[jetblackio]

I like this idea, but one issue I see is that, while 95% of people could use an extra 10k, the real cost of welfare comes from those few who have major medical needs, and that 10k would do nothing for them, at least as currently outlined here. There are always going to a portion of society who will need a disproportionate amount of financial assistance, and this doesn't seem to take that in to account. It seems likely that after problems arise, we would implement some other form of welfare on top of this program, and wouldn't have really gained anything.

That's my quick assumption anyway.

[rjsw]

I don't see how basic income can work without also providing free healthcare.

[seanflyon]

Which would invalidate most of the reasoning in the article.

[justizin]

"It seems likely that after problems arise, we would implement some other form of welfare on top of this program, and wouldn't have really gained anything."

I think a lot of people who would benefit from basic income and who may leverage it to get themselves into a stronger earning position would disagree with you.

Basic income is not just 'better welfare', it's a system in which people do not have to rely on employment to satisfy maslow's hierarchy.

Of course we should also have universal health care.

[baddox]

> the real cost of welfare comes from those few who have major medical needs

Are large per-person medical expenses a significant portion of total US welfare spending? Do you have a link to that data?

[devilshaircut]

This isn't the metric you are looking for, but I believe the basis of this argument hinges on the proposition that financial need for medical expenses varies from demographic to demographic. I believe this is trivially demonstrated (statistically and from a common-sense standpoint) by looking at different age segments. Older people (baby boomers come to mind now) certainly do need more healthcare than younger people as a product of aging. Citation from 2008: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/why-does-us-hea...

Does that mean they would deserve a greater financial allowance? That is for the person designing the policy to decide; the article suggests no. I offer no opinion on this.

My main question is ... having read the article, I don't actually see the libertarian argument here at all. It seems to say it is simply "more libertarian" than what we currently have (with supporting arguments like "smaller government", "cheaper overhead", etc.) - but ultimately, the spirit of this proposal doesn't seem to be in line with these values at all.

[lutorm]

It seems to say it is simply "more libertarian" than what we currently have ...

How is making something more libertarian not in line with libertarian values? Basically half the article seemed dedicated to explaining why this is a change in the direction libertarians would want.

[devilshaircut]

It really isn't with respect to libertarian values in particular; all I am saying is that in a given scenario regardless of Ideology A, a watered down form of Ideology B that is closer to Ideology A does not necessarily represent the values of Ideology A - it is just closer on the spectrum.

[seanflyon]

I don't have the data, but I would be quite surprised if it were not the case. Having your appendix taken out cost on average $33,000 (and up to $180,000) in California. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-appendix-surgery-costs-dif...

One expensive procedure, a few days stay in a hospital or some expensive drugs and you are way past the average yearly expenditure.

[innguest]

Always this argument.

It is only that expensive right now because of the way credit, loans, and debt work and are tied together with guarantees provided by the government (same reason why college tuition goes up when the government guarantees student loans).

Removing an appendix does not inherently cost $33k. Competition is there to lower prices, but when the government provides ulterior incentives, then it trips up the normal flow of the market.

[seanflyon]

I am certainly not suggesting that removing an appendix inherently costs $33k. Could you perhaps explain the argument you are refuting so that I can understand the context of your post?

[innguest]

> while 95% of people could use an extra 10k, the real cost of welfare comes from those few who have major medical needs, and that 10k would do nothing for them

> Are large per-person medical expenses a significant portion of total US welfare spending?

> I don't have the data, but I would be quite surprised if it were not the case. Having your appendix taken out cost on average $33,000 (and up to $180,000) in California.

And then I said:

We can't say "10k wouldn't cover costs for the 5% of people that will incur huge medical bills" because those huge medical bills only happen today, in a time where the government has the health system set up in such a way as to make all their proceedings exceedingly expensive.

In a free market, goods are cheaper than in a heavily regulated market.

So what I am refuting is the anachronism of considering the current costs of health care in a future where health care would operate in a free market. And I'm refuting it by saying, it's expensive now because of regulation that wouldn't exist in a free market.

[seanflyon]

I can't find where you said:

'We can't say "10k wouldn't cover costs for the 5% of people that will incur huge medical bills" because those huge medical bills only happen today, in a time where the government has the health system set up in such a way as to make all their proceedings exceedingly expensive.'

But now that I know what you are talking about it seems reasonable that removing government subsidies might reduce the total cost of health care. I am however, not as optimistic as you are. We have a free, but regulated market and in that market things are extremely expensive even when government money is not involved. It seems unrealistic that prices would drop by a factor of 2 simply by removing government payments and even a factor of 2 would not fix the problem that we are talking about.