• LeFantome@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    I doubt this is correct. The argument against universal healthcare was similar and provably, historically wrong.

    As UBI is not a lot per person and only goes to very low income people, the burden on the entire country is not great. And it turns out that impoverished people are a burden on the country. Alleviating that burden offsets the costs.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      As UBI is not a lot per person and only goes to very low income people

      It goes to everyone. But as it also goes to wealthy people, you can tax them more in that way, and so basically there’s no real extra expense there.

    • healthetank@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      Especially with that single-payer healthcare we have. The unit rates for things like Dr. hours or beds in hospitals are enormous. If we can cut down on the number of visits required because people have somewhere safe to live and aren’t getting injured/sick living on the street, we could save huge amounts of money. Add onto that the cost of policing and/or incarcerating them, plus the economic benefit of having downtown areas feel safer for people, thus encouraging more people to live/work/spend time in those areas.

        • healthetank@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Hospitals have to be nonprofit here, so we can’t actually have shareholder payouts.

          Executive compensation is public information in Ontario and you can look it up - often they’re paid less than Doctors in their own hospital.

          EDIT: also, unit rates are set but the insurer (in this case the govt), so its not like hospitals can charge different amounts based on internal costs.