3 ms·
The problem here is the assumption that everyone on Medicaid, Social Security, etc is capable of spending money responsibly. Take away their benefits and hand t
by riskable 10y ago
The problem here is the assumption that everyone on Medicaid, Social Security, etc is capable of spending money responsibly. Take away their benefits and hand them some cash.
This will result in millions of vulnerable seniors and mentally disabled individuals being scammed out of their money each month. Whether it be "tech support" scammers or local fraudsters or even simply not being able to budget money (at a basic level) these folks will be in trouble.
I live with (and care for) a mentally disabled individual (IQ: ~60) that receives benefits through Social Security, Medicaid, and other government programs. If it were not for our help in managing these benefits she would spend her money (which is supposed to be for food/living expenses) on Amazon on $100 anime-themed coffee cups and similar widgets the moment she receives it.
Not to mention the fact that she will never understand how to sign up for such services or know who to trust when receiving services. If someone in a lab coat told her they were a government doctor and she "had to pay" for her upcoming appointment she'd likely just hand over all her money. There's no way to "educate" her out of this problem. I've taught her all sorts of things... many times and I'll have to teach her again and again.
It's not so dissimilar to walking an old person through accessing a web app/site over and over again ("no, that's the search bar"). Handing vulnerable people money every month won't solve their problems.
It's a great idea for the economy in general though! Just don't do away with government services for the needy. Especially medical care.
- galdosdi 10y agoThis is a solved problem (at least, it's solved about as well as you could expect we could do). Social Security has the notion of a REPY or "Representative Payee" for recipients deemed unable to spend their own money, a trustee who manages it on their behalf. It's similar to (but not the same as) the concept of a legal guardian. All in all, the Social Security Administration has a huge amount of experience with all the details and problems involved in efficient day to day administration of a massive payments program like this, so there's no reason not to just reuse the existing bureaucratic infrastructure and just swap out the eligibility rules.
- greedo 10y agoAnd if you retain the SSA, one of the biggest arguments for UBI (dismantling wasteful government agencies) gets defenestrated.
- ars 10y agoI would expect the SSA to be the ones administering the UBI plan.
- galdosdi 10y agoActually, SSA is very efficient. SSA spends just a fraction of a percentage point of the benefits it distributes on administrative costs (ie, the existence and operation of SSA itself). But even the vast majority of that is for the means-tested SSI Title 16 program, not the simpler Title 2 SS programs. Since a UBI is much simpler than either of those, SSA could easily save even more -- there would certainly be plenty of consolidation and maybe downsizing possible after passage of UBI. But there's no reason to throw away the common infrastructure for payments that already exists.