Any implementation of a large-scale social issue like "universal income" would be detrimental regardless of how moral or feasible it is if implemented incorrectly. Meaning, without sufficient time, economy, and markets to support it, "UBI" would result in worse outcomes. If we decide to implement "UBI" now, I don't think it would be beneficial for many reasons. What I'm arguing is that when society reaches sufficient economic abundance, then "UBI" would be beneficial.

Right now, someone has to pay. Either healthcare or UBI, taxes are what support them right now. If we require taxes or anything else to support these policies, then the market will change accordingly and create other problems. The cost of medicine and university is increased because it's subsidized, for example. Only after we reach such production abundance that the costs are nonexistent or negligible would UBI be a good policy.

Right now it wouldn't be a good policy. However, when the market and production offer such abundance, which is inevitable unless we assume catastrophic failure, then the cost of providing "UBI" will be either nonexistent or negligible. It requires decades or even centuries, but it's inevitable. When this point is reached, it would be immoral not to provide "UBI" because it wouldn't change the market like it would if applied now. Increase in prices, for example. And also not giving people the time to adapt to a world where they don't need to do menial jobs for basic sustenance.