5 ms·

>If Basic Income is to work then it needs to be actually liveable and adjusted based upon the CoL in each area. There's a good argument to be made for a larger

>If Basic Income is to work then it needs to be actually liveable and adjusted based upon the CoL in each area. There's a good argument to be made for a larger sum for the disabled who cannot work. But I'd be extremely opposed to any regional adjustments. If individual cities and states want to supplement the UBI, then that's up to them, but people moving out of high-cost areas and into low-cost ones is part of the natural ebb and flow that keeps the cost of living reasonable. And can you imagine what a CoL adjusted UBI for San Francisco would look like? A massive ripoff of the rest of the country.

newjersey 10y ago
> There's a good argument to be made for a larger sum for the disabled who cannot work. But I'd be extremely opposed to any regional adjustments. If individual cities and states want to supplement the UBI, then that's up to them, but people moving out of high-cost areas and into low-cost ones is part of the natural ebb and flow that keeps the cost of living reasonable. And can you imagine what a CoL adjusted UBI for San Francisco would look like? A massive ripoff of the rest of the country. I don't know what the solution is here but if in this hypothetical reality, the garden state didn't supplement but California did then I'd move to California in a heartbeat. I am sure I'd be broke even with any supplement in San Diego but at least I'll be broke in San Diego. Edit: I cannot support any discrimination in basic income based on "ability to work". I'd rather the whole thing fail. I'd rather we never have basic income implemented at all than this bastardization go through. Personally, I'm all for death panels. We should not try to keep everyone alive at all costs. If I get in a freak accident and it'd cost me $10M+ to keep me alive with little to no chance of a full recovery, please let me die. Something we need to discuss separately from universal basic income is the need to reduce cost in healthcare. I'd gladly support expanding Medicare to everyone without having to qualify. We would need significantly greater penalties for Medicare fraud and add incentives for whistleblowers and make it easier to report fraud. I'm OK with "lite" Medicare that drops expensive procedures and lets patients suffering from rare cases fending for themselves in order to cut costs especially if there is little chance that the patient will ever recover fully.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  My preferred approach for health insurance is to eliminate all of the regulations about what insurance plans must cover, and any other rules that prevent high-deductible catastrophic insurance from being available on the market. You could then buy a very cheap plan that covers everything once expenses exceed, say, 20k, and be responsible for everything before that out of your pocket. Then, unlike now, people would actually factor in cost into their decisions about which doctors and hospitals to visit, which would hopefully drive down wasteful spending. The other thing I'd support is removing medical licensure from the law. People would still be free to visit only AMA-approved physicians, but there's no reason to give that guild a monopoly on providing health care. The artificial caps on medical school seats, imposed by the AMA, is one of the biggest reasons for the absurd cost of medical care in the US. >I don't know what the solution is here but if in this hypothetical reality, the garden state didn't supplement but California did then I'd move to California in a heartbeat. I am sure I'd be broke even with any supplement in San Diego but at least I'll be broke in San Diego. Sure, and when the people of California realize that they're attracting all of the deadbeats from around the country, they'd be forced to adjust.
  - newjersey 10y ago
    I can support letting the bottom fall out like this provided we had full single payer coverage for everyone. Any additional coverage can then be whatever you want with the only protection from law being protection from false advertising. I can also support removing the ama-fia's control on licenses but I'm afraid we'll just replace it with something similar when it comes to which providers are eligible to reimbursements from the new single payer healthcare system.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      My idea is that these catastrophic insurance plans would be affordable by anyone with their basic income. Debt financing could cover anything below the deductible, for the indigent. Getting such loans would also be easier because of the UBI. Again, people would be financially responsible for their own healthcare, which restores sane incentives, but it wouldn't be possible for it to financially destroy them. No need for a single payer system if this works as I envision it.
fzeroracer 10y ago
The problem of course with that argument is that people also need to move into higher-cost areas in order to find jobs for certain industries. If there was no regional adjustment that encourages individuals to stay put. Poor people congregate in low-cost areas with low job opportunities. A CoL adjustment for San Francisco isn't the problem, but rather the fact that San Francisco costs so much to begin with.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  The blame for the high cost-of-living in SF lies with the people of California, and especially the people of SF. It'd create a massive moral hazard to have the federal government subsidize that. Run your city like a gravy-train and everyone else will bail you out. People will, I hope, never stand for that. I'm very wary of insulating people from the consequences of their decisions, especially entire political units.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > The problem of course with that argument is that people also need to move into higher-cost areas in order to find jobs for certain industries. If there was no regional adjustment that encourages individuals to stay put. Poor people congregate in low-cost areas with low job opportunities. That isn't a problem. You get a concentration of people collecting a basic income who move into a low cost area, then they have money to buy housing and food and so on so there are jobs needed to construct housing and sell food, so then some of them get those jobs. Then they have even more money which leads to even more jobs etc. and soon enough the low cost area isn't so low cost, but that isn't a problem anymore because now they have jobs.
  - fzeroracer 10y ago
    This is far too simplistic, especially when you consider the issue of gentrification and the rise of housing costs associated with it. You ignore that this leads back to the same issue: Poor people are now living in a higher-cost area where their previously held job no longer suffices to live. So now you force these poor people out of homes that they used to be able to afford into even poorer areas with worse job security. This is assuming that they're even able to acquire new jobs. And it would only get worse with automation. A basic income that doesn't scale based off of CoL is one that's bound to fail in the face of automation.
pkaye 10y ago
Would people in high cost of living area paying higher income taxes which subsidize the lower cost areas be a massive ripoff to those in the high cost areas?

newjersey 10y ago

> There's a good argument to be made for a larger sum for the disabled who cannot work. But I'd be extremely opposed to any regional adjustments. If individual cities and states want to supplement the UBI, then that's up to them, but people moving out of high-cost areas and into low-cost ones is part of the natural ebb and flow that keeps the cost of living reasonable. And can you imagine what a CoL adjusted UBI for San Francisco would look like? A massive ripoff of the rest of the country. I don't know what the solution is here but if in this hypothetical reality, the garden state didn't supplement but California did then I'd move to California in a heartbeat. I am sure I'd be broke even with any supplement in San Diego but at least I'll be broke in San Diego. Edit: I cannot support any discrimination in basic income based on "ability to work". I'd rather the whole thing fail. I'd rather we never have basic income implemented at all than this bastardization go through. Personally, I'm all for death panels. We should not try to keep everyone alive at all costs. If I get in a freak accident and it'd cost me $10M+ to keep me alive with little to no chance of a full recovery, please let me die. Something we need to discuss separately from universal basic income is the need to reduce cost in healthcare. I'd gladly support expanding Medicare to everyone without having to qualify. We would need significantly greater penalties for Medicare fraud and add incentives for whistleblowers and make it easier to report fraud. I'm OK with "lite" Medicare that drops expensive procedures and lets patients suffering from rare cases fending for themselves in order to cut costs especially if there is little chance that the patient will ever recover fully.

marcoperaza 10y ago
My preferred approach for health insurance is to eliminate all of the regulations about what insurance plans must cover, and any other rules that prevent high-deductible catastrophic insurance from being available on the market. You could then buy a very cheap plan that covers everything once expenses exceed, say, 20k, and be responsible for everything before that out of your pocket. Then, unlike now, people would actually factor in cost into their decisions about which doctors and hospitals to visit, which would hopefully drive down wasteful spending. The other thing I'd support is removing medical licensure from the law. People would still be free to visit only AMA-approved physicians, but there's no reason to give that guild a monopoly on providing health care. The artificial caps on medical school seats, imposed by the AMA, is one of the biggest reasons for the absurd cost of medical care in the US. >I don't know what the solution is here but if in this hypothetical reality, the garden state didn't supplement but California did then I'd move to California in a heartbeat. I am sure I'd be broke even with any supplement in San Diego but at least I'll be broke in San Diego. Sure, and when the people of California realize that they're attracting all of the deadbeats from around the country, they'd be forced to adjust.
- newjersey 10y ago
  I can support letting the bottom fall out like this provided we had full single payer coverage for everyone. Any additional coverage can then be whatever you want with the only protection from law being protection from false advertising. I can also support removing the ama-fia's control on licenses but I'm afraid we'll just replace it with something similar when it comes to which providers are eligible to reimbursements from the new single payer healthcare system.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    My idea is that these catastrophic insurance plans would be affordable by anyone with their basic income. Debt financing could cover anything below the deductible, for the indigent. Getting such loans would also be easier because of the UBI. Again, people would be financially responsible for their own healthcare, which restores sane incentives, but it wouldn't be possible for it to financially destroy them. No need for a single payer system if this works as I envision it.

fzeroracer 10y ago

The problem of course with that argument is that people also need to move into higher-cost areas in order to find jobs for certain industries. If there was no regional adjustment that encourages individuals to stay put. Poor people congregate in low-cost areas with low job opportunities. A CoL adjustment for San Francisco isn't the problem, but rather the fact that San Francisco costs so much to begin with.

marcoperaza 10y ago
The blame for the high cost-of-living in SF lies with the people of California, and especially the people of SF. It'd create a massive moral hazard to have the federal government subsidize that. Run your city like a gravy-train and everyone else will bail you out. People will, I hope, never stand for that. I'm very wary of insulating people from the consequences of their decisions, especially entire political units.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> The problem of course with that argument is that people also need to move into higher-cost areas in order to find jobs for certain industries. If there was no regional adjustment that encourages individuals to stay put. Poor people congregate in low-cost areas with low job opportunities. That isn't a problem. You get a concentration of people collecting a basic income who move into a low cost area, then they have money to buy housing and food and so on so there are jobs needed to construct housing and sell food, so then some of them get those jobs. Then they have even more money which leads to even more jobs etc. and soon enough the low cost area isn't so low cost, but that isn't a problem anymore because now they have jobs.
- fzeroracer 10y ago
  This is far too simplistic, especially when you consider the issue of gentrification and the rise of housing costs associated with it. You ignore that this leads back to the same issue: Poor people are now living in a higher-cost area where their previously held job no longer suffices to live. So now you force these poor people out of homes that they used to be able to afford into even poorer areas with worse job security. This is assuming that they're even able to acquire new jobs. And it would only get worse with automation. A basic income that doesn't scale based off of CoL is one that's bound to fail in the face of automation.

pkaye 10y ago

Would people in high cost of living area paying higher income taxes which subsidize the lower cost areas be a massive ripoff to those in the high cost areas?