If there is a greater (measurable) net benefit to society with Universal Basic Income vs. our socialist agenda of getting into peoples lives more directly (food stamps, healthcare, low income and child subsidies)... then who gives a damn?
If you are unaware, or lacking a deep appreciation, of what money is (fractional reserve banking) then you have little, if anything at all, to contribute to this "debate"
For example, if UBI resulted in marginally improved economic conditions by some utilitarian heuristic over a somewhat more laissez-faire system, I would probably prefer the more laissez-faire system due to the social/moral value I ascribe to greater freedom and autonomy.
I'm sure you're aware of this notion, but I figured it made a good addendum to what you said.
It would be nice to know, assuming UBI is more effective, that the redistribution is not done in a condescending way. Such as empowering people to make their own decisions and be more autonomous vs. high overhead bureaucracies interfering with peoples' lives at the micro level.
I think your expression of "greater freedom and autonomy" is in line with UBI (once again, assuming there is clear evidence that there is a net benefit and no more money leaves my wallet in either system)
While this is a reasonable argument, and why I would prefer UBI to existing welfare schemes, my definition of "freedom" doesn't include anything that you force someone else to pay for, and my definition of "autonomy" doesn't include living off the sweat of other people. They're almost antonymous, in fact.
One good case is movie ratings: by rating films for age-appropriate audiences, the MPAA solves an issue that the government could do itself, but this way prevents unnecessary overreach. If a theater permits minors to see R rated films, it is barred from playing any films associated with the MPAA, which is pretty much all of them.
The obviously bad version of this ideology is health care and health insurance, where free market incentives result in milking the state (taxpayers) while simultaneously providing a poorer quality of service at an inflated cost because health cannot be bargained with.
I don't agree with the results of the American mindset but in a way it still makes sense, just by a very narrow and cold interpretation.
It seems to me from personal experience that the quality of service in US is exemplary. I'm not disagreeing with you that the cost is inflated, just I do not readily agree with you that the service is poor. Usually when I hear about a problem in the healthcare realm, it's not a matter of poor service, rather it's a matter of inaccessible service due to the high cost. It's usually this, or something having to do with state-run healthcare, such as Veteran Affairs, or healthcare provided to prison inmates.
If there is a net benefit for the society if Healthcare is provided, will you agree with the government providing it?
First, most analyses assume that healthcare is fungible, so anyone who "has healthcare" is considered to be in the same boat. This is untrue. Most government-provided healthcare systems rank quite poorly in terms of wait times, fatality rates, etc. compared to private healthcare.
Second, it's hard to distinguish the benefit of government medical systems from the benefit of freeing the private medical system from legal red tape. For example, many people cite lower drug costs as a benefit of government medicine. This is not an intrinsic feature of "single-payer" healthcare, but rather a result of the fact that drug agencies in the US have the full weight of the patent system behind them in order to create artificial scarcity and drive up prices. In other countries, since the government both buys drugs and controls IP, the government always has the threat of removing IP rights to a drug if a company fails to provide a "reasonable" price, which simulates actual competition. One could get the same effect by changing the nature of medical IP rather than taking the drastic measure of publicizing drug purchases. That is a utility analysis I'd really like to see.
Third, one must include the utility of having a choice. There are both psychological and practical components to this, but it's better when you're not forced to pay for a service you don't want. I know how good private healthcare can be; just go to a tourist hospital in Mexico or India. Truly an awesome experience. A super easy way to get all the alleged benefits of socialized healthcare (especially affordability) is just to deregulate the shit out of hospitals. A lot of Americans are scared about that because they think deregulation is synonymous with the triangle shirtwaist factory, but it's truly a mind-bending experience how good the healthcare is in medically deregulated countries.
I suppose that you can provide sources for your claim.
> but it's truly a mind-bending experience how good the healthcare is in medically deregulated countries
If you can afford it, can the Mexican and Indian citizens afford that health care in "tourist hospitals"?
> If you can afford it, can the Mexican and Indian citizens afford that health care in "tourist hospitals"?
That's completely irrelevant. We're comparing the quality of care at the same price point. Obviously poorer people in poor countries won't be able to pay for the luxury healthcare that your average first-worlder can. They also wouldn't be able to afford the kind of socialized healthcare we could afford.
Just to give you a price point, 2 hours with a doctor (not a nurse), 2 x-rays, and an ultrasound was under $250 in Mexico. No paperwork, no waiting, no bullshit. Happy medical staff, happy patients. The exact opposite of any red-tape-encumbered first-world hospital.