4 ms·
> because then you can't get rid of the rest of the social services. Some you can get rid of, others you shouldn't. Even if you have UBI, some medical procedur
by est31 8y ago
> because then you can't get rid of the rest of the social services.
Some you can get rid of, others you shouldn't. Even if you have UBI, some medical procedure might cost an individual more than they are getting in 10 years. So a proper healthcare system is still important.
- skrowl 8y agoAgreed. Even the most zealous socialists aren't suggesting UBI handouts could replace healthcare insurance.
- oihfklasfsd 8y agoThere are zero socialists who are for UBI because UBI does nothing to stem the inherent exploitation of capitalism.
- krapp 8y agoOpponents of UBI, at least in the US, will never accept it on moral and definitely not on socialist grounds - only possibly as a means of cutting Federal expenditure and reducing or deprecating existing social programs, which they disagree with on principle. If Americans want UBI, they'll either get it with the repeal of the minimum wage, medicare, medicaid, federal student loans and the complete privatization of healthcare - basically the dismantling of the entire social safety net with the exception of programs to aid the military and agriculture - or else opponents will sabotage what futile efforts are made the way they did the ACA, and then work to repeal it as soon as possible.
- gpm 8y agoThat was sloppy wording on my part but the idea stands. "The rest of the social services" should be interpreted as only the social services that serve a similar purpose. I'm a Canadian and basically think you all need to fix your healthcare system anyways, but for simplicities sake I'll just declare that to not be part of what I meant by the rest.