Guns are prolific and accessible in the USA. But if you don't have the money to buy them, you're shit outta luck.There are many valid complaints about the way we pay for healthcare in the US, many which I would argue alongside you personally. Grossly inefficient is a fair description. "Unable to get treatment", which you said initially, is much less of a fair description for a country in which health services are prolific and accessible.
And that's the point, isn't it? If you can't afford something, it's not accessible.
The Republican aim for alleviating poverty is to get people to work. But the pay for work at the bottom end is awful. It's exchanging welfare penury for wage penury. Never mind that the USA is a low unemployment nation (which is good), but that unemployment is practically never going to go below ~4%. Because the government doesn't want it below 4%, because unemployment allows for workplace flexibility (a ready pool of jobseekers) and prevents wage inflation which would reduce the competitiveness of US industry. Never mind that the Republicans (and to be fair the Democrats) are flooded with money by rich business-owners who most definitely don't want to be paying their staff more.Honestly, this particular argument is so far from where we started, it's not worth continuing in its current state. Like, yes, wealth does have intergenerational advantages. Those advantages are clearer in a nation that has been wealthy longer. But this argument came from you believing that you couldn't agree with Republicans because we neglect the poor, and your evidence for that was supposed to be social mobility rankings. You're a lot of steps away from making that case stick.
But in many cases, greater employability depends on investment in one's populace in the first place. People have to be taught skills, and brought up with the right attitudes for work, and this should be a key aim of welfare. Not basically scaring people into getting whatever they have to get because after a few months the rug will be pulled from under them. One thing perhaps we forget about welfare is that welfare can be a key foundation to give people security so that they can build on. Constant attacks on welfare often serve merely to make that foundation weaker and less stable.
I am aware that if you go trawling through Republicans, you will most definitely find some who recognise the role of the state in human development and increasing employability. But to view its mainstream policies and actions, the resounding attitude seems to be that bums don't deserve the money of hardworking taxpayers. You can even see this in the way they often call it "entitlement" rather than "welfare": they don't see it as beneficial. Underpinning this is perhaps a trend to moralising views that the poor are poor because they are lazy or venal, rather than that the poor face institutional barriers that degrade their ability to develop skills.