UBI is a flat income received by everyone, regardless if they need it or not. Problem is, as things stand in almost all countries, (beside some oil-producing s

UBI is a flat income received by everyone, regardless if they need it or not. Problem is, as things stand in almost all countries, (beside some oil-producing states), governments need to raise the money with taxes and it is a very high burden to get a non-trivial amount. States often can barely collect enough for pensions and to contribute to various forms of insurance (disability, unemployment and most importantly healthcare). Now, proponents suggest scrapping existing social programs and replacing them with the UBI, but it will cost more and some people will actually much worse off. Most existing social programs in the developed world are limited eligibility (means tested), so you have to prove your need to take advantage. This keeps costs low, although there are people who believe that i.e. requiring recepients be above a certain age, or to be children requires a huge and expensive administrative apparatus. This of course depends on implementation, but the point is means-tested programs became dominant across the world because they save money. Now, about the point they don't always help, here is a simple example - will a 2-3 thousand dollars a month of UBI be enough to cover heart surgery? You could say people should buy health insurance, but to keep costs low you need to force people to buy it, and thus return to the typical national health insurance schemes around the world. A more cynical person might think that many of the people proposing UBI are actually more interested in scrapping existing social safety nets than having a better working alternative.