The UBI Illusion: Why Our Patchwork Safety Net of SNAP food stamps, section 8 and Medicaid Is Not Universal Basic Income
Donald Harvey Marks
Physician, scientist and 3rd generation veteran
13 November 2025
A common question arises when debating the merits of a Universal Basic Income (UBI): Haven’t we already built one? In the United States, over 41 million people receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Tens of millions more are enrolled in Medicaid, and a smaller subset receives housing assistance via programs like Section 8.
If we “stack” these benefits, it’s tempting to see the outline of a UBI—a system that already provides for food, health, and shelter. This perspective, however, mistakes a complex, conditional patchwork for what is, by definition, a simple, universal floor.
The current American social safety net is not a “UBI-by-default.” In fact, it can be considered the philosophical and practical opposite.
Universality vs. Targeted Scarcity
The most important, and perhaps most misunderstood, word in UBI is “Universal.” A UBI is a cash floor that Could be provided to every citizen, regardless of income, employment, or status. A billionaire Could receive the same check as a person experiencing homelessness, although I am strongly opposed to this, as I outlined in my extensive article on universal basic income for the homeless and drug addicted.
Our current system is the antithesis of this. It is means-tested and targeted.
To receive this “stack” of benefits, an individual must first prove their poverty, often through invasive and administratively burdensome processes. They must then navigate separate, siloed bureaucracies for each program. Of course, there are cracks in the system, people fall through and don’t receive benefits and there are people who receive benefits who definitely don’t need them. Also in many cities such as Seattle there are thriving markets of cash for benefit cards.
Worse, some of these “entitlements” are not entitlements at all. While Medicaid and SNAP are available to all who qualify, housing assistance is effectively a lottery. Only about one in four households eligible for Section 8 vouchers actually receives one; in many cities, the waiting lists are years long or closed entirely.
A UBI is a floor that no one can fall beneath. Our current system is a tangled web of ladders, many of which are out of reach for those who need them most. This system doesn’t create a universal foundation; it creates a “welfare cliff.” By earning one dollar too many, a recipient can lose thousands of dollars in benefits, creating a powerful disincentive to work. A number of my patients have told me they have experienced exactly this circumstance.
Autonomy vs. Paternalism
The second great divide is not just about economics, but about trust. A UBI is defined by its provision of unconditional cash. It operates on a principle of autonomy, trusting that an individual knows their own most pressing need—be it a car repair, a utility bill, or childcare. As I have pointed out elsewhere, individuals who definitely do not need a universal income such as the well off, those with adequate retirement systems, would be “expected” to opt out of the system either voluntarily or by exclusion.
Our current “stack” of benefits is built on the opposite principle: paternalism. It does not trust the recipient with cash. Instead, it provides in-kind benefits or vouchers restricted to a specific use:
SNAP: The EBT card can only be used for approved food items.
Medicaid: The benefit is paid directly to the physician or hospital.
Section 8 housing: The voucher is paid directly to the landlord.
As I have explored on my blog, www.dhmarks.blogspot.com, this debate becomes most acute when discussing vulnerable populations, such as those experiencing homelessness or addiction. The paternalistic argument is that providing unrestricted cash to an addict will only fuel their addiction. This concern, while understandable, is the very foundation of the current system: it is designed to direct spending, based on the assumption that the recipient cannot be trusted to make the “right” choice. As I point out, and it is easy for the reader to verify on their own, there are a number of cities such as Seattle that have thriving street Markets where cash is exchanged for EBT cards, and the cash directly going to drug purchase
Proponents of UBI, however, argue that this paternalism is precisely what traps people. They contend that the dignity, agency, and flexibility of cash are prerequisites for stability. A person cannot use a food stamp to pay the fee to get a copy of their birth certificate, which they need to apply for a job. A housing voucher cannot fix the flat tire that is keeping them from getting to that job.
The “stacked” system, by design, assumes it knows the recipient’s needs better than they do. UBI assumes the opposite.
Efficiency vs. Bureaucracy
Finally, there is the practical matter of delivery. The “stacked” model is a marvel of administrative inefficiency. It requires vast, overlapping, and expensive federal, state, and local bureaucracies whose primary job is not to distribute aid, but to verify eligibility—to police the borders of poverty.
This system is costly for the taxpayer and, just as importantly, costly for the recipient, who must spend enormous amounts of time and energy navigating applications, interviews, and recertifications to maintain their “stack.”
A UBI, by being universal, eliminates this entire apparatus of means-testing. The administrative mechanism would be dramatically simpler, akin to the systems already used to send tax refunds or Social Security payments, although as I point out elsewhere, those with extensive resources including property, retirement funds, pensions, hidden assets in foreign countries, would all be excluded.
Conclusion: A Different Destination, Not a Different Path
To see the 41 million Americans on SNAP as participants in a UBI is to miss the point. They are participants in a complex, conditional, and paternalistic system designed to manage poverty by subsidizing specific commodities.
It is a system built on a foundation of scarcity, means-testing, and distrust.
A Universal Basic Income is something else entirely. It is a system built on a foundation of universality, autonomy, and trust. One cannot become the other simply by adding more layers. They are not two points on a continuum; they are two different, and likely incompatible, visions for the future of the social contract.
References
The Twilight Before the Storm: From the Fractured 1930s to Today’s Crisis Culture, book review by Donald Harvey Marks
How critiques of Capitalism have evolved, by Donald Harvey Marks
You’re just another damn progressive, aren’t you? by Donald Harvey Marks
Elitists Neocons Neolibs, oh my. What are they, who are they, and why should I care? by Donald Harvey Marks
0 Comments
Comment from personal blog