|
It doesn't. The welfare state has been gutted, and those with sufficiently problematic mental health issues are usually left to die in the gutter and/or beg for change. But the system the US used to have, pre-Reaganomics, and which can still be accessed by those who are lucky enough to have other who can ensure their well-being on their behalf, involves placing those who are unable to fend for themselves, into organizations/homes/institutions/facilities where their needs can be met. I know an individual who is badly schizophrenic. His family has managed to handle all of his paperwork, and get him placed in a home where he is overseen, that keeps him occupied, socialized, and out of trouble, with easy and regularly (monitored) access to the treatments he needs, and which are outside of his capability to acquire for himself. (This is NO small task. Our current system makes this extremely, and intentionally, difficult) My point is, organizations such as the home he is in, could be funded through UBI (the UBI that said family member would be entitled to), instead of being paid for by a mix of his family members and the welfare state. But there will always still be a need for governmental organizations / welfare state to ensure the existence of, regulation of, and potentially subsidization of, places such as that home. I'm a huge proponent of UBI. But my point was just, UBI can replace a large % of the welfare state. It can't replace it 100%. There is still a role for government. You cannot just give people like said acquaintance money, and call the problem solved : ) |