• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Medicaid recipients to get work requirements

HowardBThiname

HowardBThiname

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
10,573
Reaction score
5,173
Location
America's Heartland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
This isn't a bad idea. The people who benefit from the program will now have some skin in the game.

What do others think?

Rewriting the rules on health care for the poor, the Trump administration said Thursday it will allow states to require "able-bodied" Medicaid recipients to work, a hotly debated first in the program's half-century history.

Seema Verma, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said requiring work or community involvement can make a positive difference in people's lives and in their health. The goal is to help people move from public assistance into jobs that provide health insurance. "We see people moving off of Medicaid as a good outcome," she said.
Click to expand...

Medicaid recipients to get work requirements - ABC News
 
Not really a great idea. Most people who can work and be on Medicaid are working. If you look at the demographics, you're serving the elderly, the disabled, and their caretakers. Sure, you've got the able-to-work poor in there who arent working, but it's not a substantial amount. Lastly, if the opioid crisis is indeed a concern for states (which it is), instituting work requirements is going to be a wee bit problematic if you're also seeking treatment. Further, consider that even if you ought to be fine with your status, the placement of additional eligibility criteria carries burdens, mistakes, interagency quarrels, and so on that can make it less likely you get accepted, get accepted in a timely manner, or whatever else. It's not a quick thing people deal with.

It's something to make people thump their chest a bit, but this isn't being done with a lot of thought other than less quieter talks about how we're saving money (but not because we will be paying for it elsewhere--and for a hell of a lot more).

There's a reason why Medicaid recipients aren't fond of Verma and don't think she's got their interests or outcomes at heart.

Here's some (not exhaustive) things to consider. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/medicaid-work-requirement-would-harm-unemployed-not-promote-work
Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Just so y'all don't go off half cocked, please be aware that it'll be up to the individual states if they want to enact a work requirement.

That's a good thing, right? I mean, it's not like the Fed's are demanding this.
 
Mycroft said:
Just so y'all don't go off half cocked, please be aware that it'll be up to the individual states if they want to enact a work requirement.

That's a good thing, right? I mean, it's not like the Fed's are demanding this.
Click to expand...

That's the point, Mycroft.

You act as if we all think our state Medicaid offices and our state legislatures are swell, and we don't have to sue them.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
A work requirement would be good. Anyone eligible for employer insurance should also be dropped from Medicaid since they know have an employer option.
 
digsbe said:
A work requirement would be good. Anyone eligible for employer insurance should also be dropped from Medicaid since they know have an employer option.
Click to expand...

Again, a really stupid idea that would just screw up chunks of your workforce, deplete living arrangements, shore up the need for residential facilities and so on. I'm not surprised.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Fiddytree said:
Again, a really stupid idea. I'm not surprised.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why is that a stupid idea? Medicaid costs the state and taxpayers far too much money. It is typically one of the biggest (if not the biggest) portion of state spending.
 
digsbe said:
Why is that a stupid idea? Medicaid costs the state and taxpayers far too much money. It is typically one of the biggest (if not the biggest) portion of state spending.
Click to expand...
Because if you were smart you'd quickly realize that without it you would increase budget constraints in much more expensive venues while simultaneously getting worse per-person outcomes.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Fiddytree said:
Because if you were smart you'd quickly realize that without it you would increase budget constraints in much more expensive venues while simultaneously getting worse per-person outcomes.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, people who have employer insurance would be covered. There is no reason for a state taxpayer to subsidize someone else that is eligible for employer insurance benefits. We spend far too much on Medicaid and many people who could likely otherwise afford private health insurance take advantage of the program.
 
digsbe said:
No, people who have employer insurance would be covered. There is no reason for a state taxpayer to subsidize someone else that is eligible for employer insurance benefits. We spend far too much on Medicaid and many people who could likely otherwise afford private health insurance take advantage of the program.
Click to expand...

The people on Medicaid are often on Medicaid for service-specific reasons that private providers don't support.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
digsbe said:
A work requirement would be good. Anyone eligible for employer insurance should also be dropped from Medicaid since they know have an employer option.
Click to expand...

So, a work requirement + making it easier to kick people who work off Medicaid.
 
Greenbeard said:
So, a work requirement + making it easier to kick people who work off Medicaid.
Click to expand...

That would be a fantastic combination

Fiddytree said:
The people on Medicaid are often on Medicaid for service-specific reasons that private providers don't support.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And many are on it who should not be. I'm not saying scrap Medicaid, but it costs the state taxpayers far too much and anyone who can work and obtain employer sponsored health benefits should not be on Medicaid unless there is some disability or rare high cost health condition.
 
Fiddytree said:
That's the point, Mycroft.

You act as if we all think our state Medicaid offices and our state legislatures are swell, and we don't have to sue them.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No. I don't think that. If you have a beef with your state, deal with it.
 
Mycroft said:
No. I don't think that. If you have a beef with your state, deal with it.
Click to expand...
Why encourage bad policy with matched federal funds?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Fiddytree said:
Why encourage bad policy with matched federal funds?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's not being "encouraged". It's being left up to the state to decide if they want it or not.
 
Mycroft said:
It's not being "encouraged". It's being left up to the state to decide if they want it or not.
Click to expand...
When it was explicitly prohibited beforehand and is now allowed and touted, that's an encouragement.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Greenbeard said:
So, a work requirement + making it easier to kick people who work off Medicaid.
Click to expand...

Yup.



They'll use word salads. They'll pretend to be principled. They'll posture as if they're making "tough decisions" that need to be made. They'll do all that while not making a peep about a completely pointless tax cut package that once more overwhelming benefits the richest. Why, they probably even have "principles" about "keeping your money" to defend that too.

I just wish they would speak more honestly about it all and say what they really mean: The real goal here is simply to dismantle the safety net. "If I've got mine, screw you."

And hey, if they successfully send us back to the late-19th/early-20th century, they won't be the ones paying the price until society realizes how soullessly crappy it has been and reinstates all these kinds of policies. They've got theirs.







But I think we both know this: just like Ayn Rand - every SINGLE one of them, just like Ayn Rand - will stick their hand out and take what they can take, if/when the time comes.

(Aka, she spent her life ranting about individualism and hating the concept of a safety net. Then when she needed it, stuck her miserable snout in the trough. No doubt they have some principle for that too; if I may guess, "if it's there, you'd be a fool not to take it". OK, not a guess. I've heard one of these anti-safety-net folks actually say that).
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
When it was explicitly prohibited beforehand and is now allowed and touted, that's an encouragement.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that's how YOU see it.

To me, the government changing from "YOU WILL DO AS I SAY!!!" to "Hey...do whatever you want." is not encouragement.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, I guess that's how YOU see it.

To me, the government changing from "YOU WILL DO AS I SAY!!!" to "Hey...do whatever you want." is not encouragement.
Click to expand...
Because the press statements from the HHS about this change have been pretty indifferent....

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Fiddytree said:
Not really a great idea. Most people who can work and be on Medicaid are working. If you look at the demographics, you're serving the elderly, the disabled, and their caretakers. Sure, you've got the able-to-work poor in there who arent working, but it's not a substantial amount. Lastly, if the opioid crisis is indeed a concern for states (which it is), instituting work requirements is going to be a wee bit problematic if you're also seeking treatment. Further, consider that even if you ought to be fine with your status, the placement of additional eligibility criteria carries burdens, mistakes, interagency quarrels, and so on that can make it less likely you get accepted, get accepted in a timely manner, or whatever else. It's not a quick thing people deal with.

It's something to make people thump their chest a bit, but this isn't being done with a lot of thought other than less quieter talks about how we're saving money (but not because we will be paying for it elsewhere--and for a hell of a lot more).

There's a reason why Medicaid recipients aren't fond of Verma and don't think she's got their interests or outcomes at heart.

Here's some (not exhaustive) things to consider. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/medicaid-work-requirement-would-harm-unemployed-not-promote-work
Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

One of the requirements was "able-bodied," and to me that means having the ability to work. Take a look at this graphic from your link:

1-11-18medicaid.png


A little over 1/3 are ill or disabled, and, of course, they could not be expected to work. However the rest should be able to dedicate a few hours here or there to help contribute toward their benefits. Look at Walmart, so many of their greeters are retired -- and they seem to love having something constructive to do.

The other categories are all able to work some, and, you know what I think would be the best thing about this? That the recipient doesn't feel as though he's taking charity -- he'd feel as if he was doing his fair share. That means a lot.
 
Mr Person said:
Yup.



They'll use word salads. They'll pretend to be principled. They'll posture as if they're making "tough decisions" that need to be made. They'll do all that while not making a peep about a completely pointless tax cut package that once more overwhelming benefits the richest. Why, they probably even have "principles" about "keeping your money" to defend that too.

I just wish they would speak more honestly about it all and say what they really mean: The real goal here is simply to dismantle the safety net. "If I've got mine, screw you."

And hey, if they successfully send us back to the late-19th/early-20th century, they won't be the ones paying the price until society realizes how soullessly crappy it has been and reinstates all these kinds of policies. They've got theirs.







But I think we both know this: just like Ayn Rand - every SINGLE one of them, just like Ayn Rand - will stick their hand out and take what they can take, if/when the time comes.

(Aka, she spent her life ranting about individualism and hating the concept of a safety net. Then when she needed it, stuck her miserable snout in the trough. No doubt they have some principle for that too; if I may guess, "if it's there, you'd be a fool not to take it". OK, not a guess. I've heard one of these anti-safety-net folks actually say that).
Click to expand...

Oh come on. She did what? Accept Social Security?

Keep in mind that she paid into that program (was forced to pay), and even though she didn't like it -- she paid her fair share and hence, was due the payment in return.

But, it's interesting that you chose Rand and SS -- because that's what we're talking about here -- putting something IN the kitty, if you're going to be taking something out. At least Rand paid her fair share before she collected on her investment -- that's diametrically opposed to the way Medicaid is currently set up. But, why not set it up in a similar fashion?
 
HowardBThiname said:
One of the requirements was "able-bodied," and to me that means having the ability to work. Take a look at this graphic from your link:

1-11-18medicaid.png


A little over 1/3 are ill or disabled, and, of course, they could not be expected to work. However the rest should be able to dedicate a few hours here or there to help contribute toward their benefits. Look at Walmart, so many of their greeters are retired -- and they seem to love having something constructive to do.

The other categories are all able to work some, and, you know what I think would be the best thing about this? That the recipient doesn't feel as though he's taking charity -- he'd feel as if he was doing his fair share. That means a lot.
Click to expand...

I dont understand, How can some be "ill' and not be classified as disabled all year long?
Same with "retired" but not considered elderly
And 'taking care of home'... isnt that what every other person does?
 
I havent read the details of the program yet but I dont see any reasons (yet) why it's wrong.

There are all sorts of jobs out there (granted not necessarily well-paying). And I think it does people on Medicaid a disservice to think they dont want to work. I hope this makes it easier for them to do so.


I esp. like allowing states to try out things like this as 'pilot' programs to see how they work out. Similar to states legalizing pot.
 
Let the GOP do this. The more they dig a hole for themselves, the faster we all get the inevitable single-payer.
 
Lursa said:
I havent read the details of the program yet but I dont see any reasons (yet) why it's wrong.

There are all sorts of jobs out there (granted not necessarily well-paying). And I think it does people on Medicaid a disservice to think they dont want to work. I hope this makes it easier for them to do so.


I esp. like allowing states to try out things like this as 'pilot' programs to see how they work out. Similar to states legalizing pot.
Click to expand...

Let's be real: Only "s***hole" states will try to implement something like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom