How about Mother Theresa? How about the Red Cross? About about the religious associations who live on donations only?
In your little world everything comes from the government, as well as your ideology it seems.
The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis. Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa)
As a Canadian, I think I strongly prefer our government-provided healthcare to the Mother Theresa version.
And your argument that charities and government-funded welfare are mutually exclusive is just plain bizarre. In any case, let us know how Somalia works out for you.
I suspect we may well share some sentiments, but you're coming off as needlessly argumentative. Yeah, sometimes I do too :p