When should we implement Universal Basic Income?

[Bertilak]

When should we implement a universal basic income? How does the prospect of a universal basic income compare with the hodgepodge of financial assistance we currently have in our country?

I believe that the current system works okay, but could stand to face some improvement on the implementation of various programs because it lacks adequate incentive to force enough providers into the market in areas like subsidized housing.

[Buster's Uncle]

Tell me why this isn't Welfare State taking over, and good...

[Bertilak]

An examination of a major assistance program in the United States of America helps to clarify the relationship between the presence of welfare in the country and the inadequate nature of the assistance. Why do you assume that we do not already have a welfare state? I can name several programs that provide assistance that falls dramatically short of actual costs in reality. An example of the programs appear with the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The estimation of calculations for an individual that makes $200 per month in the state of California at the age of 28 as a single individual comes out as $16 to $26. How much "supplemental" nutrition can a person afford on $26 dollars per month? The above examples illustrate that the vague estimates do not provide adequate food for any person. Because people often say to visit food banks, I would like to direct attention towards the fact that food banks often have strict eligibility requirements and often originate from private entities that can establish any requirement they choose for clients. This means the organizations can discriminate against a specific group or people rather than upon actual need of the individual. It appears that the general food assistance program, and private substitutes, lack adequate support, and the programs do not alleviate the actual problem of impoverished people in the country.

[Buster's Uncle]

Universal Basic Income, though?

I'm speaking as someone who falls through the cracks, myself.  I'm too crazy (and uninterested in acquiring wealth and things) to put up with the crap of the world, but not crazy enough to be the police's problem.  That would be fine if I wasn't getting old and the medical system in this country wasn't so expensive and borked - but ObamaCare, despite being mandatory, isn't there for me.  I'm not on drugs, I commit no crimes - I stay home and take care of my mother, and there's just no spot in the system for me; too crazy to hold down a job, not crazy enough to get on disability.  The first time I come down with a serious case of cancer (I probably almost certainly WILL, given my dad's family history) either there goes Mom's savings entirely, or I just die.

I'd LOVE me some Universal Basic Income - but I don't know that I see how that would could work.  Dio, if I could handle the way you're treated in that sort of program, I wouldn't need it.

[Bertilak]

The medical system remains another issue in the country as well. I recognize the fact that California remains an exception as one of the states that provide Medical Insurance for indigent residents (MediCal). I also realize that many people attach a stigma towards the whole concept of mental issues because they cannot always see the issue in the same manner as a physical disability. The whole social fabric of our society alienates the different people and our society provides few alternatives that provide an adequate life for the individual. I also know many people view people on public assistance as leeches that deserve far less than a decent life. I recognize that some people will always abuse a system given the chance, but the application of punishment and oversight helps to alleviate the situation. The problem becomes a psychological and sociological issue because few people want to provide the adequate support necessary to provide reforms in the system. The application of a Universal Basic Income reveals that it could provide a basic standard of living for the group or individual that provides a gradual decline as the income of the individual increases rather than a cliff as seen in many of the modern programs. The basic income of a person would vary with county, region, and state. It would also help to eliminate the inefficiencies that remain inherent with the creation of numerous programs that target similar issues in the country. A few examples of the agencies it could eliminate or reduce include TANF, SNAP, and Section 8 housing, and WIC. The widespread application of a basic universal income would help to eliminate some of the problems our country faces with helping the impoverished.

[Buster's Uncle]

This is where my libertarian streak shows -also, any time I get within 50 feet of medical red tape and waiting rooms- I don't think what you propose, admirable as the intention is, is either workable or will have desirable results.  We're rich, as a society, but not Star Trek rich.

[Lorizael]

There are good reasons to think something like a Universal Basic Income will become inevitable, once large swathes of the population are rendered unemployable by robots, AI, etc. Yes, you can say that technological advancement has, so far, created new jobs when old jobs were destroyed, but there's no reason to suspect that's a guarantee. It could simply be a historical accident.

[Buster's Uncle]

When Fusion Power is actually now for a decade or so, we might be so Star Trek rich it won't matter what it costs - which still won't solve the fundamental bureaucratic problem...

[Rusty Edge]

No answer, because I have reservations about the "if".

With healthcare, I was pretty sure that there was plenty of room for improvement, after comparing how things were done in other European and English-speaking countries, because it seems as if they all got more results for their money than the USA.

I think one of the bigger problems with the AFA was the one size fits all/ go nationwide at once approach.

So with something that I think is less broken, I'm reluctant to nationalize, and I'd be cautious about it.

There's another reason here, and this is just anecdotal, based upon observations during the Great Recession. Losing a career because of high level decisions about what to liquidate for cash/outsource/relocate to China can really damage a person's self image. Getting passed over or turned down in job interviews can really beat a person down. I understand why with an adequate safety net, and no prospects people simply quit looking for work.

 I've also worked places where people came in simply to meet requirements of a program they were in. They quit about the time their training was completed. They wasted everybody's time.

A long term approach tied to re-location or retraining might be better than trying to keep them afloat. Sometimes they just spend their days drinking after a year or so. That would have to be tested and spread state to state if it worked.

I think the problems with this Universal Basic Income approach are 10th Amendment, potential cost/efficacy, and the idea that each new social initiative seems to be a drag on personal initiative, making people co-dependent.

I'd rather see programs consolidated and money returned to the states than this approach, but this is sort of a new idea to me.

[Buster's Uncle]

I still think the Welfare State problem is pretty fundamental to this...

[Bertilak]

No answer, because I have reservations about the "if".

With healthcare, I was pretty sure that there was plenty of room for improvement, after comparing how things were done in other European and English-speaking countries, because it seems as if they all got more results for their money than the USA.

I think one of the bigger problems with the AFA was the one size fits all/ go nationwide at once approach.

So with something that I think is less broken, I'm reluctant to nationalize, and I'd be cautious about it.

There's another reason here, and this is just anecdotal, based upon observations during the Great Recession. Losing a career because of high level decisions about what to liquidate for cash/outsource/relocate to China can really damage a person's self image. Getting passed over or turned down in job interviews can really beat a person down. I understand why with an adequate safety net, and no prospects people simply quit looking for work.

 I've also worked places where people came in simply to meet requirements of a program they were in. They quit about the time their training was completed. They wasted everybody's time.

A long term approach tied to re-location or retraining might be better than trying to keep them afloat. Sometimes they just spend their days drinking after a year or so. That would have to be tested and spread state to state if it worked.

I think the problems with this Universal Basic Income approach are 10th Amendment, potential cost/efficacy, and the idea that each new social initiative seems to be a drag on personal initiative, making people co-dependent.

I'd rather see programs consolidated and money returned to the states than this approach, but this is sort of a new idea to me.

I assume the AFA represents the local version of the Insurance Exchange for the 2010 affordable care act. If my research on the topic remains correct, than the major issue before the passage of the insurance exchanges was that people without insurance would crowd emergency rooms as a form of standard medical care and would never pay back anyone of the costs. The application of these emergency rooms as a form of standard medical passed the cost onto local and state government agencies that had to accept a patient regardless of his or her ability to pay for the costs of the procedures. I think it still occurs today but on a much smaller scale in the past. I suppose the acquisition of statistics that illustrate the costs versus the benefits of a such programs remains necessary to convince people that the benefits would exceed the costs.

[Rusty Edge]

Yes that was a major issue.

There's another that wasn't addressed very well, unless you got kicked into Medicaid- Untimely billing.
Billing can lag and trickle in for 6 months after a hospital stay or cancer treatment. By then, you can't remember what you got or how many times. You have a hard time defending yourself against erroneous billing. The medical establishment refuses to admit to errors, and what you and your insurance refuse to pay goes to collection agencies and the nightmare begins. It shouldn't be that hard in these days of computerization.

 It should be like expense accounts at work, you should submit every thing each week, and if it isn't submitted within 30 or 60 days at the outside, no
payment for it.

Anyway, my point was that I like the pilot approach of state government. I would have liked to see the "Massachusetts style plan"we got, compared to a Canadian style single payer, an Oregon style public utility commission approach, some of the European plans, etc. Maybe we would have devised and tested a hybrid system after that.

********************************************
I don't think government programs will ever compete with church sponsored food banks.

[Buster's Uncle]

I'd say available resources would turn out to be an issue.  We're a rich country, but I dunno if we're THAT rich...