4 ms·

The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of a basic income. One of the great things about universal healthcare is that you just never worry ab

The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of a basic income. One of the great things about universal healthcare is that you just never worry about it. I never have to think about what would happen to myself or my spouse or my kids if they get cancer after I quit or lose my job. Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things. It's nice. Basic income seems like it will give you that kind of piece of mind as well. You know that in the worst case, you'll have a hassle-free, indefinite, (modest) income to get you by. That's worth something.

cmdkeen 11y ago
You're describing non contributory Social Security not a basic income. The difference is that those systems usually make everyone but the retired look for work or be in education etc.
- Chinjut 11y ago
  Where did the grandparent commenter say anything about "mak[ing] everyone but the retired look for work or be in education etc."? Their comment seems to describe basic income just fine to me.
refurb 11y ago
Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things. I don't think universal healthcare addresses those issues. I'm from Canada and people fight with the gov't all the time over the coverage of medical care and drugs. Sure, if you have a really common condition you might get everything you need, but if you have a rare condition, you're often stuck trying to fight it out for coverage.
- macspoofing 11y ago
  >I'm from Canada and people fight with the gov't all the time over the coverage of medical care and drugs. I'm from Canada too, and yeah, the system isn't perfect. Generally conditions which require a more intensive and personalized long-term care (read: expensive) are lacking. Drugs may be expensive. Dental isn't covered. But let me tell you, you need to see your family GP? You'll see them without worry. Your GP refers you to a specialist for tests? No charge. Your specialist orders more tests because of a finding? No charge. Surgery? No charge. You're hospitalized for a few weeks? You'll never get a $70,000 bill. There is a certain freedom in being able to go through all that, even when unemployed, and never think about whether you'll have to re-mortgage your house.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
The problem is that income does not get you by. It's a totally abstract concept and cannot sustain a physical being. Maybe an income of potatoes and butter could sustain you. An income of digital credits only gives you some accounting leverage to access goods in a public market (which may or may not exist). If there are no doctors, your income won't ensure you receive treatment when you need it.
- macspoofing 11y ago
  >It's a totally abstract concept and cannot sustain a physical being. ... Feel free to transfer your abstract concepts to my abstract account.
sliverstorm 11y ago
The output side of BI is naturally attractive. Everybody gets money. How could that not be attractive? I'm just skeptical about how we would fund BI to a level that is meaningful while maintaining some modicum of equitability and equanimity. Just to lift everyone to the poverty line in the USA ($11,770) would require paying out more than $3 trillion in net benefits, or roughly the size of the entire federal budget today.
- alexnewman 11y ago
  What if it was per family-ish. Then it'd only be about military exp size
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    For poverty line, on a family basis, the incremental cost of another person approaches $5k (compared to $11.7k) so taking families into account the lower bound of payments is $1.5-2 trillion (if all we had were really big families) http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm
- jdmichal 11y ago
  Poverty line for each household is $11770 + $4160 per person. Average persons per household is 2.58. So the average cost per household would be $18343. There are 318.9 million people in the US. Divide by persons per household yields 123.6 million households. Multiply the two: $2.267 trillion. Of course, if this is how the math ends up going, there would be a huge incentive ($7610) for two persons to remain "individual households".
- ghaff 11y ago
  To be sure, in a certain income range, you'd be taking more money out of their left pocket while putting it back into their right pocket. (While simply taking more money on net from higher incomes.) That said: It's 1.) very hard to see how you make the numbers work and 2.) I imagine that if you told a lot of the BI advocates on this thread "Fine, I'll wave a magic wand and give everyone a BI of $10K," the reaction would be "I can't live on that!" (I also assume that someone in the US today right at the poverty line is probably eligible for certain types of assistance that BI proposals would supposedly eliminate.)

cmdkeen 11y ago

You're describing non contributory Social Security not a basic income. The difference is that those systems usually make everyone but the retired look for work or be in education etc.

Chinjut 11y ago
Where did the grandparent commenter say anything about "mak[ing] everyone but the retired look for work or be in education etc."? Their comment seems to describe basic income just fine to me.

refurb 11y ago

Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things. I don't think universal healthcare addresses those issues. I'm from Canada and people fight with the gov't all the time over the coverage of medical care and drugs. Sure, if you have a really common condition you might get everything you need, but if you have a rare condition, you're often stuck trying to fight it out for coverage.

macspoofing 11y ago
>I'm from Canada and people fight with the gov't all the time over the coverage of medical care and drugs. I'm from Canada too, and yeah, the system isn't perfect. Generally conditions which require a more intensive and personalized long-term care (read: expensive) are lacking. Drugs may be expensive. Dental isn't covered. But let me tell you, you need to see your family GP? You'll see them without worry. Your GP refers you to a specialist for tests? No charge. Your specialist orders more tests because of a finding? No charge. Surgery? No charge. You're hospitalized for a few weeks? You'll never get a $70,000 bill. There is a certain freedom in being able to go through all that, even when unemployed, and never think about whether you'll have to re-mortgage your house.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

The problem is that income does not get you by. It's a totally abstract concept and cannot sustain a physical being. Maybe an income of potatoes and butter could sustain you. An income of digital credits only gives you some accounting leverage to access goods in a public market (which may or may not exist). If there are no doctors, your income won't ensure you receive treatment when you need it.

macspoofing 11y ago
>It's a totally abstract concept and cannot sustain a physical being. ... Feel free to transfer your abstract concepts to my abstract account.

sliverstorm 11y ago

The output side of BI is naturally attractive. Everybody gets money. How could that not be attractive? I'm just skeptical about how we would fund BI to a level that is meaningful while maintaining some modicum of equitability and equanimity. Just to lift everyone to the poverty line in the USA ($11,770) would require paying out more than $3 trillion in net benefits, or roughly the size of the entire federal budget today.

alexnewman 11y ago
What if it was per family-ish. Then it'd only be about military exp size
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  For poverty line, on a family basis, the incremental cost of another person approaches $5k (compared to $11.7k) so taking families into account the lower bound of payments is $1.5-2 trillion (if all we had were really big families) http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm
jdmichal 11y ago
Poverty line for each household is $11770 + $4160 per person. Average persons per household is 2.58. So the average cost per household would be $18343. There are 318.9 million people in the US. Divide by persons per household yields 123.6 million households. Multiply the two: $2.267 trillion. Of course, if this is how the math ends up going, there would be a huge incentive ($7610) for two persons to remain "individual households".
ghaff 11y ago
To be sure, in a certain income range, you'd be taking more money out of their left pocket while putting it back into their right pocket. (While simply taking more money on net from higher incomes.) That said: It's 1.) very hard to see how you make the numbers work and 2.) I imagine that if you told a lot of the BI advocates on this thread "Fine, I'll wave a magic wand and give everyone a BI of $10K," the reaction would be "I can't live on that!" (I also assume that someone in the US today right at the poverty line is probably eligible for certain types of assistance that BI proposals would supposedly eliminate.)