5 ms·

I'm pretty open to UBI but dont really see how that would be the case here. Let's say someone (who also has an illness like diabetes) has two children and isnt

I'm pretty open to UBI but dont really see how that would be the case here. Let's say someone (who also has an illness like diabetes) has two children and isnt able to work for five years because of long covid. Will the UBI payments be high enough to support them and their children? Or would higher payments be needed to support for them? Would they get a different UBI as a single dude in his 40s? If so that's fine - but then it just seems like its welfare not UBI.

neon_electro 4y ago
UBI plus Medicare for All (not just Medicare for elders) is the way. "Welfare" beyond that can and should be discussed and considered - I'm not advocating for taking away any of the welfare state as a trade for implementing UBI, personally. Everyone receives it, everyone pays taxes accordingly, those with enough tax liability end up netting $0 or less in UBI for the period.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > UBI plus Medicare for All (not just Medicare for elders) is the way. Note that, given the actual structure of Medicare (partially publicly subsized private insurance with a public default and minimum-benefit option which still has premiums, part of which is waived for Social Security and Railroad Retirement beneficiaries), the ACA is almost Medicare for all, and with a default public option (even with premiums for most people) the “almost” would go away. (“Medicare for all” is sometimes used as a code for universal, premium-free, public-only insurance, but that’s not at all similar to Medicare.)
  - neon_electro 4y ago
    Thank you for clarifying, I support a universal, premium free, public insurance plan.
- yucky 4y ago
  > I'm not advocating for taking away any of the welfare state as a trade for implementing UBI, personally. Interesting, since that is always it's main selling point. It's supposed to simplify the benefits programs since everyone just gets a check. Obviously that's naive, but it's the common refrain when discussing cost.
scotty79 4y ago
If children also get UBI then most likely yes. Same UBI for everyone to keep things cheap and simple.
- nostromo 4y ago
  Need more cash, have more babies! What could go wrong?
  - scotty79 4y ago
    Human fertility might go back closer to replacement levels in rich countries? Their societies might get younger instead of trending towards inverted population pyramid? Oh, the horror.

neon_electro 4y ago

UBI plus Medicare for All (not just Medicare for elders) is the way. "Welfare" beyond that can and should be discussed and considered - I'm not advocating for taking away any of the welfare state as a trade for implementing UBI, personally. Everyone receives it, everyone pays taxes accordingly, those with enough tax liability end up netting $0 or less in UBI for the period.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> UBI plus Medicare for All (not just Medicare for elders) is the way. Note that, given the actual structure of Medicare (partially publicly subsized private insurance with a public default and minimum-benefit option which still has premiums, part of which is waived for Social Security and Railroad Retirement beneficiaries), the ACA is almost Medicare for all, and with a default public option (even with premiums for most people) the “almost” would go away. (“Medicare for all” is sometimes used as a code for universal, premium-free, public-only insurance, but that’s not at all similar to Medicare.)
- neon_electro 4y ago
  Thank you for clarifying, I support a universal, premium free, public insurance plan.
yucky 4y ago
> I'm not advocating for taking away any of the welfare state as a trade for implementing UBI, personally. Interesting, since that is always it's main selling point. It's supposed to simplify the benefits programs since everyone just gets a check. Obviously that's naive, but it's the common refrain when discussing cost.

scotty79 4y ago

If children also get UBI then most likely yes. Same UBI for everyone to keep things cheap and simple.

nostromo 4y ago
Need more cash, have more babies! What could go wrong?
- scotty79 4y ago
  Human fertility might go back closer to replacement levels in rich countries? Their societies might get younger instead of trending towards inverted population pyramid? Oh, the horror.