Economics or Emotions

Professor Robert Shiller of Yale, wrote for The New York Times on the human side of foreclosures and supporting Rep. Barney Frank's plan. He argues:

It’s easy to take a stern view of this spectacle.
...
This stern view may, in fact, be winning the battle of public opinion.
...
But instead of having sympathy for these homeowners, many people blame them for their predicaments. That isn’t surprising. It’s an example of a general tendency that was documented by social psychologists decades ago.

To put things in perspective:

1. Homeownership rate is about 68% (i.e, 68% of the housing units are occupied by owners). The rest that are occupied by renters who chose not to buy, because they understand the responsibilities that come with a mortgage one can't afford and because some can never afford a house.
   
2. Is there another higher purpose for the $300 billion proposed package to help homeowners? There are 43 million people without medical insurance in America. Can we achieve a much better impact and improve the lives of a vast number of people if we employ the funds to insure the uninsured?
   
3. Shiller paints a picture of 243,353 families losing their homes, moving to other side of town. Compared to the number of renters who move continuously and are always at the mercy of the owners this is still a small number.
4. Shiller described the economical view as "stern" and referred to studies that found people attributing predicaments to one' behavior. Then how would you reconcile the enormous amounts of contributions from the public after man-made and natural disasters? Americans gave $295.2 billion to charity in 2006. Is that not helping people in predicament?
5. From Kant's Universality principle, would a similar legislation be enacted to help everyone who gets into trouble with finances? Many of the uninsured families are just one medical disaster away from bankruptcy. Should they not be helped?
   

I tend to lean on the economic side. I am however confused about what is the minimum responsibility the society has. As Kant would ask, "What moral minimum or basic human rights am I duty bound to honor?"