Hey RoamingMillenial! I'm 16 years old subscriber from NYC and I love you and your content! I have a…

Hey RoamingMillenial! I'm 16 years old subscriber from NYC and I love you and your content! I have a few questions and suggestions revolving social safety net. Firstly, have you ever heard of Singapore's universal healthcare? It's really hard to condense what it is, but it involves government subsidies based on income (the rich pay about as much as private healthcare) and a compulsory medical savings account. Secondly, how would you reform welfare? I am not entirely keen on UBI, and I am not entirely against welfare either especially for severe disabilities. However I believe the government should instead assist in outreach programs to help low income families find access to jobs, childcare, and education. Welfare checks has only lead to a cycle of poverty and child neglect because their environment conditions them that it is impossible to get out. I understand because this is my neighborhood in South Jamaica, and I go to school with other at- risk kids in South Bronx who finish high school until 20.

Hi there, thanks for the support!
I used to live in Singapore, and am somewhat familiar with its healthcare system. I doubt the US will ever move to a completely free-market system since the push for universal coverage is as strong as ever, so I think the most we could hope for is a system that uses both private and public providers.
In terms of welfare, I am 100% against UBI, but am open to welfare for disabilities that prevent people from working. Not this "I hurt my back 5 years ago and now I can never work." Actual disabilities that render people physically unable from contributing.
Personally, I think that a lot of the charity programs people want to see government involved in now should really be the responsibility of churches, communities and private charities instead of the state.

2

Indeed, I think the government has taken on duties it never should have; private charities and churches (which may be repeating myself, to a degree) have done these things for ages, and should be the first things people think of when seeking such help. You'd be hard-pressed to get me in favor of any government largess program, but I am willing to take incremental steps back to pulling the government out of things. The trick behind getting some libertarian speakers to back universal basic income is the promise that, if we went to it, we'd eliminate the various redundant welfare programs out there and expect people to just make use of that. There is some sense to that. It'd probably be cheaper than the mountains of bureaucracy currently in place, and it would eliminate a huge chunk of the Left's power to control people by removing their ability to keep the poor from doing anything to pull themselves out of poverty by removing their benefits.

The downside being that it's a new entitlement, and you know the Left would just sneak back in and create bureaucracy around it again, or new bureaucracies with new programs. We'd have to be aggressive about pruning it back and back until it wasn't something people depended on.

The fact that just giving everybody some $10,000 to buy insurance with would have been actively cheaper and covered more people than Obamacare is and has done is a sign as to the true purpose behind these kinds of programs: they have nothing to do with helping people and everything to do with controlling them.

Whether to support a UBI with the promise that it won't combine with anything else and will eliminate the other government programs or not is a tricky question. Can a path to slowly extricating the government from this be laid out if we do? If not, it isn't the right move.

false