taken to its logical conclusion, if government programs represent a society's compassion then the tax payer is the instrument of that compassion. Since I pay >100X in taxes than the average person, I must, therefore, be 100X as compassionate. All hail me, Draginol, lord of compassion.

That's only a fact if you include children of illegal immigrants. Do you support our taxes providing health insurance to them as well?

Actually liberals (at least the movie stars and starlets) seem to care much more about people in those foreign lands than in ours back here.  They'll trash our beliefs about not spending money here, but they'll just as quickly be out demonstrating that we should be the world's police and mommies and daddies as they buy, ooops, I mean adopt, babies from foreign lands (see Jolie/Pitt, Madonna, etc.).

In simple answer to the question of the headline though - some liberals have created charities, it's just that those charities don't seem to be accomplishing the necessary goals and instead are working on other priorities.  For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Soros and his charities, Ted Turner and the piles of money he promised to give away, and others.

Personally, I prefer people like Ralph Nader who really does put his money where his mouth is.  I don't doubt that Mr. and Mrs. Gates are trying to do some good with their money, but I expect that there is a large layer of bureaucracy involved (and seem to recall reading complaints about that) that make obtaining money from them more difficult than perhaps it should be, and less useful than it could be.

Not that I think it's a bad idea to monitor where the money goes, or a bad idea to make sure that the money is used in the best possible manner, or that it is a bad idea to follow the proverbial teach a person to fish mantra rather than just supplying the fish.  All of that is fine and dandy, but it does make it seem that the liberals aren't trying that hard to hand away their money.

Certainly. But how does that matter? The "fact" given was the "average" cost of insurance and the "average" person is getting insurance through their employer.

I also have a decent idea of how much a high deductable catastrophic insurance plan costs for a family of 4 and it's still not anywhere near $1k per month.

The problem we see here is the slippery slope is VERY slippery. It's not enough to just have health insurance. No, prescriptions, doctors, everything is expected to be paid for without a deductable (that's how you get to the $1k per month figure as the average).

It begs the question, are human beings responsible for themselves at all anymore?

That would be a pretty good start.