7 ms·

I'm curious, isn't UBI basically untenable without single payer healthcare? Assuming he will be running for president, doesn't that mean he will be essentially

by mvid 9y ago

I'm curious, isn't UBI basically untenable without single payer healthcare? Assuming he will be running for president, doesn't that mean he will be essentially a socialist candidate?

kwellington 9y ago
bingo
TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Socialism is a spectrum. We have a socialized public transportation infrastructure, socialized power industries, socialized water and sewage industries, and a lot more, yet most people don't complain about that. UBI doesn't designate how peoples' income is used, it merely provides a baseline income to facilitate survival at least.
- ryanx435 9y ago
  Are you really making the argument that government provided services are socialism lite? So I guess the Romans were socialists then with their aquaducts.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - arethuza 9y ago
    Services like the UK NHS are certainly regarded as a form of socialism, as Aneurin Bevan NHS found said: "A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Yes, really, they are. And I'm not sure why this stuff is so surprising: one of the strong facets of scandinavian-style socialism is the government services and safety net. Single payer healthcare is often villified as "socialized health care". I'm pretty sure UBI and healthcare fit into the spectrum.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
digitalzombie 9y ago
It's not going to happen. Sanders could barely win cause they call him a socialist. Now with RNC threatening to take about ACA/Obamacare, single payer is easier to swallow for people who are afraid of new things or uninformed. UBI is such a new and radical idea compare to single payer. I doubt he'll win with UBI stance. Also I wouldn't vote for him. He got not political experiences. Donald Trump and Arnold are terrible politicians that are very ineffective compare to their predecessors, both have no political experiences at all. You can't run a government as a company.
- acalderaro 9y ago
  You may have meant this, but I want to make sure people aren't mistaken - you can't run a government like a for-profit company, but you still need to run it like a company. And a company only exists as long as it has money. Our current government has a tremendous amount of debt. It's awesome to consider social programs like UBI, single payer, etc, but unless it's fiscally sustainable, we're stealing from our future generations. And that would be among the most horrific things a generation can do to another.
  - digitalzombie 9y ago
    You run it as if it's a country or a government. > Our current government has a tremendous amount of debt. That's a talking point the Republican always bring up even after the second election of Clinton and we had a surplus. Even Bush Sr had to raise the taxes because of his war debt. Bush Jr and Donald we're in debt with Trickle Down. The republican party, to me, is the ones that are pushing for running like a company. Recent Democrat runs it as if it's a government. An example is Clinton forgiving a foreign country debts, raising 50 million in vaccine, I doubt any company would do that while managing a surplus and bombing the middle east for Bin Laden. This is on top of knowing the key players that you've built relationship with while in politics. You can't just go in as President and just boss those people around. All of them have some sort of agenda they want and you have to know them well enough to compromise and get them on board with a bill. Clinton passed the bill of rights for healthcare. Bush close the donut loop hole and Obama got ACA. These aren't some running a company kind of move. Since ACA is in place Republican have failed to bring it down. But what people keep on making it as if it's simple as running a company. Making it easier for CEO person with no politic experiences run and become president. It's as easy as running a company.
mc32 9y ago
But UBI does not necessarily mean everyone gets a "living wage". It covers a spectrum from very modest subsidies to outrageous* amounts which would bankrupt the system. *Outrageous meaning really unsustainable economically.
xupybd 9y ago
Actually the UBI is popular in some other circles as well. It can be used to greatly simplify the tax and welfare systems. When you do that you shrink government, and that gets some of the right on board.
- axaxs 9y ago
  If UBI is basic and agnostic, i'll support it. If it's geared only to low income earners, i'll fight it tooth and nail. -the right
  - ramblerman 9y ago
    > If it's geared only to low income earners I'm not sure you understand UBI.
    - axaxs 9y ago
      I do. And I really like the idea. But let's be realistic, when money comes up short, there will be rules and regulations put in place to screw people over. Just look at how they treat younger people with social security. I fully expect not to receive a penny from it in my lifetime.

by mvid 9y ago

I'm curious, isn't UBI basically untenable without single payer healthcare? Assuming he will be running for president, doesn't that mean he will be essentially a socialist candidate?

kwellington 9y ago

bingo

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

Socialism is a spectrum. We have a socialized public transportation infrastructure, socialized power industries, socialized water and sewage industries, and a lot more, yet most people don't complain about that. UBI doesn't designate how peoples' income is used, it merely provides a baseline income to facilitate survival at least.

ryanx435 9y ago
Are you really making the argument that government provided services are socialism lite? So I guess the Romans were socialists then with their aquaducts.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- arethuza 9y ago
  Services like the UK NHS are certainly regarded as a form of socialism, as Aneurin Bevan NHS found said: "A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  Yes, really, they are. And I'm not sure why this stuff is so surprising: one of the strong facets of scandinavian-style socialism is the government services and safety net. Single payer healthcare is often villified as "socialized health care". I'm pretty sure UBI and healthcare fit into the spectrum.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

digitalzombie 9y ago

It's not going to happen. Sanders could barely win cause they call him a socialist. Now with RNC threatening to take about ACA/Obamacare, single payer is easier to swallow for people who are afraid of new things or uninformed. UBI is such a new and radical idea compare to single payer. I doubt he'll win with UBI stance. Also I wouldn't vote for him. He got not political experiences. Donald Trump and Arnold are terrible politicians that are very ineffective compare to their predecessors, both have no political experiences at all. You can't run a government as a company.

acalderaro 9y ago
You may have meant this, but I want to make sure people aren't mistaken - you can't run a government like a for-profit company, but you still need to run it like a company. And a company only exists as long as it has money. Our current government has a tremendous amount of debt. It's awesome to consider social programs like UBI, single payer, etc, but unless it's fiscally sustainable, we're stealing from our future generations. And that would be among the most horrific things a generation can do to another.
- digitalzombie 9y ago
  You run it as if it's a country or a government. > Our current government has a tremendous amount of debt. That's a talking point the Republican always bring up even after the second election of Clinton and we had a surplus. Even Bush Sr had to raise the taxes because of his war debt. Bush Jr and Donald we're in debt with Trickle Down. The republican party, to me, is the ones that are pushing for running like a company. Recent Democrat runs it as if it's a government. An example is Clinton forgiving a foreign country debts, raising 50 million in vaccine, I doubt any company would do that while managing a surplus and bombing the middle east for Bin Laden. This is on top of knowing the key players that you've built relationship with while in politics. You can't just go in as President and just boss those people around. All of them have some sort of agenda they want and you have to know them well enough to compromise and get them on board with a bill. Clinton passed the bill of rights for healthcare. Bush close the donut loop hole and Obama got ACA. These aren't some running a company kind of move. Since ACA is in place Republican have failed to bring it down. But what people keep on making it as if it's simple as running a company. Making it easier for CEO person with no politic experiences run and become president. It's as easy as running a company.

mc32 9y ago

But UBI does not necessarily mean everyone gets a "living wage". It covers a spectrum from very modest subsidies to outrageous* amounts which would bankrupt the system. *Outrageous meaning really unsustainable economically.

xupybd 9y ago

Actually the UBI is popular in some other circles as well. It can be used to greatly simplify the tax and welfare systems. When you do that you shrink government, and that gets some of the right on board.

axaxs 9y ago
If UBI is basic and agnostic, i'll support it. If it's geared only to low income earners, i'll fight it tooth and nail. -the right
- ramblerman 9y ago
  > If it's geared only to low income earners I'm not sure you understand UBI.
  - axaxs 9y ago
    I do. And I really like the idea. But let's be realistic, when money comes up short, there will be rules and regulations put in place to screw people over. Just look at how they treat younger people with social security. I fully expect not to receive a penny from it in my lifetime.