Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

US specific:

* 2014 total US gov't spending: $6.3T (36.4% of GDP)

* # of Americans: 314m (2012)

* Cost to provide $10,000 per year to everyone: $3.14T

* Current US military spending: $0.8T

* Current US education spending: $1T

* Basic income + education + mil = $4.94T

* $4.94T vs $6.3T


> Basic income + education + mil = $4.94T

What's the point of this? Do you think all government spending except military and education is obsoleted by basic income?

Basic income (replacing pensions, welfare, healthcare), military, education are the three most expensive government functions.

What about Medicare/Medicaid? Those are pretty much essential at this point and the $10k will not even begin to cover insurance premiums for the elderly.

Also don't forget that a huge number of the people work for the federal government and the budget you are citing includes their salaries. For a large percentage of the population, your proposal would mean poverty.

Simple math like this does not work on a system as complex as this. While I agree with the premise, your calculation is off.

1. Firing government workers in droves does not in fact lead to poverty.

Example: Release of hundreds of thousands of conscript soldiers after WWII. Many economists predicted catastrophe. This did not happen.

2. Elderly health care: You legalize private cheap insurance for the elderly. The poor elderly can use that. The non-poor elderly can get fancier coverage should they so choose.

Is cheap private insurance illegal now? Is that why my premiums are so outrageous? </sarcasm>

Insurance is not like a car: there are no luxury and budget brands. Either you can afford premiums + costs not covered or you cannot. Not going to the doctor is not an option: the physiology of a poor person is the same as that of a rich person. The treatment therefore is the same. Thus what you are proposing is basically legalizing leaving the poor behind. That was in fact how things used to work up until roughly 35-40 years ago. We then decided that it was a bad idea because the quality of care for those who had the "budget" care was so terrible that we would all be willing to pay more and not risk ending up in their shoes.

Look, I don't disagree with everything you are saying. We need to reign in spending, streamline the government, reduce the size of the military, fund more social programs and education. I do disagree with the tiered approach. Healthcare is a basic human necessity. Lots of first world governments provide it and do it better and cheap than the "free market" in the US. One day people will realize this and we will have sane care for sane prices. Until then we need the hybrid approach like the Affordable Care Act, Medicare/Medicaid, and private insurance.

An alternative would be to increase the money from $10k to $15k at some age.

>Is cheap private insurance illegal now? Is that why my premiums are so outrageous?

Yes and yes.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact