They are elected by a population indoctrinated from birth to consider ANY sort of "dependency" a "moral hazard" (remember that whole generations would openly state they'd rather their kids starve as be someone who "took charity" People don't realize that the Predator Class is not a new thing - they've been training the mudsill to think this way since before this country existed. It's a key element of "The American Way" now, and if you don't believe in the moral hazard of helping people, well obviously you're a socialist.
Or maybe they see virtue in disciplining towards self-reliance as much as possible, regardless of the state of the world.
spoken like a man who has never seen a hardship in his life... or at least lacks perspective of what true hardship looks like. at least I hope it's just ignorance? the implications otherwise would give me concern for people (and animals) near you.
Some people need help to overcome being a bigger burden to society with the payback of being productive down the road.
I would say that a UBI that was "bare-bones subsistence level" would not be worth doing at all. Like I said, it should take the place of all other current "social safety net" programs, which would mean it would need to be something more than minimum wage plus bottom-tier healthcare. It requires a clean sheet of paper rethink of how we do all that stuff. And it would not actually be "universal," as the benefit should go down as a person's earned income goes up. It needn't be terribly complicated, but it should be rational and actually do what it needs to do.
no because you'll just dismiss it. that you consider addiction a choice rather than a result pretty much guarantees that.
-Sudden crippling disabilities, physical or mental -Your spouse unexpectedly leaving you or dying after you've put yourself in a precarious situation that's only tenable with their promised support -Addiction to opoids prescribed by a licensed and trusted physician after an injury that justified such opoids in the first place
this last one so much where I work. at least with the folks under 60 the older guys (that are still alive) with chronic pain spawned habits tend to be alcoholics/cross addicted. I'd also throw things like intergenerational poverty and childhood abuse out there, but that's where I started to realize he'd either dismiss the entire concept or fall back on "YOU DON"T KNOW A THING ABOUT ME"
The choices people make often reflect the choices they are given. Those we see as making "good choices" are more often those who were given good options.
point of order, present welfare and disability rates here are 25 and 40% of what's considered subsistence income in most of the province. During pandemic shutdowns, I was doing alright on about 2/3 of that (*subsistence income, that is) mostly due to having a rent controlled apartment and a decade old lease.
can we all take a moment to enjoy this fine virtue signal, no matter how narcissistically delusional it is?
Despite the evidence that the world doesn't work that way it's more important to point and punish than actually do things that succeed.
I would accept addiction under those circumstances, but it would be conditional on your sobriety. I’d also agree to a three strikes rule because I know that relapse is a part of recovery, but after that, you lose the money for an X amount of time.
Why that condition? I mena, we can't tell people to stop having cancer or alzheimer's or what ever. There's a lot of'em that even if you could get them clean it wouldn't make much difference. At some point the goal isn't rehabilitation so much as palliative care.
Addiction to drugs that are prescribed to you is a little more understanding than a coke head or heroin junkie.
The thing about illegal drugs is that most people that try them once or twice don't get addicted to them, and most people imagine themselves being "strong" enough to never get addicted. It's a roll of the dice. He's free to correct me, but UA seems like the type of guy to imagine he'd never get addicted to heroin or cocaine or whatever after trying it once because he's a better quality person than those weak feebleminded addicts, but he has no way of knowing if he's got the right sort of brain chemistry that's going to leave him immediately hooked.
So if you were in charge you would give yourself life and death power over addicts depending on your morally superior assessment of whether their addiction was their fault. Nice.
Many coke heads or heroin junkies end up in that situation because they were addicted to prescription drugs and got cut off, or had issues they didn't receive adequate medical support for. It's no coincidence that prescription drug abuse is more likely in those with more stable lives, and things like heroin addiction in those that started with less stability.
You probably shouldn't be so judgemental about addiction, considering you were still "hooked on phonics" only a few years ago.