Universal Basic Income Advantages And Disadvantages

           In a country where healthcare is a decision, many debate if our country should keep our health care system privatized. Health care is an essential need in society because individual health can change at any time without warning at any time. While there are both pros and cons of this system, the pros outway the cons. I believe that our nation should ensure basic health care to all legal citizens, no matter the class. Many Americans fall into circumstances where they are not able to pay the expensive bills that privatized insurance companies billhave so they do not have chose to not have insurance at all. Universal health care gives those people the means of financial support when they medically need

Implementing a UBI would be a smart choice, not only for the government but for the american people. Cutting all other assistance from the government to lay down a secure base for all would reduce government bureaucracy, improve standard of living, reduce the wealth gap, contribute to better working conditions and create social capital, creating an efficient, effective society benefiting everyone

"Universal healthcare refers to a healthcare system that provides benefits to all persons in a particular country." (Definition of "Universal Healthcare Coverage", Investopedia.com). This form of healthcare is used among the richest countries, Ex. Canada and France. Other rich countries that use the Universal Healthcare system spend far less than the United States does. Although the U.S spends more on healthcare, “The U.S ranks 28th below almost all other rich countries, when it comes to the quality of its healthcare assessed by UN parameters (pdf, p.13)"(Annalisa Merreli, A history of why the US is the only rich country without universal healthcare, qz.com). These statistics call for a change. The United States should adopt universal healthcare because it would benefit business, provide equal access to healthcare, and is a human right.

When someone has health care they will feel more comfortable with going to the doctor. They could get treated for serious illnesses. Free healthcare can prevent death. Going to the doctor is very important. Getting monthly check-ups and getting teeth as well. But why would someone go to the doctor or the dentist if the simply can't afford it? Having universal health care make it more affordable to go and get checked out. Universal health care will save lives and prevent health issues and complications. This will prevent deaths and illnesses. Universal health care can be provided in many different ways such as single-payer system. Or in other ways like setting up universal health care so that a single organization so the government would be responsible for collecting health care fees and also health care payouts.

America is split in two, with one group of people saying that a universal healthcare system would benefit greatly. while the opposition claims that a universal healthcare system would do more harm than good. Both sides use rhetorical devices such as pathos and logos to prove their claim. this is done by introducing things such as world rankings and potential events that could happen.

To be or Not To be: A comprehensive in depth review addressing the various sides of providing Americans with a Universal Healthcare system and weighing its Pros and Cons.

Many Americans try to find reasons to why we may or may not have universal health care for all. Although the pro and cons list go on and on, it is understood that health care is and should be treated as a priority. It is a basic need of each person not only in the US but around the world. Despite gender, race, sexual orientation and most importantly age universal or single player health care is considered the best option for everyone. However, the debate amongst government officials is whether we employ a single player health care system or an overall universal health care system. Both systems would benefit Americans especially those who struggle to keep paying for a law that is required but maybe not so desired or financially beneficial for everyone. Being able to be realistic about this necessity becomes hazy even more so as the actual demand for professional medical associates and their services will surely increase, while the salary and compensation of those employed in this field will ultimately suffer.

Furthermore, there would no longer be as many individuals just passing through and getting access to public goods, because everyone would have a standard UBI. Through the UBI, taxes would be reduced or eliminated which would reduce this dilemma. Therefore, it would alter the distribution of collective responsibility between voluntary action and mandatory obligations. If taxes were to be reduced, individuals would most likely not voluntary pay to fund certain things. Furthermore, if taxes were a mandatory obligation then it would have to shift in a certain way so that everyone contributes to social insurance, health care policy, and anti-poverty policy. This would also go with the anti-poverty policies. It is indicated that rather than creating incentives, it would re-distribute income to individuals, minimizing ways to get ahead, and decreasing voluntary

So, in my vision of the UBI, any American citizen over the age of 21 and living below the poverty line would receive $13,000 tax-free deposited annually in his or her bank account. $3,000 of it could only be used for healthcare, and the other $10,000 is at their discretion. People who are employed will be able to benefit from this until their income collectively reaches $35,000. After that, the UBI would be taken away, as they have reached a sustainable salary. People who are unemployed would also receive $13,000; however, they would only benefit from this for 6 months so that they don't become solely dependent on the UBI, and lose motivation to seek employment. There would be exceptions for people who are unable to work. Essentially, a UBI will benefit those people in dire need of help, and will, in fact, motivate more people to join the workforce, further lowering the unemployment rate. It is time to take these invisible Americans out of the

Today, the state of our nation’s economic security is at stake; the gap between the the lower/middle class and the upper class grows wider every year, and the effects are devastating. There is, however, a proposed solution. The Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) bill offers a pragmatic fix to the poverty that plagues America’s lower class, but the current proposition has some flaws. First, lets discuss the contentions that make up the original bill.

While theories such as “trickle down economics” support the wealthy creating more wealth for the lower income levels there is more evidence elaborating the benefits of living in a country with higher economic equality. When there are higher levels of economic equality countries enjoy more political stability, better health conditions, and a better outlook on the nation and jointly, life. The following graphic and its

Citizen’s dividends, unconditional monthly grants, or free money to everyone. This is what a universal basic income (UBI) has been called in other names. The notion of a universal basic income has been literally everywhere for a very long period, at least since the aftermath of the world war I. A UBI is an income given without any strings attached to every adult and child (or in some version, only citizens) to provide at least an adequate level of resources. A basic income guarantees each citizen an income sufficient to meet his or her basic needs. The money would be given even regardless of whether the recipients are in the jobs or not. Strikingly for UBI, it is not mean-testing benefits, meaning that no family stuck in poverty traps

Universal basic income, (UBI), has become one our leading topics for a solution towards socioeconomic inequality. Billionaires such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, have advanced the idea of going through with UBI (Kaza, 2018). UBI tackles many diversity challenges our society seriously needs solutions too. However, due to the enormity of UBI, it’s important to evaluate our decision to go forward; not only finically but ethically. For governments to implement a UBI, it would take a major overhaul of their welfare and tax systems. For example, the United States would need to spend over 3 trillion dollars a year just to provide a yearly distribution of $12,000 for each person over 18. This does not include illegal immigrants or the cost of running the program. I will evaluate the potential effects and ethics of UBI on minority groups in three areas: gender inequality, social conflict and the effects of automation on the work force.

Institutional Social welfare is designed to prevent problems. “They are proactive and provide benefits or services to people before problems arise.” (Segal, pg. 39). It's a system in which one's need is accepted as normal part of social life. It is not just for the poor, but for everyone. A view that emphasizes on preventative role of social welfare of the individual is the responsibility of the social collective. The market is unable to meet the needs and goals of people, therefore, the optimal distribution of welfare is only achieved by acknowledging that there is a significant role for a publicly-funded and organized system of institutions. At my institution we focus on Service members budgets. We are designed to help service members in a time of need and future. For instance we do what we call FFP (financial fitness plan,) if we see a service member relies on us too often, we have administer an FFP. An FFP is where we add up all expenses and show the service member where their money is going and how to budget and save. I think Institutional welfare is a positive way to prevent future problems and almost everyone benefits.

Firstly, it exerts economic growth. This is because government may have the available funds and therefore spends it on infrastructural development. As infrastructural development occurs, it is in a way creating jobs in the labor force. When that occurs more investors enter into the country to invest thereby creating more jobs leading to an increase in government revenue and high economic growth. When that happens, it is more beneficial to