[trbvm2]

Sorry to basically just negate your post but I do believe that you missed answering the last question in explaining details. The poster asked, how would the provision of basic income further turn healthcare supply in the US to a negative sum game as compared to private insurance supplemented with corporate and government benefits? Your response does a fair job of detailing some of the current issues with the US healthcare system but does not mention how basic income would make these issues worse. Would you kindly link the two for those of us who are not making the connection?

[mjevans]

You're correct, I was explaining why it was /already/ a negative sum game.

I suppose the closest parallel is what I recall hearing happened to auto-insurance rates when those became mandatory.

Another close parallel would be what would happen if everyone in the San Francisco Bay Area were to suddenly receive an additional 500 USD/month housing allowance for living in the area. I would expect occupancy prices to go up by ~500 USD and the general quality of housing anyone current has to remain the same otherwise.

[eru]

Yes, pretty much.

(And incidentally, that's a great argument for replacing almost all taxes with taxes on land rent: any extra money people have left over after paying taxes etc goes to bid up housing costs. Lower taxes and you get higher housing costs. A land tax can recover the lost revenue---and it's really hard to hide land and evade the tax.)