I know many democrats like to deny that lazy moochers exist, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume the lazy moocher does exist.
This is someone who is healthy, young, and capable of working but simply goes… nah f work.
Are you okay with these type of people getting kicked off healthcare and government benefits?
These type of people deserve nothing. Agree?
First off your question doesnt deserve an answer from the get go because you frame it with a strawman fallacy. This reveals that the entire premise is disingenuous and this is likely an attempt at a "gotcha."
No one has ever said that lazy people do not exist:
From there you're essentially making the classic anti-UBI argument, or suggesting that social support is something that needs to be deserved. In order to make this point you must invoke the "lazy man" trope. As a leftist I'll tell you, first there are no more lazy incompetent people than the Comfort Class. Most of whom are CEO's of some sort who "run" Companies that can function without them, and socialize continuous failures with Governnent subsidies. I'm WAY more concerned with corporate welfare fraud and abuse than I am with individual, and anyone genuinely making this argument should also be, especially considering it's about to get much worse.
Now, even if this situation were true to scale, the idea behind policies like UBI, Medicaid 4 All, is not that there wont be people who benefit who are "undeserving"...its that abject economic ruination due to disinvestment and/or wealth hoarding is morally wrong, and that economic support that bolsters communities in a baseline level so they never completely crumble is morally and fiscally more responsible. Atomization, hyper-individuality, and ethno-Nationalism have done a good job of isolating the American mind so all we think about is ourselves more and more, and disdain grew for the very idea of the "welfare King/Queen"...however what this fails to examine is the economic decimation that happens. When Andy Yang talked to Joe Rogan about UBI, Joe focused on people who "dont deserve" free money. Yang told him not to think of it like that, but to think of it as injecting $6 million into a small community. What does he think happens? People start businesses. Creativity flourishes more. People do drugs less because they're not crushingly depressed. Consumer spending stays fairly steady. Covid proved this, and so did every economic study that has examined what happens when you just give people money, if money is what you require for them to exist. Same with health care. Giving people health care results in many more people going to the Doctor, and living longer, than if you base their health care on some misguided notion of whether or not they even deserve it. It's better for communities and the Country to have less abject poverty, and less people choosing not to treat their cancer because it will economically ruin them. It's also better to not entertain these arguments from anyone who thinks adding $3 trillion dollars to our debt is a good idea after having screamed "National Debt!!!" for the last 4 years.
