> It seems like your argument is that we can't do it because there are a relatively small number of people who would be better off under the existing system. But by that logic we could never change anything, even if the net benefits are very large, as long as there is anyone who is better off under the status quo.

I think this is an incredibly unfair and callous assessment of what's going on with catastrophic health care coverage. It's not about "the relatively small number of people who would be better off under the existing system." It's about the relatively small number people who are alive under the existing system who would be dead under the proposed one.

That's actually an incredibly short-sighted risk calculation that intentionally weighs some unknowns as higher value than others.

For example, I can make the same kind of argument in the opposite direction: if UBI creates a disincentive within inner cities for fewer kids to become drug dealers, which creates less opportunities for violence, leading to significantly less deaths in the inner city, I think that you are making "an incredibly unfair and callous assessment" as well.

Saying that any plan that transfers risk from the current state to a different state that is potentially net better for all is to miss the point that we've already chosen a system that disadvantages SOMEONE... and to change it will probably disadvantage someone different.

We do not live in some Vulcan dystopia. The idea of essentially telling people, who are currently alive, "Yes, we can keep you alive, but by letting you die, there is some probability (which we don't really know and are just guessing at) that we can use the saved money to prevent 1.2 deaths" strikes me as the plot of a horror science fiction movie.

I am all for UBI, but like another poster said I don't think it works without universal health care if you get rid of all the other current transfer payments. It seems the author of the article agrees, but I don't see how the 3K for insurance makes the numbers add up.

> The idea of essentially telling people, who are currently alive, "Yes, we can keep you alive, but by letting you die, there is some probability (which we don't really know and are just guessing at) that we can use the saved money to prevent 1.2 deaths" strikes me as the plot of a horror science fiction movie.

People hate having to make that choice. Hate it. But that doesn't make it go away. We could make cars safer in well-known obvious ways, but they would be more expensive and use more fuel. Many, many, many lives would be saved if we immediately stopped burning coal, but electricity would be more expensive, and then maybe some people would freeze to death because they can't afford heat, or because they became unemployed and lost medical coverage. And in some cases we may even be getting it wrong, but that doesn't get you out of having to make a hard decision.

The UBI proposal in the article (one I find pretty weak, and I'm a huge proponent of UBI) is that you're getting $10k plus healthcare. So there's that.

But.

There is no part of the proposal that covers making sure coverage is equal in value to Medicare - in a private market I'm betting benefits start getting cut post-haste. UBI without universal healthcare is a nightmare, and is all but privatizing Medicare. Surprise!

Also, since children under 18 don't get UBI, they would have to be covered by their parents' $3k/annual buy. But again, privatized "universal" healthcare? No thanks.