UBI isn't needed now but it absolutely will be in the future, in some form.

UBI isn't even a living income necessarily, and would benefit everyone. There's already a good percentage of the population getting handouts. UBI done correctly would give everyone equal opportunity to benefit from these handouts, while still being able to work hard to rise above. It's really the best of both worlds. It would eliminate the leeches that pop out more kids to get more money or don't go to work because they can make more money being a lazy POS, while also benefiting the working class.

This whole "just work hard aka learn 2 code" BS is just as dumb to preach as the people who say we need outright socialism. It's narrow minded and that mindset just leads to people taking advantage of the system we have now. We aren't going to go more towards the "just work hard direction" which would be necessary for it to work properly. It's too late. We can however give everyone equal opportunities for success instead of catering to lazy people like we do now. UBI actually would encourage people to work harder benefit those who do more than the lazy people looking for handouts.

Your game theory is wrong. By supporting R's, you are signaling to them that their implementation of socialism is agreeable to you. And further down the slope we slide.

Imagine telling Republicans from 50 years ago that a republican president would push for the printing of trillions of dollars to hand out to private corporations.

Republicans favor massive farm subsidies. Republican states, such as Mississippi, receive the majority of welfare benefits, and you’re gonna say they are les socialist than than democrats? Negro please.

What happens when people use their UBI and purchase things that aren't healthcare, housing, food, etc. The Left will not allow that to stand, so now you have UBI plus all the previous existing welfare programs. In practical application UBI will achieve none of its stated aims and just further bloat our welfare system.

Support for farm subsidies is bipartisan (and has national security implications- it's not socialism to want to have a country that can feed itself in case of invasion). The fact that Mississippi has a lot of poor people is pretty irrelevant to what policies Republicans actually support. On pretty much every level Republicans support lower taxes, less regulation and smaller government than Democrats.

Are you really this dumb or trolling?

The NIH is the single biggest resource of medical research funding. That would not change under a single payer system as the NIH has its own independent funding stream.
Also, take a look at Taiwan. A country with a single payer healthcare system is one of the leaders in healthcare innovation.
Your last paragraph just shows your ignorance. You completely ignore the impact of preventative medicine in primary care. Go fist yourself.

Money=power

With capitalism at least some of the people have power

With communism the government has absolute power

I guess you're really just dumb. TOTAL Investment in R&D by the private sector in the U.S. dwarfs that of the NIH. You would get rid of all of that by nationalizing the healthcare system. Do you really want more people to die around the world by choking investment into life saving treatments / pharmaceuticals?

I would recommend taking a moment to look at relative innovation in terms of new molecular entities and new therapeutic biological products developed per year by country. You don't know what you're talking about.

I’m glad you and I agree that single payer healthcare is the answer.

"In the House, a bitter partisan divide over the GOP’s plan to impose stricter work requirements on millions of food-stamp recipients inadvertently created an environment in which bothRepublican and Democratic leadershelped fend off attempts to target farm subsidies."

Bipartisan support. Like I said.

Still not sure how Mississippi being poor has anything whatsoever to do with what policies Republicans support? I'm sure most Republicans would want to diminish social welfare distributed on a per person basis if possible.

Canada, a single payer country, has the second largest collection of biotech countries in the world.
China is one of the leaders in pharmaceutical research.
India is home to over 400 biotech firms.

It is you who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Why do you want to kill people by choking innovation and investment into new life saving pharmaceuticals and treatment procedures that benefit people across the globe? What's wrong with you???

It ignores the laws of the universe which states that everything lives in a hierarchy.

Socialise the NBA, everyone’s a winner. This mentality comes from the participant trophy mentality.

On a grander scale, it stop innovation because we all know that innovation comes from the innovators, not the factory workers, yet socialism would have it so that factory workers owned the company. When you stop innovation, you kill jobs and progress. The Pareto principle applies to everything, 80% of the value of the work comes from 20% of the staff, yet socialism would have it that everyone is paid the same?

Do you think Jordan would have been as great as he is if he was competing for participant trophies?

On a more sinister level, it takes the control away from you and into the hands of the “regulators” who have to govern this system.

Whereas in capitalism, you have a pyramid, a hierarchy of leadership, in socialism, you have a flat line of serfs and almighty leaders at the top who can do whatever the fk they want.

The issue is as old as time but people will never learn.

Bitch, if it wasn’t for welfare and food stamps, republicans would literally starve to death.

Man. You are just dumb.

Okay. Republicans still support decreasing welfare and food stamp access almost universally. Which I agree with.

Based on your logic the USSR hockey team would not have dominated hockey, Alexander Karelin would not have been the best wrestler ever, eastern bloc countries would never have been so successful in sports during the Cold War, eh, comrade?

Okay now do new molecular entities and new therapeutic biological products developed per year by country- you know, the objective metric of actual innovation? What country developed the approved vaccines for coronavirus?

Dude this is getting sort of sad, maybe time to call it a day and read more into what you're arguing in favor of.

Then why did they never do it when they controlled Congress and the White House? I’ll tell you why. They’d get voted out.

In 2016 Trump stole the election and become de facto president. The republicans controlled both houses. Not a single bill was put forward limiting welfare and food stamps. Hmmmmm

Why not both? People who don’t want to sell their house to pay for their overpriced medical bills can go to the national healthcare and people with money can go private.

Yeah but we've already discussed how democracy is about the lesser of two evils. They did less to increase taxes and welfare than if the Democrats were in power. Therefore I vote for Republicans.

We have both in the United States. Those who can't afford it participate in Medicaid, and those that can afford private health insurance receive care in the private sector.

No problem, f*ckface.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

Results. The United States accounted for 42% of prescription drug spending and 40% of the total GDP among innovator countries and was responsible for the development of 43.7% of the NMEs. The United Kingdom, Switzerland, and a few other countries innovated proportionally more than their contribution to GDP or prescription drug spending, whereas Japan, South Korea, and a few other countries innovated less.

Conclusions. Higher prescription drug spending in the United States does not disproportionately privilege domestic innovation, and many countries with drug price regulation were significant contributors to pharmaceutical innovation.

Hi tired of losing yet?

I'm pretty sure sports in communist countries was run on a purely capitalist model- the best got promoted to the national team.

Yikes dude talk about contradicting your own argument.

No. You said Republicans favor reigning in welfare yet do nothing of the sort when they have all the power. Go fist yourself.

You’re the one who brought up sports and Jordan. I just owned your ass. Now you have nothing to say fool.

A sedated society. Look at Canada.

Cool study bro but you've missed the point. Even if proportionally we are only slightly more efficient per new drug (more available capital means more risky R&D takes places with less potential for return), our high levels of investment STILL LEAD TO MORE NEW INNOVATIONS AS A WHOLE.

Let me break this down for you because it seems like you're a bit slow. We could have a socialized system, and more efficiently develop fewer new medical innovations (i.e. lower hanging fruit) and MORE PEOPLE CAN DIE because we did not allocate those extra resources to develop new drugs...or we can have a capitalist system which slightly more efficiently develops more drugs.

Let me know if you're still confused and still want to advocate for a system which IS EVIL AND KILLS MORE PEOPLE.

Nah I didn't. You're really losing it lol.