Why we are even having this discussion is pathetic. Why some people don't want to help others, even hurt others is pathetic. I guess there are just a lot of pathetic people out there or we wouldn't even be talking about this.
9
We need to ask over and over again: What is the Republican Party of today and how could they put a vulgar ignoramus like Trump in the White House.
The first answers seem to be that the Republican Party is now owned and controlled by a group of wealthy corporate fascists. You all know the names, Kochs, Mercers, Adelsons, Murdochs..people with billions who want even more money and power at the expense of the rest of the nation. The have financed the capture of state legislatures and governorships with dark money. These GOP controlled states have gerrymandered and suppressed voting on a massive scale. This is not by chance, ti was carefully engineered and deliberately executed.
Trump's plan to hurt the poor i not his plan. He doesn't plan anything. He is a sounding board for the Republicans who put him in office. When obscenities spew from Trump's mouth insulting other nations, that is the voice of the Republican Party we hear. When people are put on the streets to dies for lack of health care, they are put there by the Republican Party. The GOP is not a political party any longer - it is an action committee to steal from the poor and middle class to fill the pockets of the super-rich while conning the low education white voter. They have no shame only bottomless greed.
11
Next step for Trump will be to declare that any American who is not a CEO of a bigly corporation will have their citizenship revoked and be deported. No losers alliwed.
Some will be allowed to stay if they agree to work for free.
3
...So in an overstretched, overloaded, overpriced, health system, denying people care for medical conditions over which they have no control is OK? While giving yourself tax cuts and ignoring everything from the Constitution to basic human rights. This is a Third World/red state policy, with ALEC's filthy, corrupt, sycophantic, human-hating signature all over it.
Just one thing - Enjoy the misery of others while you can, GOP. You may have no more than 10 months before this drunken party of rich peasants comes to a final, permanent, end.
7
This is how they intend to cut back on social programs after their frivolous tax cut.
5
The ultimate goal of all such policies, and there are many, vacillates between keeping poor people and people of color so severely repressed that they can be eliminated from society whenever the "need" arises, versus simply killing them outright, along the lines of Jonathan Swift's “A Modest Proposal.”
Requiring the poor and the sick to work in order to have health insurance is just one more nail in their coffin.
2
So now demanding that people who rely on the rest of us to survive actually get a job is a bad idea in Progressive circles?
2
This all smacks of the recently disbanded Voter fraud committee, it too will fall flat on its concrete heads.
1
The big picture is starting to take shape. Restricting immigration and increased ICE deportation will result in available food production and farm labor jobs; jobs available in states like Kentucky.
1
The best solution I can see is to give healthcare from cradle to 18. At 18, you are required to work until age 60 with insurance. At 60, you can retire with no insurance and no health care. And let nature take its course.
That would save on most health care as palliative care is the most expensive.
If you are born with a disability, you are covered. If you develope one, there is no coverage. This would include heart disease due to poor diet and lack of exercise, Type I diabetes, any form of drug addiction and all medical problems arising from it. Any injuries resulting from an accident will not be covered unless it is proven it was not your fault.
And I'm paraphrasing our president when I say that veterans are also not automatically covered because we value soldiers who don't get shot or caught.
That will bring health care down substantially and the Blonde-haired, blue-eyed Norwegians will flock to our shores.
1
Most of the people upset here love Habitat for Humanity which requires that people help build their house and homeless shelters which require long term residents to help/work at the shelter. I don't think there is anything wrong in asking able bodied adults to give back to society so long as they have the option to do volunteer work and not just be wage slaves. We need to get past this idea that some people are exempt from participating and contributing to society.
1
I'm wondering if the woman put out on the street in Baltimore - at night - in the cold - BY the hospital - wearing only a hospital gown and socks has any insurance? Any Medicaid? Did Maryland expand Medicaid when offered?
Heartless and cruel.
2
Proverbs 30: 14-14 :
There are those whose teeth are swords, whose teeth are knives, to devour the poor from off the earth.
3
Love is hate. War is peace. The rich are poor.
It's amazing that Trump is using the themes from Orwell's "1984" without likely ever reading the book, nor even knowing who George Orwell was.
6
Somebody should point out to Republicans that the country is now "distinguished" by declining life expectancy, unlike any other advanced economy and almost all "other" economies in the world.
All of the decline is coming from men, mostly white men over the age of 40 (the key Trump demographic). Cutting down on the number of consistent Republican voters would seem counter-productive to Republican strategy.
Republicans do not do evidence based policy-making. Knowing that healthier people are more likely to seek and hold jobs than those who are sick or moderately disabled should, by itself, be persuasive. But it is not. Perhaps the idea that this is another type of Gerrymandering--this time against Republican voters may be more persuasive. Or not.
This is Trumpian nonsense, a world-view that is warped and out of focus. I worked with people who received Medicaid for many years. The majority were elderly and disabled. Many were children and most of the rest were either disabled or mothers who had to stay home to take care of their children. These mothers often had no transportation, few job skills and no nearby places to search for employment, living in rural areas at least 10 miles from any stores, factories, or other places of employment, except for limited-time farm work a couple of months a year.
I believe the real purpose of this horrid rule is to remove people from Medicaid rolls and discourage them from applying for Medicaid. As the article says, those who have good medical care are in a better position to find jobs. It only makes sense. In order to work, one must be healthy enough to show up.
2
I pay six hundred bucks a month for medical care.
4
Given the way that all of our 'help the poor' programs are being scammed, something has to be done.
3
So in other words, it's like helping the indigent by translating them bodily into a state from where they may finally see heaven...the self-justification in its naked sophistry is precisely what the Nazis used to justify the wholesale destruction of target populations during WWII, as if by killing them they were doing them a favor.
5
Republicans are the slum lords of America.
9
Guess they want able bodied adults to work those wonderful jobs the Haitians , Nigerians, Salvadorian , and Trumps favorite whipping boy , the Mexicans . Maids , fruit pickers , chicken pluckers , gardeners , etc . There may be a method to his madness yet .
3
There's an old saying that pres hair-do could adopt...
"Arbeit macht frei"
4
I'm waiting for the GOP to roll out their euthanasia program… complete with for-profit centers run by their cronies.
8
Euthanasia programs should be available to all of our very elderly, very sick who can't stand the pain of daily life, have made their peace, and want to leave when they want to leave, not when medical science fails and lets them linger.
What kind of depraved mind would want to deprive people of health care?
9
Lets not forget many of the Medicaid recipients are full and part time Walmart employees. So my question to the senators and congressman who are pushing this issue is , what are the dollar amounts your campaign war chests have received from Walmart's lobbyists?
12
Walmart just raise the minimum wage for all their employees and is giving the a bonus of up to $1,000 from the tax break that the republicans and Trump just passed!
1
The Liberal plan to hurt the middle class by pretending to help them...
1
I’m not sure what you mean.
1
I kept thinking in terms of shame, but humiliation is accurate too. The people this applies to are simply invisible to wealthy Republican lawmakers.
7
There is NO emphatic connection between the wealthy few and the majority of vulnerables who rely on the kindness of strangers or the federal government to help them out of the hell of their despair and fraught lives. There is no love in Washington for those who need our help. We are ruled by the Grinch, the legacy of of nobility and socioeconomic stratification. Read Leviathan. Under the ruse of universal threat with the necessity for an almighty military and a strong central government. Hobbes offered the rational for the current strong military industrial complex that has no room for compassionate strategies to help the poor and disadvantaged. That we have a grotesque version of that now ensconced in the White House epitomizes this radical reality. Trump promised the many that he would represent them and address their grievances. Instead, he is an instrument for the few to further consolidate power amongst the ultra wealthy. This is a story old as time in which the mighty rule and the peasant, the rest of us suffer.
3
This is the death committee, a fiction invented to hurt Obama, the real death committee of the Republican zombies.
1
Trump uses switch and bait all his life. To claim that you did not know is like those post war Germans who claim that they did not know the the concentration camps were killIn fields.
Come on America, wake up now. You have a cancer growing at the White House. It is metastasing to the whole society. It must be stopped. The whole world is watching.
4
Republicans have long conducted war against “the undeserving poor”. Yes, there are scofflaws but as your statistics indicate they are a small percentage of those receiving benefits. What do these Republicans think of the giant blood sucking squid known as financial speculators who have cost this country trillions over the last generation starting with the savings and loan debacle through the 2007 financial collapse and ongoing leeching while producing no exportable products of value to society.
4
"You're gonna have great health care!" Donald J. Trump
3
The Dicksonian GOP.....who have campaign financiers who love to hate the
poor, the needy, the destitute.....How can Paul Ryan face his constituents;
How can McConnell not be worried that his name is as good as garbage in
the poorest towns in Kentucky...How can they not worry that history will damn
them ALL !!!
5
American exceptionalism: how to treat your citizens like low-life scum. Look at any other developed country and you will find solidarity and minimum healthcare needs covered.
1
Yep, God forbid you have to work for free stuff. Cue the outrage.
6
God forbid that you yourself, RJ, might ever be sick enough that you can't hold a job, and therefore have no insurance. The article makes clear that getting low income people insurance first helps them to be able to work. It's a smart investment for the country to make sure everyone has minimum health coverage and can concentrate on other things without going completely broke.
6
At last! The voice of reason! Thanks!
Okay, let's just admit that this country is only for white people, preferably men, with jobs and the 1%. The fact that you may be ill, poor, a person of color, disadvantaged equals your complete irrelevance. Is there any surprise in this? Really? How in the world could there be a surprise here. This is who this man is with no appologies. And his base loves it. Read Charles Blows column from yesterday to understand why Trump's racist ideology lifts up "the lowest white man" who resents all those Trumps racism seeks to disenfranchise.
3
But her emails...
3
Did Jimmy Brunson vote for Trump? Will he be angry?
I do not expect Republican law makers to have any self-respect and sense of duty to oppose this insane and vulgar President only to protect thier own political future and to exploit their uneducated or semi-educated (mostly religious bigots and white supremacists) vote bank in deep red states.
I hope, just hope, those hereditary political allegiance there will eventually understand how they are destroying thier own future and holding the whole nation at ransom by thier choice of law makers- hopefully before November this year.
I do not expect GOP lawmakers would do anything, just anything to this president- even if it's proven that his campaign was/is colluding with the Russians and leaking American secrets (military or business or otherwise) to those Russians.
3
I am middle class now but come from poor, uneducated roots. So many of the poor people I've known have gone without social services because a) they are too ashamed to seek them out b) don't consider themselves "poor" unless they are living on the street c) are unaware of such services d) do not have all the paperwork necessary to show evidence of need e) they believe being down on one's luck means shifting the burden to other poor family members rather than the government (even though they and their other family members have worked and paid taxes for a social safety net) and f) are too ashamed to get a diagnosis for a mental condition that would show that they are disabled and unable to work.
If the ignorant privileged ONLY KNEW how many truly poor people are already going without "entitlements" in this country! But they still wouldn't care... because when you are ignorant and privileged you need to believe in your own fine breeding and superior intellect, your own "hard work" and "grit." When you're privileged, success means you aren't lazy and stupid like the rest of 'em; you're not just another mediocre slob who won the lottery of life.
9
"The poor and the needy are selfish and greedy "
- Morrissey
1
It's shocking how anti Christian the American church has become, supporting this party, this greed, breaking the basic, simple, commandment to heal the sick.
7
The War on Logic - alive and well in the Trump White House.
4
The title of this article should be:
Being a Democrat: Plan to Hurt the Poor, while Pretending to 'Help' Them
1
We’re heading down the gangplank to “Soylent Green”! Please vote to replace the Congress and hold these cabinet heads and their flunkies feet to the fire in hearing after hearing after hearing. And make representation in the house equal in all states (450,000:1 (Wyoming vs 650,000 :1 in New York, New Jersey, California etc.).
3
"Let me see.... to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor we need to further enrich the rich and further impoverish the poor".... said the Mad Hat(t)er to Alice... "and we should unburden the unburdened, so they will be free to unburden themselves, and burden the burdened, so they will work harder and get stronger to carry the unburdened".
"I'm confused", said Alice. "Exactly and Precisely" said the Mad Hater... "Welcome to Wonderland..."
6
Nice smackdown of the wretched immorality of the Republican Party.
2
The only losers here are the hospitals which are reimbursed by Medicaid for providing healthcare to the poor. Thank you.
3
Are there people who 'game' the system? Sure there are....just look at our 'gamer-in-chief'.
6
Trump is not only a racist, he belongs in the 14th century when millions died of the plague and no one helped the poor.
To want to deny Medicaid to eligible citizens, our cold-hearted president shows himself to be exceedingly ignorant, cruel, and utterly lacking in empathy for anyone but himself.
3
Trump certainly is a man "of the people" . . . wealthy people. When he said, "The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer . . ." what he meant was the wealthy, who were paying (in his opinion) too much in taxes. As for those lazy bums on Medicaid, to borrow a line from "The Big Lebowski", "Get a job sir!" That is Donald's idea of "draining the swamp".
3
How does one "pretend" to help someone? By declaring over and over that if you like your doctor you can keep him or her? By lying and saying if you like your plan you can keep your plan? Spare me.
The Medicaid con is just one more example of the depraved intellectual dishonesty offered by Republicans led by the Liar in Chief in the White House.
I honestly shudder to think what might constitute a lower bound to their ulterior motives and indifference to their fellow citizens.
Meanwhile, the President blatantly enriches himself by exploiting the office and Republicans are content to let him continue to do so. This truly is a crisis of identity, of what America is about, brought to a boiling point by the right=wing disinformation machine.
4
The ONLY thing we have in this so-called president is a maniac that is in desperate need of psychiatric attention. The constant aberration of the truth,
and self-contradiction is awful.
I cannot imagine the level of chaos that goes on in his head!! The chaos he causes in this country upends the business of the congress and the functioning of America. ENOUGH!!!
2
Executive Branch 'Trumpublicans'- working hard to open up new cracks for struggling Americans to fall through.
10
It’s “the Art of the Con”.
This guy only cares about himself folks.
4
Well they won't be reading this. Duck hunting season.
2
How to fix Trump AND America: Make Obama President, Again.
Thanks, GOP. November.
4
This is part and parcel of Trump's racist agenda. This is not about work. It is about people of color whom he perceives as "takers," as Ayn Rand would have it.
This is going to read like one of those lame "One of my best friends is a [fill in the blank]" statements, but I know some Republicans who not racist. Perhaps there are even some non-racist Republicans in Congress. It is past time for them to step up and save their party from another 80 years of inability to attract votes from people of color. At the same time they can rid the country they profess to love of this racist, sexist, misogynist, nativist, childish narcissist using the 25th Amendment.
3
Nothing is Trump's plan because he never had a plan except to preen and strut in front of his adoring base. As Bannon once pointed out before his fall from grace, Trump is an empty vessel, a useful idiot to sign whatever Republicans put before him. The heartless GOP is the real culprit here, and what it does can be undone when the Dems take over Congress. Until then, as a London tabloid once captioned a picture of Queen Elizabeth dancing with Idi Amin at a Commonwealth conference, "Grit your teeth and think of England."
2
According to Paul Ryan’s definition, this so called president is a racist.
What do expect from a racist?
Policies like this.
3
This is racism pure and simple. I heard some head of medicaid on NPR talk about how this was all about trying to help people improve their health and how cost wasn't really the issue. I had to laugh. Kentucky? Arkansas? Indiana? You gotta be kidding me. This is about not wanting to give money TO THOSE PEOPLE because, well, you know, they are just lazy moochers. This isn't a dog whistle, it's a welfare queen aria about racism.
3
You give Trump far too much credit. He does not have a plan. He pirouettes from one shiny distraction to another with nary a thought.
At best he's just a laughable buffoon. At worst he's in sync with a decades old push by the GOP to punish those who are insolent enough to become sick or disabled.
2
Jesus would not like this policy.
3
Hannah, Jesus would have told people they should get a job and stop whining!
1
Sickening. Literally.
2
Yes, sick people should work or just die. Makes sense to Trump and the Republicans. What would Jesus say?
2
Hopefully the GOP voters will wake up from their GOP induced Kool-Aid coma to come out this year and vote those bums out of office. The ones, that is, who aren't already running for the hills by retiring or not running again.
2
Prosperity Politics. If you aren't Rich, you don't deserve anything. Just stop whining. Right, GOP???? Remember in November.
2
I took the time to read the Medicaid letter to the states to see what the Federal government actually said. I used to be able to count on the NY Times to faithfully report the facts without political slant but those days are long gone.
https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/smd18002.pdf
The minimal exceptions, so claims the Times, "like exempting people who are pregnant, disabled or caring for family members" is, no surprise, incomplete.
The CMS letter states, among other things, "States will have the flexibility to identify activities, other than employment, which promote health and wellness, and which will meet the states’ requirements for continued Medicaid eligibility. These activities include, but are not limited to, community service, caregiving, education, job training, and substance use disorder treatment."
So the editorial's comment about denying Medicaid to those "struggling with opioid addictions" is, simply stated, false. A lie. More fake news.
Why does the NY Times choose to distort the contents of the CMS letter to the states? If the NY Times is in favor of an ever expanding welfare state -- simply state your belief. Why actively distort the news to fit your narrative?
7
Read it carefully. The requirements are obligatory, the exceptions are optional. This means, without a state's active effort, the list of exceptions is as stated by The Times.
4
In all honesty the GOP and most of it's members seem to be the party for people who have a chronic lack of empathy.
The ability to feel and internalize another person's pain makes us human. Republicans as a group seem to lack that ability.
My best high profile example is Dick Chenney who is fine with gay people because his daughter is a lesbian. Otherwise he'd be leading the charge to stone them to death.
This person in the Oval Office is the pinnacle. If it isn't about him personally, it's meaningless.
25
Yet we give more to charity than the Dems do....
I've got a better idea than the President's. Let's put income from ALL sources into the same category--no special treatment of investment/interest income, for example--just for fairness' sake and tax it at an ever increasing scale, until we reach the 90% level, the result being that all an individual's income is subject to the graduated tax, after deductions for agreed upon costs of living. We wouldn't even be having this discussion.
As things are, I have to watch citizens who are the most financially blessed exit the progressive chart most of us are locked into, perhaps to off-shore their gazillions or find other complicated, legal machinations that help them avoid paying back into the country to the same degree that they have benefited. And then, climb on their high horses and deny the most basic needs of life to the disabled, the sick, the unemployed. Just put a human face to this. This is not a definition of democracy.
12
Of course conservatives/Republicans are concerned about the "welfare for the able-bodied," and MedicAid recipients gaming the system. They expect that everyone else to behave the way that they do.
Set a thief to catch a thief.
6
Let's speak from a truly heartless alt-right perspective here to the truly heartless alt-right out there and see if it gets through to anyone:
If you refuse health care coverage to the poorest among us, millions more people will walk around with communicable diseases in shopping malls, on sidewalks, on subways, cleaning your homes and offices. Do you really want a ton of people spreading disease in public places, coughing, sneezing, spewing germs everywhere? And do you really want to do that now, when your president* has cut funding to the center for disease control, which valiantly tries to protect us from antibiotic-resistant diseases? Really? Do you understand that superbugs are not actually 'super' and your hatred won't protect you from catching deadly, untreatable diseases?
Is that what your utopia looks like - is that what your evangelical UN-Christ-like vision of America is - is that how completely shortsighted you are?
Also on this day of bad news - this day after Trump's blatant racism again destroys any notion of decency - is the announcement of education secretary Betsy Davis's financial ties to the new college loan sharks just selected by her office - as she seeks to discourage even more noteworthy people from getting a college education, digging themselves out from their college loan debt, and rising up to challenge the GOP.
I'm in NO mood, people. This is awful.
17
My friend, you’re expecting too much from that bunch. Thinking is not their strongest suit.
2
Well said!
2
Saint Ronald Reagan taught us that the Poor must be punished and beaten till they mend their ways and become rich.
12
Jesus was big on kicking the poor when they're already down...
What a sick society the US has become - but it's worse than that - because the US sickness has badly infected our own Australian body politic, too. I want to be able to say - with the journalists in The Netherlands to the newly appointed US Ambassador Boekstra - that here is different - that in Australia, too - politicians and their appointments have to answer questions. (None of this evasive: I've said all that I am going to say - I am not going to revisit that - any other questions?) What a cop out - and what a frightened little man was Boekstra. The Netherlands would be quite correct to send him home to the Baby-in-Chief Donny - and ask for a real man as Ambassador to their nation. Oh, and don't send Boekstra to us here in Australia!
8
Is there any humanity left in the Republicans party or has it gone the way of everything else?
15
First, I must be in the wrong State here. New York's income limit -- for one person blind, disabled or 65+ -- is $9,900.
Then, how many saintly employers out there would hire the folks who qualify for Medicaid before they'd give the job to a fully healthy, angst-free candidate?
How many of those nincompoop lawmakers know what it is to be unemployed and essentially unemployable?
10
The only Medicaid recipients I've met that I knew as such were all in doctor's offices, and I would guess that none of them would qualify as employable.
2
Health care is a human right. period.
Denying access to said human rights is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. ( just like radical right wing republican governments are using the fullest extent of their power to dissuade, harass and kill people by denying them said health care )
Go ahead moderators ~impress me that you will publish this.
7
Again, policy not based on evidence collected data. And since it's Trump and his Republican backers, we also must assume it's racist, to further punish the poor who are more likely to be people of color.
6
This is the classic Republican Trumpian con game. Trickle=down tax slashing for the super-rich followed by putting the poor and sick in their place by cutting every possible social program imaginable. It is a con game supported by hypocritical religious fundamentalists who claim to care about the poor and the weak. It is supported by uneducated white workers who buy the hogwash about making America great (Translation: hating people of color and immigrants). These are the same people who will pay heavily for backing Republican fraud. Even without Bannon, Trump is the cover for deconstructing America on behalf of the wealthy corporate oligarchy that owns the GOP.
8
The endless adverts for Victoria have been relentless. I might have been interested but won't watch now. I pay for the times and don't deserve this.
Dear New York Times, please do some research on states most likely affected by this suggestion and the number of Trump voters who will be impacted. Thank you.
5
It's time for Democrats to stop cowering and stand up to this cruel approach to legislating. The Conservatives continual attack on government and governing has resulted in the election of Trump. Democrats need to speak up about the value of government and our taxes. Help people remember what their taxes actually pay for: clean air, water, safe food and drugs, our police and firefighters, our bridges and roads, schools, our social safety net for the disabled, elderly and poor. Conservative policies that demand the poor work, while giving a tax cut to the idle rich is a clear example of Republicanism.
Come on Democrats. Speak up!
8
alas, the democratic party has been hijacked, no longer the voice of working men and women, it is, to use a phrase. the republcans' junior varsity.
1
Denying medical care to the the non-working indigent is not a side effect: it is the intended effect. It keeps the indigent too occupied with survival that theyare unable to protest unconscionable oppression, and gives "the Base"a target.
10
Are there no prisons? Are the workhouses still in operation? I was afraid that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course.
4
There's an answer you know....VOTE! Don't let this continue. The least of these thy brethren are words that these craven politicians say they live by but surely don't.
8
What about the elderly in nursing homes who have run out of savings?
7
Good point.
1
Republicans enrich the 1% and punish those Americans in poverty and need, especially the children. If those targeted Americans were residing in Canada, U.K., or the recent reference to Norway by Trump, would they be similarly oppressed? No! Only in Trump's New America! What is the next step, different policies for whites and those of color, native Americans or legal immigrants, what? It is so embarrassing to be an American!
6
Politico actually ran a better article on Medicaid and how it went from serving a very small percentage of the population (unwed mothers and children) to a much larger percent of the population. Medicaid is a flawed program and we really just need to switch to single payer. That being said, we should also be compelling families to a better job of taking care of their kin and not abandoning them to society.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/27/medicaid-obamacare-re...
5
Do I want my tax dollars to go to people who are sick and needy ? You bet I do !
9
A-a-a-a-a-a, does President Trump know I have a handicapped little younger brother, with a family full of taxpayers behind him, who don't mind paying taxes for things like Medicaid for people like him, or the little down syndrome adult who just past away? Congress your priorities are out of whack!
8
These requirements are what Trump's base want. These white bigots and racists--and I know too many of them--are tired of helping others and want everyone to stand or fall on their own. Many of these Trumpers actually feel that they have earned everything that they have on their own and that no one has given them anything--they're all on Social Security and Medicare. Delusional doesn't quite describe their attitude toward those perhaps less fortunate than themselves. This is what they want. Only the wealthy and privileged deserve affordable effective healthcare.
11
This sounds like debtor's prison logic - where you can't pay off your debt because you can't work while your locked up. It also smells like what slave drivers do - work people to death, sick or not.
Truth is he loves cruelty and hurting people - Republicans do too. The more, the crueler, the better for him. It includes hurting friends (having a friend's wife listening in on speakerphone on talk of sexual infidelity) and shooting people on fifth avenue he thinks he can get away with (Republicans likely would let him get away with it). He gets a kick out of children without CHIP, and DACA families, Haitians and El Salvadorians turned into unproductive refugees, and seniors should work until they drop dead. He loves all this.
Trumplicans only believe in tax cut wealthfare for "able-bodied wealthy" who do NOTHING for the largess given to them by our government. For them it is much better to have vulnerable and disadvantage people getting sick and dropping dead in America's streets. It's the trumplican way.
15
Healthcare is a human right, not a privilege that is earned through work.
12
Healthcare is not a right as it is provided by other people. You can't force other people to take care of you.
1
*facepalm*
1
This shames me. I have good coverage and others don't. We are all human beings. That should be the only qualifying factor. I am ashamed of my country for even considering to deny others coverage. I am ashamed to accept coverage when others suffer.
5
It's stunning to see how blatant the war on the poor has become. We just passed a tax bill to help the wealthiest in this nation and then a few weeks later, we begin to raid the benefits of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. What's truly heartbreaking is seeing our complicity in all of this. The rich and powerful tell us that the poor are malevolent leeches who are draining resources and our nation can't afford things like living wages, healthcare, better infrastructure - and many of us simply accept it as fact, hook, line, and sinker.
As a US Citizen, I use the pronouns "we" and "our" because we are responsible for this situation. We continue to vote for politicians who do nothing but work for their wealthy donors. We treat our poorer neighbors with contempt and focus our disdain on the lady at the grocery store using $50 in food stamps while turning a blind eye to highly profitable companies exploiting billions in corporate welfare while laying off their employees (see Carrier). When are we going to realize that the poor are not the enemy?
6
Sounds a lot like indentured servitude to me. You need medical help. You either work at minimum wage or volunteer your services for as little as anyone will pay you. Don't care what your explanation is for not working; illness disability or mental illness. And we thought the Victorian work house was over. Dickensian is the only word that describes this lack of compassion.
6
Your first paragraph suggests a common out of touch liberal attitude towards the poor.
No one on Medicaid lives a normal life.
2
I'm getting so tired of hearing about the suffering masses. When it's my turn to I pray to God to just die so the rest of you don't have to be imposed upon by my plight. It's the least I can do plus then I don't have to hear about it anymore, so call be selfish, I guess.
Health care is a human right. period.
Denying access to said human rights is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. ( just like radical right wing republican governments are using the fullest extent of their power to dissuade, harass and kill people by denying them said health care )
Go ahead moderators ~impress me that you will publish this.
1
Poor people vote too
Get your ID
Register to vote
Show up and vote for every election especially local ones
Drive neighbors to the polls
Stay woke and vote
November cannot arrive quickly enough
4
The truth is that they know this will hurt the poor, the disabled, the sick, and the mentally ill, and they don't care. This is the Republican Party. To call it cruel is an oxymoron.
9
Many Trump voters are on Medicaid. If they still support Trump, they truly have a death wish.
6
Taxpayers are paying their medical bills and coverage, so the least these recipients can do is look for or get a job. Sounds reasonable, unless you're the editorial board of the NY Times.
1
A lot of people on Medicaid do work, they qualify for Medicaid because they get a slave labor wage of less than $16,000 a year. Two-thirds of the people on Medicaid are children, elderly and disabled. You aren't talking about very many who are on Medicaid and can actually work. I repeat, people who qualify for Medicaid do work, but they are paid slave wages of less than $16,000 a year.
1
Name a welfare program currently in place that works to get people on their feet?? Instead of focusing on the negative aspects of a program change, think of this as an attempt to get individuals to go back to self reliance instead of being a victim that cannot help themselves out of their situation.
The problem with liberals is they think the average American is too stupid to take control of their own life and needs a lot of government intervention to succeed. The opposite is the truth. Able bodied people should work to get benefits. Drug and alcohol abuse is not a viable excuse.
1
Their are real economic, medical, and health costs to humiliating people, which this policy does. It denigrates everyone on Medicaid, including the majority who work difficult hours, multiple jobs, with no security.
The Right often pontificates about social insurance as "robbing people of their dignity." This policy is guaranteed to humiliate and alienate and punish.
39
This is a trial balloon. Will Americans tolerate hurting defenseless people.
Without resistance to the barbarity, Trump will be coming for YOU next.
31
This is the kind of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking that has led the US to have the highest per-capita health care spending in the world.
Healthy, able-bodied people don't use a lot of health care in the first place. Health insurance makes it more likely that able-bodied people stay that way.
Putting strings on Medicaid for able-bodied but unemployed adults means that fewer will get insurance. Without insurance, they are less likely to get preventative services, and more likely to delay treatment of a worsening condition, less likely to get treatment by PCP, and more likely to go to an ER, where they must, by law, be seen.
4
Undoubtedly there are people dependent upon Medicaid who have no diagnosable physical or psychological ailments that would otherwise prevent them from working, but are fundamentally unemployable because other people find them “annoying” or “quirky” or “strange.” Not everyone is socially-equipped to present themselves to be hired for a job and it’s ridiculous to think that every able-bodied person is socially capable of fitting into a workplace.
3
For the word "Trump" you could insert the name of any every politician in the history of man who claimed to be for the "people", the "little man", or the "poor" and it would be valid.
It’s hard enough to find work when you’re healthy and doing well, this is absurd.
4
The poor need money. That’s it. They don’t need scolding, restrictions, virtual signaling or retribution. They just need money. They are just us without economic justice.
4
"Scolding" is right. This just adds another layer of shame to those who're already ashamed of their circumstances.
2
Governance through spite is no governance at all. Throw the entire GOP out this year.
3
It is well established that sicker people work better and are more productive.
If the congress was true to their words they would take pay cuts of their own. Limit their own terms of office and be more humble. But they are not true to their words, they lie to you, get in office and t hen find every way to scam you out of the good faith you used to elect them.
Trump is no different in fact he is even worse he thinks he can use the american tax payer to get even richer off the service of his office. He is like getty in the movie out now,, when asked when is enough,, he is saying never.. i want more....More money more power more praise, give him more attention, ego feeding
The USA could be better, we could provide homes for everyone and not prisons for the poor.
But we are a failing Empire about to die. and acting like it more and more.
1
The comments to this article seem to see no plus to having people obtain gainful employment, and raise their own sense of self worth,
2
Truly amazing Robert. We are a country in major decline and full of very weak people.
1
All they do is cause harm.
How can you work if you are sick? And what about retired persons who have simply run out of money?
3
That's our POTUS's Self Pleasure seeking paradox in action!
This is simply a case of ideology over evidence. Republicans think getting something for nothing is bad. So making people work for Medicaid seems to make perfect sense, as long as evidence and reasoned arguments aren’t considered. The question we should be asking is what outcome they are trying to achieve? Is it the public good? Or is it Social Darwinism where the wealthy prevail over the poor because they’re more “valuable”?
Let’s start exposing the intended outcomes along with the means for achieving them. Then maybe we can start having conversations about what’s really happening.
1
Dodging Donald, who has dodged the military, his creditors and anyone who has an invoice for him does it again. Successful businessman who has declared bankruptcy at least six times then became a TV star on some nonsense show, now wants the disabled to work, in order to get Medicare. I presume all of those who apply will be offered well paying jobs by one of Trump's many companies.
2
There you go again, expecting this administration to make policies based on evidence.
2
The president simply loathes people who are not as well off as he is. Poor or needy Americans have never concerned him. He has no empathy for everyday Americans who struggle to make ends meet. He doesn't understand that it's the common man and woman who do the best they can with the resources available to them that have defined the American character for generations. They weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths but their grit and determination to make things better for their families and communities is what made America great and the world's example of how hard work and achievement is its own reward.
2
"The Trump Plan to Hurt the Poor by Pretending to Help Them"
If you insert "Republican Party" or the name of any republican politician for Trump and "The Nation" for the Poor this headline describes the republican Contract On America since the 1970's.
2
It is morally wrong to give people handouts without requiring something, responsible behavior at least, in return.
By doing so, it makes them dependent upon that handout.
Requiring work in exchange for a benefit changes the motivation of the lazy to realize if they want to eat, have a roof over their heads, or get treated for an ailment, that they can't mooch off of the taxpayers who make that benefit possible.
We have plenty of litter, graffiti, roadwork, trash collecting, snow clearing, and mowing to be taken care of. And then there are jobs with businesses too. Require anyone getting a government benefit to work for it if they are physically able. If their laziness is more important to them than the benefit, then we save money.
2
It is all about denying care to those who need it. They will just end up ion ERs again costing hospitals billions. Cost of health care will start up again.
1
Clearly diabetics, senior citizens, and the disabled out to buck up, tie on their shoes, and stop wasting all their money on booze or women or movies. (Thank you, Chuck Grassley, for this advice.)
2
The logic in this piece is faulty. It says that that Ohio and MI broadened their coverage and more people got work because they had healthcare. OK.
Then it implies that giving people healthcare AND requiring them to work is somehow going to hurt them. According to the OH/MI data, combination of working and good healthcare is good.
The editorial board, however, implies that somehow requiring people to work will take away their health coverage. Simply not true. This is the break in logic. The proposal would result in BOTH jobs AND healthcare...not taking away the healthcare.
Now is not the Time for the NYT to become disingenuous.
1
Pitting poor people as somehow "getting away with something", feeding resentments and class warfare, is a consistent position in this administration. The value of helping the less fortunate seems gone. Why aren't these super rich people grateful for all they have rather than denying the less fortunate? I will never comprehend the greed and cruelty.
4
How compassionate of Republicans to care so much about the emotional well being and self esteem of our poorest citizens that work requirements will be required to receive Medicaid. Conservative St. Paul had a rule in his community that if you don’t work, you don’t eat. Requiring the poor to work at something, whether low paid, dead end jobs with no benefits, or being conscripted into “volunteer” work shows the true depth of Republican Christian love. And how wonderful this will be for employers to get this cheap or free labor. Think of all those farmers, landscape owners, construction bosses, getting strong backs to work the fields, milk the cows, groom the lawns, at low pay and no benefits. No more need to hire any more undocumented workers when Medicaid recipients will be forced to do that work. What a great opportunity for those job creators to increase their bottom line. Those poor people must work 20 hours a week to keep Medicaid. If they earn a $1 over the Medicaid limit good-bye Medicaid, hello ER. Let’s remove the barriers to citizens receiving health care...vote Republicans OUT.
2
Medicare for all would put an end to this nonsense. The US spends over three trillion dollars on healthcare annually, leaves millions without coverage and demonstrably wastes at least 30% on a combination of valueless interventions, administrative overhead and ludicrous pricing and compensation models. There is more than enough money in the system to take care of everyone.....what we lack is leadership and national will. 2018 and 2020 elections have the potential to correct this.
4
These draconian measures, wrought by an "Aynrandy-ridden" congress, will clearly lead to an increase in the crime rate; which will lead to a deterioration of communities across the country; which will bring a decrease in productivity; which will only bring about more poverty, crime, etc. It's a vicious circle, enacted by vicious GOP political operatives. What exactly is the difference between the Russian oligarchs and the American GOP oligarchs? They seem indistinguishable to me.
1
Thank you for wise, informed revelations. Accompanying journalists are light worker dramatists such as Playwright Dr. Larry Myers of St. John s University who directs The Playwrights Sanctuary. Mentoring newer playwrights in confrontation consciousness . new forms of presentations in found theater spaces are being developed. In residence in Arizona two months to Ground Zero Native Americans, the group returns to Washington DC in January s end. The Peoples & Women's Marchs will be responded to.
Nothing wrong with laws not to rip off taxpayers because some who are undeserving do not want to be "inconvenienced" and PROVE they are eligible. This country is not a bottomless money, entitlement, pit, YET.
1
Trump's answer to his own cynical electioneering question, "What have you got to lose?" Apparently everything that matters to your well-being.
1
The argument is it too mean to have people receiving handouts to work or even volunteer? We cherry pick a few people from other articles that Times wrote which said they're too weak to work? There are always those too weak to work.
If you're taking tax money, there needs to be more accountability. Liberals want handouts to everyone with zero accountability, always.
1
Why does anybody bother to belief that the GOP wants to help the poor in any way or that Trump cares what he promised his voters? They don’t, never have and never will, and he couldn’t care less about any campaign promises he made, only his threats. Save your breath and get to work on the 2018 and 2020 elections and throw the bums out. And don’t delude yourself that Democrats are only against Trump. They are for the citizens of this country.
1
It’s not just the so called president, Speaker Ryan has ADMITTED he wants to go after social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
NYT - you need to use a bigger brush to paint in more of the GOP
1
This is the Republicans going after the poorest of us all to pay their tax scam that made them and their corporate donors richer. And, did it at a time when the economy certainly did not call for it. This is what to expect from the Republican Party in the future!! GET OUT AND VOTE this year!! And in 2020! Only WE can change it! And as much as we sometimes want to, don't waste your vote on a third party that has no chance of winning! It does not send a message to anyone. (And, don't forget that sweet real estate tax deal trump manage to slide into his tax scam at the very end)
1
Can you please replace the nurse's head from this article and replace it with, oh, say, Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan, or even, maybe, Donald Trump since they are responsible for this fiasco and not in any way are nurses? Lay the blame where it absolutely belongs, even visually.
1
Faux-Emperor Trump's plan has gone 'debtor's prison' one better by implementing 'sick people's death penalty'.
Now this is how a really well-oiled Empire should run.
As some used car dealerships say, "We're marking 'em down and moving 'em out"
1
The corporate owned republican party is still pushing Reagan’s “welfare queen” narrative on the masses. How ironic after passing a queen sized welfare package giving the 1% and corporate benefactors a huge tax cut.
1
Do bone spurs in the heels qualify for help? What happens to someone with a part time job starting at 11 a.m., lots executive time and long vacations?
1
If everyone on Medicaid would just vote - Donald trump would not be president.
1
the economic engine of our democracy, the once-upon-a-time "unum" made from the masses of our "pluribus," has become the fat cat in the sedan chair carried on the backs of the "unum"...rather consuming than nourishing, rather sustaining its own special interests than "promoting the general Welfare."
perhaps the most pervasive (yet overlooked) symbol of our true allegiance, rather to wealth than the republic it was supposed to serve, is wall street, its booming average being the most elitist, classist, racist and anti-social marker of its
true attitude toward we the people.
1
Yes. We know what you are really thinking, that those raises and bonuses at Walmart will diminish the motivation of the proletariat to rise to arms and free itself from the bourgeoisie.
1
Most anything the Administration and the Congressional Republicans offer as the reasons a particular policy is a good idea is on the same level as my 3 year old's justification for whatever behavior we put him on time out for. Entirely made up and agenda/politically driven. Irresponsible and often disgracefully dishonest to the brutally inhumane.
Sadly, the entire party is morally bankrupt as once again their silence is deafening.
2
I’m angry! Government employees—our "public servants"—have more than adequate healthcare insurance. Yet they refuse to seriously consider providing universal healthcare, like that which exists in truly "civil"ized countries where everyone can access healthcare.
We shouldn’t push for Medicaid for those who don’t have health insurance; We should insist on universal healthcare that includes every living human-being within our borders. Healthcare is not an entitlement, it is a right—and what's good enough for our "public servants" is good enough for us.
Our government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, regardless of their title or their stature. That is not a cliche, it is woven into the fabric of this nation and asserted in some of our most sacred documents.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That is a cliche, but it is also a fact. Plagues and epidemics that killed hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people in a very short period of time have been documented throughout human history. Many, if not most, of the victims historically have been among the poor and underprivileged. Plagues are caused by contagions, and increasingly those contagions are "super" bugs, the by-product of our over-use of antibiotics. Good health is increasingly dependent upon a healthy populace.
Microbes don’t recognize wealth or stature . . . a super-bug can hop a ride from China to NYC on a diplomat and hop onto an American millionaire without checking either's assets.
29
I was a social service employee of NYC for over 35 years. The Medicaid program is and was during my service a very important part of social policy to provide assistance to needy families. Any family that is eligible for health programs by virtue of their income (or lack thereof) should receive their benefits without the superimposing of some misguided "work" requirement. We don't need judgmental political tampering with programs that work to help children have a chance to join our society as productive members. I learned that the best rule for social program eligibility is the "golden rule," just treat other as you wish they would treat you were you to swap places with them. I was proud to be of service and did not lose any respect for folks because they were poor!
29
The editorial does not address the desire of people who are working and paying taxes to believe they are not chumps. What you are endorsing is people who do not want to work holding the working people hostage.
Maybe you should come up with a way to address this problem rather than just pontificate that it's a small price to pay. If a relative came to live with me through being unemployed I would not let them sit around everyday while I went to work. This policy is an extension of that philosophy. Without addressing the problem of the "chump complex" you are just another group of out-of-touch elitists.
5
I don’t think you read the editorial.
“About two-thirds of Medicaid beneficiaries are either seniors, disabled people or children. Of the remaining one-third, nearly 80 percent are in families with at least one working person and 60 percent have full- or part-time jobs”
4
Exactly. My sister is living with me and is on Medicaid. She has job and must contribute to society and her own upkeep.
Someday you may need that help. Will the rest of us be chumps if we help you?
1
Twenty percent of the Medicaid recipients are able bodied childless adults, many living in a household that contains working adults, their parents. Their average medical costs per year are under $800. In addition to collecting free health care through Medicaid, they are also collecting $193/month in food stamps. Some of them are working off-the-books and not paying income or payroll taxes.
If you do not want to require them to work, it is necessary that in order to be eligible for federal benefits, the income and wealth of the household must be considered, and the payment of rent by the adult child is insufficient to qualify the "child" for welfare. An adult child living with his parents should not qualify for benefits because he claims to be paying rent and therefore is unable to pay for his own doctor visits and food.
I wonder where you get your statistics. I don't believe that an able-bodied childless adult could qualify for Medicaid in Alabama.
Actually, friend, that was twenty percent of about a third ("remaining one-third"), making it something like 7%.
David from NC says, in another post, "The US is full of compassionate, willingly helpful and caring people, but our voices are being systematically silenced by interests who have most of the power in government."
Yes, David, I believe the vast majority of people in the United States of America, when not brainwashed by fox so-called news and hate radio/social media to hate OUR/THEIR government, are compassionate, helping and caring.
They need to Hit the Streets to show their outrage and to show the world that The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren do NOT speak for us.
Saturday, January 20th is the day. Get Out There!!!
https://www.facebook.com/pg/WomensMarch2018USA/events/
9
The Republicans have wanted to treat Medicaid as a welfare program which it is not. It is to provide insurance for people so they can have proper medical care. John Kasich of Ohio knows this. Trump and his friends are in perpetual tizzy over the fact that the poor are a Democratic constituency that must be kept down.
4
It is a welfare program. What is wrong with you? If you aren't paying for it, it is welfare. The same goes for SS and Medicare. After you have used up what you have contributed to those programs (which is most people) then you are taking welfare. As I am sure you are well aware that most people get back much more than they ever contributed.
Although I'm not an advocate of the Administration's approach, I'm also not sure I see what the problem is here. Under the waivers, states cannot remove Medicaid from people who have disabilities. Also, as noted in the Times article on this policy change, states consider "looking for work" to be work. I suspect the number of people who do not have disabilities and are not actively looking for work is very small, so this should not affect many people.
1
At first glance, work requirements seem reasonable. But implementation and costs are where things get tricky. While the waivers exclude disabled people, that means people who have been granted disabled status. It is very hard to get such a status, so many disabled people would be in danger of losing their benefits. Second, the bureaucratic costs of implementing a work requirement is high - you need systems and workers to administer the program. Or, you contract it out (usually to a politically connected firm that profits handsomely). So, since a very small percentage of people on Medicaid really are able bodied people who just refuse to work, the costs of the program implementation will certainly exceed any savings from kicking people off of Medicaid (unless you kick people who have legitimate barriers to work off). And, whoever is kicked off will still be able to get care in a hospital ER with tax payers footing the bill, which is much more expensive. Thus, even if you don’t believe access to healthcare to be a right and even if you don’t believe health is prior to employment, work requirements are bad policy from a fiscal perspective.
The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren do not intend to help anyone but themselves. Here are link to a couple of articles I read today that shows who the real winners are. It's not average or poor people. It's not workers. It's not seniors.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-blackrock-results/blackrock-hits-reco...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-repatriation/corporations-may...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-12/jpmorgan-s-quarterly-...
3
A huge of point of this (as well as drug testing laws for eligibility) is really to reduce the number of people on Medicaid. The GOP speaks for the wealthy, and the wealthy want to pay less in taxes. By putting up barriers to Medicaid, fewer people will use it.
10
I knew someone on Medicaid. She was an eight year old girl with severe cerebral palsy. She would never walk or talk, yet she was intelligent, kind, had a sense of humor, and loved her family. She went to school with all the other kids who loved and championed her. So I have to ask, what job would she do to earn the medical care her parents couldn't afford for her, even though they both worked?
17
Although I support most measures from the Trump administration, I don't support this one. Medicaid is not a welfare program which puts money directly in the pockets of the poor, it is a reimbursement mechanism for hospitals that serve poor uninsured patients. I don’t think the average American understands that and, frankly, I believe that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid are exploiting that misconception to allow states to arbitrary set work requirements to pay for the healthcare of the poor. I know government, federal and state, is interested in saving money but this is not the way to do.
Here in Tennessee, for instance, lawmakers have rejected attempts by Governor Haslem to expand Medicaid, or TennCare, in the state. They don’t want the state to be responsible for paying for the program after Obamacare expansion funds end. As a result, many rural hospitals have closed and many more face the same fate. If not the lawmakers themselves, then their constituents, many of whom are poor themselves, see Medicaid as a welfare hand out going to people who do not deserve it, dead beats who live off the government. I disagree with this perception of Medicaid, and how it seems states are using it as an argument to cut back on spending. Perhaps a single-payer, the USG, is the ultimate solution to finance healthcare, but that's a long way off, and will require significant reform of existing private and public reimbursement mechanisms. Thank you.
4
While I don't necessarily disagree with your assertions, please get your facts correct. "two-thirds of Medicaid beneficiaries are either seniors, disabled people or children." Both seniors and the disabled are covered under Medicare. Also, while some funding for CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) comes from Medicaid, it is also funded by separate CHIP programs as well. It really diminishes your argument when your facts are so our of line with reality.
2
I cannot confirm or dispute the two-thirds comment. However, when seniors require full time nursing home care, and they do not have personal funds to pay for it, it is Medicaid that pays the bill. In Texas, the patient's social security (excepting a small stipend) goes directly to the state and the state also audits the patient's bank accounts for the previous five years looking for transfers to relatives. Medicaid is definitely involved for the elderly poor.
7
Not all seniors, disabled people and children are entitled to Medicare. Many are instead entitled to Medicaid.
Yes, and the disabled poor.
Wasn't cutting benefits for the poor the intent of the Republican tax bill? The bill redistributed support from the poor to the rich. Making it harder to get Medicaid means fewer poor people receiving benefits, which means lower government expenses. Lower government expenses are necessary to cover the tax breaks the bill gave to the elite.
5
There is a disconnect between Trumps team and reality. Science and historical fact take second or third place to Truthiness and Greed. Heartless and soulless are excellent descriptors of this administration. Exactly what was portrayed and exactly what the electorate chose and exactly what we got.
4
I actually believe that republicans have a point here. Many people fall into a dangerous cycle where pain and depression leave them idle on the couch, which, in turn, leads to more pain and depression. Getting up and moving around, interacting with other people, and feeling some pride in earning your paycheck can actually alleviate symptoms that are only aggravated by rest and relaxation. If you're able-bodied and receive medicaid, why not work? Indeed, state governments could help provide the jobs for this, if only to have Medicaid beneficiaries put in 10 hours a week at some form of public service.
Lets also remember that nothing gets voters to the polls faster than having a government policy affect them personally. While red states receive a disproportionate amount of welfare dollars, evidence further shows that it's democrats in those states who use most of the resources (https://www.npr.org/assets/news/2011/12/poll/topline.pdf). Do those people take the time to vote in every election? I can't find definitive data on participation vs affiliation, but I'd wager that if you're home, disabled and on Medicaid, voting may not be your top priority. Maybe now it will be.
3
I dubt whether Trump plan is to intentionally hurt the poor. Trump did not create the poor or the system that created the poor. Trump wants to help all Americans an solve problems but the way things are and the pace at which things change in Washington is frustrating him. Coming from a business background he does not seem to have the patience to resolve problems the slow and tedious way. All the voting blocs will have an opportunity to vote to decide in 2020 whether his style and abrasive manner is what you want for 4 more years or the same old same old inefficient slow governance.
2
@Kotwal
So, you say "Trump wants to help all Americans..."
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more -- But then, maybe that's because I actually read that recent Tax Plan that both Trump and the G.O.P. rushed to put down the country's throat.
I suggest you do the same.
This forces people to have to get jobs with poor wages and benefits, so businesses and corporations can continue to get cheap labor and not have to improve pay or working conditions for people. It is all about GREED, one day the american people will wake up and realize the true enemy are the politicians and corporations.
9
Even with Obamacare, the U.S. spends much more than any other advanced country on healthcare. Note: everybody else has universal healthcare.
Here we don’t seem to even ask the question: is it proper to provide access to heathcare just to those who can pay for it?
Instead we cling to divisions and riffs within our country that pit those who feel they are given nothing against those who need a little help. The later includes those who work multiple jobs, none of which offer health insurance. Their earnings from these multitude of low wage jobs is too paltry to buy health insurance, and they fall through the gaps of Obamacare subsidies. The very poor and disabled get Medicaid, one very efficient provider that should be looked at as a model to include every American with access to healthcare.
Republicans have an agenda to unleash Capiltslism from the democratic constraints that we have learned are neccessary to prevent Oligarchy or Plutocracy, and to avoid great inequality. It’s time to protect strong, efficient healthcare for low income people, and with it, fight back against agendas that work to destroy Democracy and ordinary citizens’ well-being. We could start by asking what is moral, and acting on the answer.
3
Unfortunately policy is often a blunt instrument that hurts some while helping others. Articles like this one do not move the debate forward because they refuse to acknowledge any of the complications. Worse yet, in their effort to simplify they mis-characterize the evidence that they do cite.
First, I would be willing to bet that "some" people will indeed enter the workforce as a result of this rule, begin to build social capital, and maybe even wean themselves of support programs. Completely ignoring this possibility denies readers the opportunity to see this countervailing effect debated. This kind of editorializing leads folks on the other side of the argument to present their equally one-sided arguments. Now the two sides are yelling talking points at each other.
Second, to say that the Ohio and Michigan studies contradict the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is incorrect. The Ohio and Michigan studies argue that healthcare helps people to work and they provide evidence and mechanisms to back it up. The CMMS argument is that incentivizing work, albeit very harshly, will lead some people to work. The fact is that both of these are valid and the editors, do us a disservice by not addressing this complication.
Last, saying that the Ohio and Michigan studies contradict "the truth" is a misuse of the scientific method. In their zeal to bite, the editors have extrapolated from evidence to "truth".
1
Has it occurred to the Republicans and the president that this will affect his “base”?
But, no matter, I guess, they will still love and support him whatever he does.
2
People can be unemployed for a host of reasons that extend beyond the implications of this proposed rule - that being unemployed is your fault. Denying medical coverage on this one criteria I believe is totally contrary to the spirit in which this country was formed.
2
I'm not sure I even believe Trump wants to put such a plan in place. What I do believe, is that Trump likes to push buttons. Every week (sometimes every day) Trump puts forth a plan, or says something, that is shocking, especially to Democrats. He enjoys the "shock value"... and this is only one of the reasons he is not fit to be President. Don't take him at his word, for that changes as well.
2
Progressives & Democrats should understand (when possible, which isn't often) what the appeal is of the "other side" is. In the present case, the Republicans are presenting the image of a healthy adult sitting and watching TV and collecting benefits, either $$ or free health care, rather than working. I would love to hear the Democrats at least acknowledge that they don't like this particular picture either, rather than just making the academic point that it is a picture that virtually never occurs. Certainly I don't like that picture, and I'm a life-long Democrat, Clinton fan, and Trump-hater--I think it would be enormously helpful for the Democrats to at least be able to express the simple notion that they also think people should work for a living, when they can (duhhh). The details can follow. BTW the biggest advocate of this, done properly, was none other than Bill Clinton. I also think this purity cost them the general election; the Democrats couldn't mouth some simple obvious truths--"We don't want immigrants who will collect welfare and carry out suicide bombings". Never mind that this is beyond rare; can't we (the Dems) at least acknowledge these concepts, which otherwise become the weapons of the conservatives?
1
The article is using semantics to make a pretty flawed argument. "The Trump administration said Thursday that it would get poor people to work by letting state governments deny them Medicaid if they don’t have a job." The latter isn't true. It sounds like the plans would adopt the same work requirements as in the Clinton Welfare Reform of 1996 - which despite liberal fears moved 2.7 million people from welfare to work. In that program, you had to prove that you were looking for work to receive benefits - not cut off the first day.
The article then switches direction saying that it's not a big issue since "60 percent have full- or part-time jobs". If they already work, they'd qualify for benefits. So what's the issue ? I'd also note that we already require near full time work (usually 30 hours) for SNAP (food stamps) and other programs.
Finally, the article gets to the real issue - people "struggling with opioid addictions" or those who "lose their jobs and are not able to quickly find another one because they live in a depressed area or because economic changes have made their skills less valuable". I agree that we should sympathize. But does having a drug addiction mean that you are entitled to live on the dole forever ? Don't people have an obligation to support themselves ? If you lack skills, then go to school. Why is this always someone else's problem ?
2
Why should they be required to work? Our elected officials haven't worked in years but get superb benefits.
4
Maine is one of the states seeking a waiver that would force people to work. The three poorest counties in Maine have poverty rates of 18.5 percent, 19.5 percent, and 17.8 percent. 30.9 percent of those 18 and under living in Washington County are from households that subsist below the poverty line.
CMS cannot wave a magic wand and make this crushing poverty evaporate. There are only certain kinds of jobs available in these areas, and many of those receiving Medicaid would not be able to easily obtain these jobs.
Poverty begets poverty, as it was stated in a recent article in the Bangor Daily News, based on a study. What the Trump administration proposes is just wrong and will be ineffective.
1
This is not "the Trump Plan" Hurt the poor by pretending to help them. It has been the republican ethos since the "Great" Reagan. Same as it ever was, starting in 1981,
6
Requiring work doesn't do it. Offering work, finding work for people, does. This requires training programs for those capable of working but lacking requisite skills--and requires finding employers willing to cooperate with such programs.
An adversarial approach, assuming all unemployed could work if they put their mind to it, and requiring them to prove they can't, is simplistic and unproductive. It has never worked. Yet here we go again.
3
This could have been so much better. If the work requirement had been accompanied by a career training program that would assess whether a work requirement makes sense and then targets job training appropriate for circumstance, location and skills coupled with a job placement program supported by the private and NGO sectors ...To help the poor to train for and actually find jobs.
And given the demographic profile of non-working Medicaid recipients...surely it would have made sense in each state to identify them and develop reasonable screening and training. Do we really want mothers of young children removed from the household for long periods to meet a work requirement?
Or here's an old idea with lots of support ---count child, elder and household care as unremunerated work. This is little different from the volunteer service option included in the work requirement. The opportunity cost of providing the household services should the Medicaid recipient be forced to work is the accepted measure of the benefit of not working. And if working is a legitimate option for an individual the decision on whether to require work would be related to how much more would be earned than spent to cover household responsibilities.
This could have been so much better. Instead it punishes the poor, promising to deny medical care and exacerbate the hardship their struggling. Who would have guessed that the Bible Belt means tightening the belts of the poor.
2
Everybody should have healthcare coverage but to question whether it is right to take mother's of young children away from the household for long periods to meet a requirement I question is . Most working families today have both parents as wage earners and they have young children. Approximately 1/2 of the workforce is female. Plus a working mother sets a good example for her children.
1
Individuals who are caring for children, the disabled and elderly are exempt from the work requirement.
The states do not intend for the practice to be punitive or counter productive.
What you fail to recognize is that there are abuses in the system. There are prosperous families who have adult college graduates who move back in with them while waiting for their ship to come in. The parents write a letter stating that the child is expected to pay $500/month in rent. They claim the rent does not include food, so the child becomes eligible for $193/month in food stamps. He works off-the-books and so, with his only source of income the $193 in food stamps and an obligation to pay $500 in rent, he becomes eligible for Medicaid. If the welfare examiner asks how he is paying the rent, he admits to making $1000 per month off-the-books, and so he gets Medicaid too.
He's actually earning $3,000/month, not paying rent, chipping in his $193/month to his wealthy household and not paying any taxes. He gets free Medicare because it is cheaper than his parents paying for family coverage on their employer provided health insurance. His parents are not claiming the theoretical $500/month in rental income. The family has sufficient income and wealth that if he were considered part of the household he would be ineligible for federal benefits.
The only fraud in this situation is his failure to report income to the IRS. And the welfare examiner is forbidden to report the employer.
1
I'd happily work for my benefits if I could find a job. As someone who is currently unemployed but doing an intensive job search I'm insulted at the assumptions being made about able bodied Americans who aren't working but on Medicaid.
America makes absolutely no effort to provide decent training programs for unemployed adults. Many programs will not lead to decent jobs that pay good wages, provide benefits, etc. And some states won't pay for retraining unless you can prove that that one particular course will allow you to be hired for a job. Worse yet, the amount they allot is so little that you have to get loan or resign yourself to taking a course that does very little.
If the GOP and Trump care so greatly about Americans scamming government programs why did they just give the richest corporations and people more tax breaks? If there isn't enough money to fund programs to help unemployed people find jobs, retrain, get a degree or certificate to get a start in the job market, why is there enough money to cut taxes at any level?
The only conclusion this reader can draw is that this is a continuation of Grover Norquist's mission to drown the government in a bathtub. If the GOP despises government this much they ought to all get out of it and let people who care run it. Or do they like wasting our tax dollars on their perks and salaries because it's an easy job: all they have to do is flatter their donors.
27
Well said,you covered it all !!!
The United States is exceptional among wealthy Nations in both not providing healthcare for citizens and legislating poverty through a depressed minimum wage that forces so many people, who are working, to rely on government benefits to subsidize their income. The average person has no control over how much money they make. This is all about feeding off the resentment of people who are struggling to make ends meet but still earn too much money to qualify for any subsidies. Getting us all riled up about the undeserving poor is just another distraction.
The lawyer who recently did our family's Wills, specializes in setting up trusts for well-off, almost all white people, to protect their assets so they can qualify for Medicaid to cover nursing home care and medical expenses not covered by Medicare. The largest cost to Medicaid come from end-of-life care for the elderly, and chronic care for the disabled. So look down on others all you want to now, but if you live beyond a certain age you too will likely end up needing Medicaid at some point in the future.
20
The fastest growing category in Medicaid spending is in nursing home care. how much of that is because wealthy people plan their estates so they can leave their money to their prosperous children by foisting the cost of nursing home care on Medicaid.
Personally, I look down on wealthy people who divert resources away form those in need to pay expenses they can easily afford. The reason nursing homes and assisted living are as expensive as they are is that federal and state dollars flow in, allowing the wealthy to have the bulk of their costs covered, with their "special needs trusts" covering extra costs.
Rich progressives object to any attempts to pare back Medicaid benefits for the wealthy by claiming the Republicans are trying to throw grandma under the bus, or deny treatment to children and the disabled. They fail to mention that their real objection is that grandma's special needs trust would be needed to cover her care, so they wouldn't be able to inherit all of the millions left over.
The reason health care in America is expensive is because rich cronies skim off 30% of the spending, and the rich skim off another 20%.
We need to take care of those in need, rather than those who prefer to protect their assets for personal greed.
1
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest excuses in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
20
One possible consequence - uptick in people going to the emergency room.
That means more crowded and chaotic emergency rooms....for everyone.
7
Already happening.
There was no reduction in ER use under Obamacare despite 10 million able bodied childless adults having been added to the "insured" under Medicaid or 10 million people who got Obamacare policies.
In addition, the most prosperous hospital systems consolidated and used their improved bargaining positions to increase what they charged insurers 33% more for services [2013 to 2016, while the CPI increased 10%]. That applied to the Obamacare insured as well as the 49% of the population that has employer provided health insurance. The insurers complained, but increased premiums, deductibles and co-pays. In case you are wondering what happened to the $2500 per family saving, Obama gave it to big medicine, along with another $2500 out of your pocket. By design.
In another part of town, the hospitals that serve a high proportion of the poor in inner city and rural area went out of business. They didn't have a seat at the table when the big boys were divvying up the spoils of Obamacare. So Obama cut the supplemental payments that used to compensate hospitals in poor areas. Those hospitals closed in states that expanded Medicaid at the same rate as those in stated that didn't expand Medicaid
With salaries paid to executives at charities, all of those associated with charity hospitals are at the top of the list, with high six figure and even seven and eight figure salaries. They replaced those associated with private colleges organized as charities as the biggest dogs.
They can only do these things because we allow them to be voted in to office. If everyone losing health care or other benefits, everyone whose income has stagnated for decades, and everyone whose retirement years were threatened by the Republican's ceaseless attacks on Social Security would just drag themselves out to vote every other year there wouldn't be a Republican in office anywhere.
7
the fact that they have to "drag" themselves out to vote really says something about the failure of the democrats to be a decent enough opposition to want to support. the democrats are garbage. the republicans are garbage. this country is garbage too now.
1
Since the election of Trump, the rollback of regulations and promise of a tax cut have given us three quarters of growth in excess of 3%, an achievement Obama [with his regulations and tax increases] never made.
Increased wages, rollback of the Obamacare cost increases and reduction in income taxes mean that the average American is better off today than a year ago. Democrat politicians pooh-pooh the value of the pay raises and bonuses being paid as inadequate to compensate for the reductions in real income that resulted from Obama policy.
You might want to remember that it was the Democrats that passed a law in 2009 that is causing cut backs to safety net spending in addition to the $0.8 trillion they cut from Medicare to pretend fund Obamacare.
Democrats, by cutting funds and failing to put Medicare on a firm foundation, are a far greater risk to your retirement than Republicans.
I think before we allow lawmakers their salaries, generous benefits and pensions...we should require them to work as well. What do you think?
24
The way we do health care in this country is ridiculous.
Let's say a person qualifies for Medicaid. He works for a small business. The job may not pay much, he or she might want to make more money, may be willing to work more BUT and this is a giant BUT unless the new job is full time and provides affordable health insurance benefits it will be a net loss for this person. On what planet is this encouraging ambition and self-reliance?
This may have made sense back in the day when most full time jobs, no matter how poorly compensated, came with health insurance benefits paid by the employer but these days employers are backing away from providing insurance as fast as they can. Instead they are running to temporary contract workers and outsourcing. Yes, Obamacare was designed to help that problem but the high copays and premiums make that unaffordable for many, besides, Republicans are doing their best to undermine that too.
My opinion is that we need to move to a Medicare for all system. Whatever your income, you pay your taxes and you get your healthcare. Flat rate on all income. If you are a wealthy individual you may pay more than you are going to personally use. So what. It's the price you pay for living in a civilized society.
Time for the U.S. to join the rest of the developed world. Single payer, Medicare for all is the way to go.
24
In order to fund such a scheme, the payroll tax would have to be 20% [in addition to the 15.3% currently paid.]. People living in NYC and other high cost areas who consider themselves middle class with $150,000-$200,000 in annual income are not going to be pleased with the $30,000-40,000 annual premiums and the 20% co-pay with no out of pocket maximum. Today, their employers are providing them with better family coverage for $25,000 to $30,000 per year. [The single guy making $150,000 is now getting coverage worth $10,000, max, going to be really pleased to pay $30,000.] You are kidding yourself if you think that employers are going to absorb the 20% or are going to give pay increases since they are not going to have to buy insurance. The elite and government workers will get pay raises.
I can hear Schumer complaining already about the attack on blue states. The reason the Democrats didn't pass single payer in 2010 is because not even Pelosi could order the House to vote for a 20% payroll tax.
This "Back to Work" approach was attempted by former GOP Governor Corbett in Pennsylvania and was an unmitigated disaster. Clearly punitive in intent, it served as a deterrent to those seeking benefits. Further, it annoyed employers no end. HR departments were flooded with applicants going through the motions. Worse still, it was imposed at the height of the opioid crisis in the state and effectively prevented those who most needed treatment from receiving it. Present Governor Wolf did away with this upon taking office. And Pennsylvania's expansion of Medicaid has been a God send in efforts to combat the ravages of addiction. And, without implying directly causality, unemployment has dropped sharply since.
5
Yes, and I want to see those who try to substitute volunteer activities for paid work go out to the state agencies and nonprofits looking to volunteer. You don't just show up at the city department of public works and ask to pick up trash! Someone has to manage a volunteer effort, and the public agencies and nonprofits are already stretched thin. You'd think they would welcome extra help, but sometimes even competent volunteers take more time to manage than is worth.
1
The Progressive Plan For The Poor: Addict them to $ from the government - taken by Progressives from people who actually do work to earn what they earn - and then blame those who earn the $ that Progressives take for not letting Progressives take as much as they want.
When was the last time a Progressive pundit or politician created a job? Only those who earn enough and keep enough of their earnings can do that. This leaves out Progressives, entirely.
2
Best you study history. In particular how the economy, deficits & overall well-being of citizens under each administrations (& of other progressive nations). If you do an honest assessment, you'll find your premise is on very shaky ground. You are speaking from implicit bias, not facts & study.
1
Right wing fantasy world. Obama created many millions of jobs.
Bill, Obama created zero jobs. How do I know? Because the only way Obama - or Trump, or Clinton, or Bush, or any POTUS - can create a job is by taking $ from taxpayers (most especially businesses) which PREVENTS them from creating jobs. I realize the Common Core math isn't helping you, but it's pretty easy to do simple subtraction.
Read Henry Hazlitt instead of Karl Marx, next time you want to talk about job-creation. Get out of your Progressive fantasy utopia where unicorns play and rivers of chocolate run.
1
There’s nothing wrong with a work requirement, per se, yet this new policy, as you’ve pointed out, seems wholly unnecessary and completely unsupported by facts. This is yet another Republican tactic to demonize poor people, as if being poor were a moral offense. There are also tones similar to the absurd “Welfare Queen” invented by Reagan.
And, even if there are a tiny percentage of folks taking “advantage” of the system, that is a small price for our country to pay to ensure a safety net for the less advantaged. As any well-run company would say, it is part of the cost of doing business. It’s difficult for me to imagine the money lost to this is higher than the cost to ensure recipients are looking for work.
On a mildly related note, there is also the built in hypocrisy of companies continuing to pay non-living wages, thus allowing employees to qualify for Medicaid (and other subsidies) in the first place. Where are the policies that address that particular corporate welfare?
5
If an employee works full time at minimum wage, his income puts him over the poverty level. If two parents each work at minimum wage, their combined income puts them over the poverty level for a family of five.
What is the solution that you see as fair. Should a single mother with four children get paid twice as much as a single guy? Or do you force the employer to double the pay for both of them, even though one of them isn't poor? what about the employers who go out of business and their employees?
If we have working people who cannot afford to support their children or pay their medical costs, there is a safety net to protect them. It is silly to suggest that employers are obligated to pay people more because they have dependents.
Even if it’s a small subset, if some beneficiaries could work and don’t, they need to either get a job or be stripped of this welfare. Can the Times really claim that no one is abusing the system? Have exceptions for those who can’t work or can’t find a job despite demonstrated effort. For everyone else, too bad. I know this is offensive to the left who astonishingly believe that able bodied adults should be able to receive some benefits sitting at home, but I, as a working American, are paying for that. No longer.
3
who is on medicaid? children, the elderly, the permanently disabled, and the poor. the poor make up like 30% of the total, and of that, half are working and half are not. of the 15% or so who are "sitting on the government dole" so to say, how many have looked for jobs and couldnt find one? how many have medical issues that impact their ability to work yet the government doesnt see them as disabled? should we just stop paying for some diabetic's insulin medication because they couldnt find a job after years of trying and gave up? let them die? disgusting. sick of this me me me me me me no one else matters attitude. theres more people than jobs, the republican mindset is to just let them die.
As usual, the missing piece is education. If you don't know how to do a job you won't get hired no matter how often you apply. Most people, given the skills, will work not only because they can but because they want to. This applies to people with physical limitations as well--there are plenty of jobs not requiring physical skills--if you are educated to do them.
And, of course, access to education is beyond the reach of millions of people because 1) it is too far away; 2) it costs way too much; 3) no provisions are made for dependents; 4) it isn't tailored to demand; 5) many educators are lousy for a whole host of reasons not the least of which is they are paid poorly and they are (oh my God!) public employees.
And even though public K-12 education in the U.S. is purely and simply a socialist program (just as is the military), God forbid that we provide anything but the bare minimum for free (unless you are actually in the military where all costs are covered by taxpayers). If you're going to make Medicaid recipients work then train them for decent jobs.
Oh why bother. Those on Medicaid are subhuman and don't deserve anything from the "human" society that rules this country. Kennels are cheaper than education.
6
“Republican lawmakers who have demonized [Medicaid] as welfare for “able-bodied adults” have long sought to require Medicaid beneficiaries to work.”
About the largesse afforded able-bodied tax loophole benificiaries, however, Republicans have nothing to say.
Wouldn’t simple fairness dictate commensurate community service in exchange?
5
The states that have work requirements for food stamps for able bodied childless adults require that the recipients spend 20 hours per week attending school or training, working, or volunteering for a charity, non-profit or government.
For those who cannot find a part time job, there is plenty of litter to be picked up, Xerox copies to be made in government offices, bathrooms to be cleaned in government and charity offices. People who volunteer in order to get benefits will pretty quickly figure out that it's better to flip burgers 20 hours a week than to do charity work 20 hours per week. They'll still get to keep their benefits.
I don't remember any insistence that corporations receiving generous tax cuts prove that they are contributing to the overall welfare of the country, creating jobs, or otherwise acting as more than just empty tax shells.
9
You are overlooking an obvious fact. In order for a corporation to get a tax cut, they have to be paying taxes in the first place.
There are no surprises here. The rich always pretend to help those "below" them in order to take advantage of them. how do you think they become rich? This phenomena is best described by the great conductor Arnold Schoenberg, in his seminal book on twelve tone theory. He states "The prerequisite for comfort is superficiality." He explains that when is someone is in comfort and they encounter someone in need, that they feel guilty. In order to assuage that guilt, they create a philosophy which makes it appropriate for them to remain in comfort while those around the are in need. Mr. Schoenberg has thus described the "seed" that eventually becomes "Power corrupts"
No surprises.
2
Sounds like the motivation of progressives. They throw pennies to the poor to assuage their sense of self righteousness and retain the lion's share for the elite, who deserve comfort.
This isn’t just the DT plan (the guy can’t actually “plan” anything.). This is the Republican modus operandi for decades because they just don’t see the poor as like themselves and, more importantly, they resent anyone spending money on the less fortunate when they don’t see an upside or a way to profit.
5
Do you believe the executives of the charity Kaiser Permanente are Republicans and "assisted" the Democrats in structuring Obamacare regulations so that they could raise hospital charges by 33%.
Democrat modus operandi is to give pennies to the b=masses and billions to the rich.
They are infinitely better at marketing than the Republicans. That is why Gruber concluded that Democrat voters are stupid. They will think anything is a great idea if the Democrats lie, no matter how implausible the lie is.
I have said this on these pages previously, but I will repeat myself. The GOP considers poor people to be cost centers who detract from the economy. The GOP would like to dispense with them. By trying continually and in a myriad number of way to deprive them of health care, it is seeking to increase the likelihood of their earlier deaths. It is a harsh judgment, but it is the only logical judgment. Its justification is that it believes that welfare is tax funded charity and that the role of government is not charity. If individuals choose to be charitable, they can do so; but the GOP knows that individual charity will not be enough. Its view is draconian Social Darwinism, i.e., let the less fit not survive.
6
Republicans are also responsible for the delay in re-funding the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) which provides health care coverage for the children of working poor - NOT Medicaid recipients. With less than 50 percent of employers offering health insurance, the parents are probably working for a company that does not even offer insurance.
Some states are already beginning to phase down their CHIP programs. Without CHIP, the parents of a child who needs health care could be forced to quit work in order to qualify for Medicaid and obtain insurance coverage for that child. At the same time that this administration is looking to impose a work requirement for Medicaid and undermine insurance subsidies under the ACA.
How does this make any sense? How does this represent any semblance of a coherent public policy?
It only makes sense in the context of a political agenda that denigrates the poor, racially stereotyping them and blaming them for their own fate, and is ultimately seeking to eliminate any semblance of a social safety net and social justice.
5
In 2010, when Obamacare was passed, 59% of the population had employer provided health insurance. By 2016, it was down to 49%.
Before SCHIP, Medicaid provided insurance for all children with high health costs, regardless of their parents ability to pay. States paid 50% of the cost and the federal government paid the other half. Medicaid covered even prosperous families rather than have the families impoverished by a sick child. It covered the children who had exceeded their parents' lifetime maximum and also covered home and respite care that was not normally covered by health insurance.
SCHIP was intended to cover children whose parents were not poor enough for Medicaid but would benefit from having vision, hearing, orthopedic difficulties identified before they caused developmental delays or behavior problems.
The most clever of the states, those that are now running out of funds, transferred the high cost children already covered by Medicaid into SCHIP, because the federal government pays 85% to the states' 15% contribution. They also moved prenatal care for women out of Medicaid for the same reason.
Obamacare abolished SCHIP. The removal of its cost was one of the "cost savings" used to create the illusion that Obamacare was not going to raise the national debt. But Obamacare did not address the needs of a family that was offered "affordable" insurance for the parents but unsubsidized insurance for the children. Children lost coverage because of Obama.
No one accepts Medicaid because they are trying to 'rob the system' - Medicaid does not provide money, only health care. Trying to enforce the new regulations will only set up another costly and ineffective bureaucracy seeking to punish poor people for being poor. Better to have such money spent on finding those physicians and medical offices that submit fraudulent bills.
3
The largest growing category of Medicaid spending is for nursing home care. Middle and upper income families are "Medicaid planning" their estates to get the taxpayer to fund their retirement in order to preserve their estates for their prosperous children. People do "rob the system" to the tune of $100,000 per year. But they are wealthy Democrats, so don't expect their largesse to be cut off any time soon. Better to blame the Republicans.
Traditional Medicare does not believe in squandering resources on auditing bills. Their biggest catches in recent years have been the result of the WSJ analysis of the billings [access provided after an extended FOIA lawsuit] of the top ten providers in various categories. Perhaps that's why the much maligned Medicare Advantage plans provide benefits for lower cost than traditional Medicare. A Medicare Advantage plan is unlikely to pay for more than two cataract surgeries for a single patient. Traditional Medicare will.
The Trump administration seems to believe that it is possible to pull oneself up by his boot straps regardless of physical condition. Medicare as compared to a national healthcare program just doesn't measure up by comparison. We need to rethink national health care but as long as the right wing signs the check, it remains catch as catch can. One more shameful episode by this administration.
1
I don't see the moral good of working unless it helps a person get ahead and save a bit for the next year. While a slave must work even if not permitted to get ahead, low income work should be a step above slavery. Perhaps we need transitional jobs and training with supportive nonprofits. Give someone a chance to learn and work at something suitable and take away Medicaid only if they are unwilling to participate.
The real problem comes with the dirtiest jobs that no one wants. No one should be forced to take these jobs to keep insurance. The solution for any labor shortage is automation and higher pay.
4
As a nurse, I can't think of one patient I have seen who was receiving Medicaid and able-bodied enough to work.
8
The "president" never had much serious intent of helping the poor. The guy in the White House wants a bill, wants the Medicaid funds to give to wealthier partisans. This has been transparent from early days of the administration. This is not new for a wide swath of the Republican congressional leadership. The history of going after the poor is an old one, part of it tied to the distorted visions of the "welfare queen": https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/20/255819681/the-truth-b... [note: this is quite a story, resulting in seriously flawed and persistent stereotypes--and worth the short read].
3
During Republican controlled eras, poor people live their lives with a perpetual bull's eye on their backs. Unemployment is at an all time low. Someone is filling those jobs. On Medicaid there are few people able to work and fewer people who really find jobs. This requirement is a trojan horse that is rolled out periodically and is filled with hatred to satisfy the base. Only this time, some of that base is on Medicaid.
6
The Post has an article on a woman dumped by a hospital - in only a hospital gown - on the freezing streets at night. I’m assuming no healthcare - part of the Great America that Trump boasts about. The administration that authorized the dumping (what a terrible term for s human being) is reveling in their tax cuts.
6
None of these people would hire unhealthy workers, so why do they think other people are eager to do so? People with chronic conditions cannot work unless the condition is under control.
2
Anyone who has been paying attention to the words and deeds of this president knew from the start that his appeal to the working-class poor was was a ruse.
And if there was ever any doubt about this, the G.O.P. tax plan that was recently signed into effect left little doubt about its real intentions to punish every American who is not part of the wealthy upper-class, or corporate elite.
It's time to finally see it for what it is.
1
I'm not sure I understand this statement.
"Eligibility for the program varies from state to state, but the national median income limit for a single person to qualify for Medicaid is $16,642 a year."
Are you saying that Republicans are trying to create a employment-Medicaid gap like a Catch-22? You can't have Medicaid unless you work but if you work you'll make too much to qualify for Medicaid. I can't say I'm surprised coming from Republicans but the tactic is still evil.
The whole plan is messed up actually. You're just creating bloat in a system that works fairly well already. There's going to be massive costs associated with setting up and enforcing work requirements. The de facto response will be to deny benefits until proven innocent. Meanwhile, Republicans will once again point to their own policy failure as justification for attacking public services further. Meanwhile, the change is unlikely to benefit anyone using Medicaid anyway. See my post on unemployment requirements from yesterday.
Like I said, evil.
2
I'm not sure if all the readers here have truly seen with their own eyes that there is a permanent welfare state here in the USA. It has trapped generations of our most vulnerable. The children growing up in these inner city housing projects are not given access to the finest schools with the best teachers. Often times they do not have a stable, safe home environment to do their homework. I think very few of us have ever seen or could imagine what goes on every single day in the projects. Giving a little more here or there, denying medicare for not working, none of these things are going to reach into these families that have been in the system for generations and break the cycle. Saying that Trump is trying to hurt poor people is laughable. Thinking that it will make a bit of difference either way in the lives of the ones we are speaking about is the real crime. We are basically paying the poor to keep being poor. If they try to improve their lot by turning to a life of crime, gangs and drug dealing, then we house them in prison, the ultimate project where they get the information and training to turn them into career criminals for life. Society turning a blind eye to this cycle or thinking that we could legislate these people out of a multi generational legacy of poverty and welfare is the real crime here. We need steps to break this cycle. This is the institution that is keeping people in chains.
the idea that having access to health insurance (which is what medicaid is) is keeping people in chains is downright ludicrous. your post is the culmination of decades of underfunded public schools.
medicaids main recipients are children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the extremely poor. lets take away their healthcare so they just die instead of creating another generation of "takers". sickening.
What happens to the children who’s parents are forced to go to work instead of remaining home to care for them? This seems to be the antithesis of family values.
1
family values is only applicable to rich white people who believe in jesus.
Not to mention, that most of these required jobs, that might then disqualify you from receiving Medicaid, don't allow you to make enough to purchase health insurance even through the ACA, as evident with the CHIP program, where parents who work can't afford to buy health insurance for themselves and their families.
A disgrace for a wealthy nation!
2
I don't mean to be ugly about this, but the interviewer should have asked Mr. Brunson in Arkansas if he's a registered Republican and for whom did he vote in 2016. Perhaps when the 5-8% of Trump's 38% base have their benefits cut and the safety nets removed, will they finally get the message that they have been duped and lied to, and that THEY, not faceless minorities, need a strong and caring Federal government. I just feel sorry for their children in the meanwhile.
This is not engaging in constructive dialogue, but I am angry enough to say it: our government should put up signs wherever people apply for Medicaid: work will set you free. In German.
1
Many Medicaid recipients are disabled, in one way or another. Many of them cannot work at a job. Many are not skilled enough to do even low pay jobs. tRump, and the Republicrooks, are just about the worst people we have in this country. November, 2018 can't come fast enough for me.
2
It's easier to convince yourself that everyone on Medicaid is committing insurance fraud than the bald fact you're actions are hurting people but cutting off their lifelines.
It seems to this writer that this administration's behavior is, at all times, to identify an enemy and attempt to vanquish it. As they can no longer bring themselves to direct their energies toward this country's geopolitical enemies, they're turning their sights inward.
Denial of health care is begging for epidemics of infectious diseases.
Right now in Utah, a 6 month uncontrolled epidemic of Hepatitis A has spread from the homeless population into several restaurants, exposing thousands of customers, who are swamping the health departments for vaccinations.
Hep A is just the sniffles compared to multi drug resistant TB getting lose in the general population, amongst other diseases.
When basic public health care breaks down, once controlled infectious disease epidemics follow.
America is morphing into a 3rd world nation as the weak fall deeper into the maw of GOP "compassionate conservatism". It appears that Republicans will have to fall victim to the monster they are creating before they get the message.
3
No car. Poor public transportation. Virtually no job training programs. Jobs now require access to a computer and then the potential employer's employment program reviews the resumes and applications and rejects based on narrow criteria. I know because I have helped folks on public assistance here in Indiana who had to report weekly about their job searches. If they could not drop off their forms showing their efforts, they had to fax them. One woman who had two children under the age of four- but whose husband was working a menial job - was told if she could not find a job, she needed to do volunteer work. I am not kidding. She was just learning English. This is just a tip of the iceberg of problems. Legislators issue these fiats without walking in the shoes of the "beneficiaries" of these regulations, without looking at the way people are supposed to comply - or even how the government workers comply. I can recall when Indiana instituted HIP how utterly confused the poor social workers were. Unfortunately, those who will need these government programs are generally clueless until the other shoe falls. Then again, does it even help that they might protest?
60
In Oklahoma (which has not expanded Medicaid under the ACA), the income limit allowing an adult to qualify for the state Medicaid program is below $3,900 per year, or the equivalent of approximately $10 per day. I don't know how many qualify, but I would guess very few. Adding a work requirement to this pitiful income level would have only one result: Denying Medicaid to all, since the lowest of the lowest part time jobs would pay more than that.
Knowing our esteemed lawmakers, who are busy 24/7 trying to ensure that no one can even get close to an abortion clinic, or have earned the distinction of being last of all states on education spending per pupil, I am sure that they will probably try it.
51
In third world countries like India, if you don't have money you basically don't get healthcare. You might be lucky and live close to a government clinic or some charity clinic, but you might not survive the long waits.....
The supporters of non-compassionate healthcare policies hold these third world countries as an ideal, and inching their way to this ideal.
Perhaps the the 'haves' want the 'have nots' suffer -- that way their own lives seem better by comparison.
Meanwhile, looking into the future, jobs are disappearing. Fast food restaurants are replacing cashiers with machines. Warehouses are replacing human box lifters and good carriers by robots. Taxi drivers are being replaced by self driving vehicles.
What jobs are these already poor, disadvantaged and sick people supposed to get in this automation enhanced gilded age?
I for one, lean on the other side, and want rich countries to think of a Universal Guaranteed Income, and Universal Guaranteed Services which includes physical safety, healthcare, education and nutrition. Otherwise, remember the have nots will eventually severely outnumber the haves, and cannot be fooled all the time.
75
It is important to understand that this is a well-known strategy: Increase the paperwork and difficulty of accessing benefits, thereby creating barriers that will in and of themselves reduce successful applications. Kill the service by making it hard to use. All of the theorizing about whether or not it is possible for people to fill out applications etc. are essentially meaningless.
55
This is a "policy" which reflects the most ignorant person's idea of Medicaid, and is completely divorced from reality. There are "conservatives" s who simply s do not want to pay for medical care through Medicaid - - but this garbage rule tries to sell cruelty as a benefit. States can fairly easily end TANF benefits - cash benefits. This simply makes it easier to refuse to grant Medicaid.
Even looking at this through a hard-nosed community welfare filter - this is not good for the country. Trump & CO do not care about poor individuals, whatever their color; but even his unshakable GOP supporters in Congress should be able to grasp that leaving a significant portion of Americans without access to anything other than emergency care means a weakened country.
It means a population more likely to become seriously ill and disabled earlier. It certainly doesn't mesh with the promises to curb the opioid problem -- altho' that is now adequately addressed by attacking Drs and hospitals who prescribe, a wholly punitive approach.
In the case of infectious epidemics - such as a flu epidemic as imagined in a recent article - those without vaccinations can bring illness to others. It also means an aging population with increasing disabilities, earlier. It can contribute to making those without jobs less able to work.
Who would be surprised if, as followup, Trump suggests herding sickly people into concentration camps where they cannot bother people like himself...
6
Let us remember that not one Medicaid recipient receive a single dollar of Medicaid payments. Medicaid allows healthcare providers to be compensated for their professional services. In many cases, these providers are hospitals that are required by law to treat all patients. Without Medicaid, these facilities would suffer financial losses.
Single payer solves all these problems. Merge Medicare and Medicaid (thereby including drugs, dental, and vision care), negotiate drug prices directly, cover everyone from birth to death, and collect premium amounts based on income and resources.
83
Only if i can opt out for private insurance by private physicians and dentists where the care will be superior.
Yes, but that would require the majority of our nation to be both sane and compassionate- and, as the past year shows, the majority is neither.
Driven: Providers who accept Medicare payment ARE private physicians and dentists. Medicare is a system to pay for care. Providers are NOT employees of Medicare, just as they are not employees of private insurance companies.
The only long term solution for those who feel these punitive policies are wrong is to vote and elect public officials who will implement and run these types of programs in ways the academic studies reveal work the best. Unfortunately, the very people who are the most disadvantaged by these types of actions are often those who support the politicians that believe in these punitive government policies.
23
Education. Good, solid primary education that puts poor children on an equal footing with wealthy children. And those who have been left behind due to being forced to attend third-rate schools with underqualified teachers need free remedial help, then access to higher education or trade schools. That's the best approach to helping the poor acquire jobs and move up the social ladder, not stripping benefits that beaten-down families need to survive. It may be too late for many older adults, but there's a generation coming up that must not be wasted.
But it's not what Trump and the Republicans want. Exhibit A: Betsy DeVos.
22
It wouldn't hurt of we made sure the most watched entertainment were using correct grammar and discussing the uses of slang and how the two are absolutely not interchangeable. it can be done, it used to be the standard. In the one case you can communicate unambiguously in the other nearly everything is ambiguous.
Without the foundation of knowing how to communicate without ambiguity climbing the mountain of becoming becomes the scaling of a smooth shear wall without safety gear.
bad proof reading!
in the second to last line "becoming" should be Education
Saw it right as I clicked :)
Connect the dots: Medical services are a necessity to remain healthy. Healthy people want and are able to do more. Pretending it works the other way around is unrealistic and doesn't make things better ... and never will.
22
The rest of the developed world know that universal healthcare for their citizens is like Quality , in the long run it does not Cost , it Pays (a healthier more productive workforce). Only the "Exceptional" USA has failed its citizens in this and it is the GOP/1% that are the problem. Vote them ALL out in 2018.
The problem here is messaging and the electorate. Progressives often are willing to dive into the weeds and acknowledge that issues are often complex, counterintuitive and require research and considerable thought.
6
I've read the CMS guidance letter, and I've pored over the state applications to add "community engagement" requirements for able-bodied working age beneficiaries. The provisions seem "reasonable" if the job market is good and the person has no limitations (transportation, child or elder care, or health). If the job market is NOT good the person is stuck applying again and again for jobs that don't exist. I predict that states will discover that in a down market, the Medicaid work requirements, are more expensive to validate than any savings gained due to churn or people losing eligibility. The feds said the states can't use Medicaid funds to pay for the job training/search activities.
47
No, it is not reasonable to use the threat of withholding medical care for any reason whatsoever; it is depraved.
1
Yes, Terry. And I do believe that what you describe is exactly what happened actually during the Clinton administration when they decided that you ought to work if you were getting federal money for something or other. Definitely remember people trying to attend college were told to get a job as well. (No one seemed concerned that there were only 24 hours in the day or that these young adults had kids at home etc.)
Though "more expensive to validate" is only meaningful if the real concern is to save money. If the real concern is to "punish" "lazy" people who "take advantage" of the "hard-working" wealthy then it doesn't really matter whether it actually saves a thing (including people's lives).
1
I am a retired emergency physician who was part of a private group working in a non-profit hospital. We were required by law to treat all patients. Taking basic medical coverage away from people does not take away their need for medical services. If someone without insurance is diagnosed with cancer or heart disease, is the next step to just let them die? Are the Republicans really this cruel?
230
Is this a rhetorical question? If someone w/o insurance is diagnosed with a life-ending condition, is the next step to just let them die?
I have been informed that there are charity organizations to which one might appeal for some assistance in paying for treatment. If they have money, and if you fit their criteria, you might get some assistance.
--- I was told this by someone who finally checked into my assertion that EMTALA does not require that hospitals / ERs treat patients with chronic conditions. (They must stabilize those at death's door, but that's where their responsibility ends.)
Apparently they are this cruel. If you look at all the recent legislation and the proposals for future legislation - gutting Social Security and Medicare, not to mention cutting help for things like Black Lung disease, and removing regulations that keep our air and water clean - clearly R's do not care a whit for the people who elected them. Their only goal is to make the rich richer so the oligarchs will give them money to run re-election campaigns.
Yes, sadly, they are.
The requirement to get Medicaid is that people either work or that they actively look for a job. All of the arguments about lack of work in rural areas preventing people from getting Medicaid are incorrect. Actively looking for a job is all that is needed; so even in rural areas where jobs are scarce, people can still qualify for Medicaid.
3
So how is it then determined if one is "actively looking"? What type of bureaucracy will be set up and at what cost to enforce "actively looking"? No one accepts Medicaid because they are trying to 'rob the system' - Medicaid does not provide money, only health care.
22
And what about those for whom "actively looking for a job" is too much as that, in itself, usually requires transportation and the energy and organizational skills to find and fill out viable job applications. "Looking for work" is not a zero sum activity.
8
"Actively looking for a job is all that's needed." Sure, what a great idea--for someone who doesn't have kids to put into daycare, elderly/sick relatives to take care of, transportation needs, money for resume printing, etc. Then, after all that, you don't get employment after all, so it's a waste of everyone's time, money, etc. Is this really a solution? Whoever thinks this is a good idea--busy work to nowhere--doesn't have their "thinking caps" on.
1
Anyone who's every applied for workman's comp can easily imagine how the need-to-work qualifications will be skewed toward the government.
Workman's comp doctors are very much biased to deny claims and get the "injured" worker back to work in a hurry.
The Medicaid governing board will have near autocratic powers to declare an individual work-ready and deny her or him Medicaid coverage.
And how and where will individuals appeal their denial for coverage? Anybody's guess at this point but you know it won't be easy.
62
To deny Medicaid to the unemployed...
It is bound to produce other forms of employment. There will be a lot of good jobs driving the trucks that will go around every morning and collect the bodies of the dead left in the street.
77
@Bruce
"There will be a lot of good jobs driving the trucks that will go around every morning and collect the bodies of the dead left in the street."
Or at the bus stop.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/baltimore-hospital-patient-woman.html
1
Look at the Baltimore hospital that dumped a mentally ill woman on the street in a nightgown and slippers the other day. Don't you feel proud of how "Christian" we are? One Bible translation that I remember had Christ saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me." Too many right wingers in this country have interpreted that to mean "Let the little children suffer." That will of course build character, like having them sweep the floors in their kindergarten class to earn lunch, like Gingrich (Grinch?) suggested.
Although Trump deserves condemnation for this 'reform,' the philosophy behind it transcends his personal pettiness. One strain of American thought has always reflected skepticism about the worthiness of people in need. In the land of opportunity, according to this outlook, anyone who wants to work can find a job, leaving only the shiftless unemployed. The reality of life in the industrial age has undermined this fantasy, but many conservatives still cling to it as an affirmation of the virtues of capitalism.
The durability of this harsh worldview stems also from its religious underpinnings. Our Puritan heritage includes the belief that original sin shapes human character, justifying the principle that only the threat of punishment forces people, especially members of the lower orders, to behave. Even in our secular age, many individuals who have shed any association with religious thinking still accept the notion that the so-called working class lacks a strong sense of morality.
The Europeans, with their stronger bonds of community, tend to regard illness and disability as social problems, which the group must solve. In America, the conservative suspicion that the poor have failed at life weakens that sense of mutual commitment. The fact that the public face of poverty displays a black or brown skintone merely reinforces that bias.
In these respects, Trump represents nothing more than a particularly vicious version of a very American outlook.
119
I agree with you completely. The notion of the "deserving" poor versus the poor who are not deserving is a thread running through our social fabric. Would that we follow the Europeans' lead, work on developing our communities and view illness and disability as social problems. You are kinder to Christians than I; I do not understand why religious leaders are not calling out our country on a daily basis for not following Christ's teaching. Had they the courage to do so, many of their flock would wake up. Instead, we have the braying of the lambs.
2
The great American way has always been to strive to cure the shiftless among us by encouraging them to die.
That's also the reason why great Americans label the physically and intellectually disabled, the aged and the weak as "social problems" -- to help them see where they've gone wrong.
One thing. The public face of poverty displays a Black or brown face not because more People of Color are poor, but, because the government doesn’t want the rest of us to realize that anyone, White, Black, Brown, Yellow, or a mixture, can with one bad luck moment can suddenly be shoved down to the bottom with no way to get up. Middle management in a factory that closes & the company moves it’s manufacturing overseas are out of jobs too. Their unemployment payments may be bigger, but are the same number of weeks. As more & more manufacturing moves overseas, more & more of them are suddenly down in the bottom, with no way out. But, the White inferiorcists don’t want us to know that. They want us to think that it’s those, lazy, good for nothing, Colored people who are the only ones who can’t find work. If they even looked which they don’t we are told. Poor white people are told they are poor because those of Color take their jobs. It is yelled at them, so they don’t look around & see that their neighbors of darker hues are just as broke & out of work as they are. When a picture of the poor is needed, easiest way to get one is to go to a Black neighborhood for it. If a white family lives there, the picture is shot without them in it. It’s been going on for so long even the media doesn’t notice the implicit bias. Just like most whites don’t realize that if alll those THEY call ‘minorities’ got together, white people would be the minority here in this country NOW.
1
Despite its severity, this plan needs some attention. The truly disabled and low income tax payers who rely on Medicaid must be protected. However, the government, especially the states, needs to end the cycle of generational poverty. We can't afford the free handouts. On a case by case basis, get these people into the work force. Create the case workers and childcare space to allow these mothers and fathers to return to work.
6
Having worked with the poor and people in “generational poverty” - for me, that has been people whose family has lived in America’s definition of poverty - I’ve never met anyone that wants to be poor or didn’t try to work to get out of it. Would love to see some examples of these people you’re implying choose not to work because their parents and generations before them don’t work that make up any significant portion of our society. As there is nothing out there to support these people to pass such sustained poverty along generationally, I find it difficult to believe they exist in any great numbers. Instead, the only people I’ve met where successive generations are able to elect not to work are the wealthy.
17
... And just where will the money to "Create the case workers and childcare space to allow these mothers and fathers to return to work." come from?
No, the answer is Universal Health Care for each and every American!
1
Seema Verma, the head of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare, has been pushing this Republican nonsense for years. She made millions advising states about Medicare health care policy while also representing a very big Medicaid vendor. Which would ordinarily be a glaring conflict of interest, if not downright illegal. But not the in the great state of Indiana.
Ms. Verma said that the new Medicaid requirements would help more people "achieve the American Dream". (Of course, she has already achieved her own version of the American Dream, proving that Americans of any nationality can be just as greedy and soulless as other Americans in sticking it to their fellow Americans. Is this a great country, or what?)
She characterized criticism of the new Medicaid work or "community outreach" rules as "a tragic example of the soft bigotry of low expectations espoused by the previous administration".
If there's anything this administration knows about, it's bigotry and low expectations.
76
Gee. I wonder how the wealthiest nation in the world, with a quarter of the world's lucre and a GDP equivalent to all of the EU, and that spends more on its military than the next 20 nation's combined, is unable to scrape enough money together to help all its least fortunate people.
Maybe we should consider taxing the rich more . . .
140
The untold story is the many Medicaid recipients with mental health issues that have restricted their earning capacity - qualifying them for Medicaid, while keeping them from being able to hold a job.
I worked - hard - in challenging careers in finance, law and education, for over 45 years, but I struggled against an undiagnosed Bipolar II condition, and never was able to make the professional strides I would have otherwise. As I aged, the condition worsened, and I weakened, until I was no longer able to work. Even though I had months at a time of "manic" - productive, social behavior - it was always followed by months of depression, when I could not take care of basic hygiene, let alone work. I could not accept even the most basic position, knowing I could not assure my potential employer that I could perform the duties of the job on any reliable basis.
At age 63 I applied for Social Security disability and was denied for my Bipolar disorder, but granted disability based on my severe arthritis.
Because of my education and experience while I could work, I never qualified for Medicare. I had over the allowable $2,000 in cash - not enough to support myself without earnings, but too much for the program.
I ache for those who are suffering, physically or mentally, and now have this added burden placed on them by an uncaring and greedy administration. Their contempt for the poor, their arrogance, their skewed view of those living in poverty is "sickening" in and of itself.
78
The problem with Medicaid is that abuses exist and that gives fodder to the arguments against it. A neighbor of mine is on Medicaid despite owning a successful store in town (able to write off expenses and show negative income). Their expensive home has no mortgage, their vehicles and those of their children's have been paid for in cash. She is also the daughter of a very wealthy attorney and stands to inherit shortly a significant estate. How does this get fixed? It's so unfair to the people who really need the protection of services.
13
Interesting example. Perhaps the cash flow shown by her business should disqualify her from Medicare benefits.
Of course, universal health care would solve this as it has for the rest of the world.
3
There are always abusers of any program -- not just those created to help the helpless -- and that is why you need to be vigilant and spot abusers, whether they be Medicaid recipients or tax cheats.
Most Americans are honest, but there seems to be an irreducible minimum of 2% that abuse and game any system. Why should the 98% suffer because of them?
I must say I am getting tired of Republicans using anecdotes to defend their selfish cruelty and refusing to allow the collection of hard data that contradicts their unfounded assertions.
Now we have a President who actually lives in a world or anecdotes that enable him not only to ignore plain facts but to keep repeating debunked claims endlessly.
Requiring Medicaid recipients to work in a country that refuses to make the minimum wage and livable wage is just another example of self-satisfied prejudice in action.
2
It gets fixed under a single-payer national health care plan funded by broad-based taxation, where something like a Value Added Tax effectively charges everyone roughly the same percentage of their gross spending for coverage.
Taxation was invented to cut freeloading.
1
What a heartless proposal! If a person is too sick to be able to get a job, or too sick to work, they're just stuck. Even worse, some doctors and clinics won't even make an appointment for someone if they don't know the patient has insurance.
31
A more eloquent argument for Medicare for ALL is in the second line — "became eligible found it easier to look for work".
A country to prosper requires a healthy, educated workforce.
The USA has neither.
We sport the most expensive healthcare with one of the worst outcomes in the world. The proof is an infant mortality rate equal or less than most third world counties.
Student test scores are not even in the top ten of the world's students.
"We the People" deserve better.
31
Corporations export factories from the US to get out from its unique health care hassles.
Yes, there are some people on Medicare who haven’t paid into the system through PREMIUMS taken from their pay checks. There shouldn’t be. Those people should be on Medicaid. Same for SS. Both those programs are insurance programs paid for with premiums, NOT entitlements. So, if you want to use them for everyone of every age you’ll have to take 2 premiums out of every paycheck, plus premiums (of the same amount) for every child. 2 parents + 2 kids, 4 equal premiums for that & 4 for the current elder care program. Say $400 per person per program. That’s $3200 per month. That’s double the amount my husband brings home now. So, only the wealthy can pay for it, but, won’t. The government will be bankrupt in only a couple years & it will be blamed on the poor. As it always is.
The key to fighting this persistent racism is with facts that embarass those who speak or support them. It is time to take off the gloves and fight back.
Trump draws a ton of support from angry white Tea Party types, and these are the people we need to hold up a mirror to. Studies have shown that older Tea Party types consistently believe that they deserve government benefits because they worked hard for them. If there is a group they don't like or otherwise willing to throw under a bus, such as racial minorities or the young, then these benefits are undeserved. This is bald sorting based on prejudice and childish self-interest that destroys the social contract.
The truth is that much of Medicaid spending is spent on white parents in facilities such as nursing homes or under-educated whites with few or poor job prospects or fighting addiction.
The problem is that those who appropriately oppose any racially tinged discussion at all of policy are not challenging racial viewpoints with facts. They fail to see that being above the beliefs of people wallowing in racially tinged or blatant thinking allows those beliefs to thrive precisely because those beliefs are not directly challenged. It is THEIR parents placed in a facility at government expense or THEIR OWN kids getting these benefits. We need to stop letting these folks engage in their unjustified beliefs by not letting them make distinctions unsupportable by facts and divorced from reality. Get on their level.
13
If people gave credit for what public spending adds to their income, they would not be bothered so much by taxation to pay for it, and efficiency of government would be measured by how much of tax revenue adds to the income of the people through public spending.
1
I respect your opinion.
Having said that, do you not hear your own racism?
Sure, some wealthy folks play the system. They ask for and receive benefits to which they are not entitled. The same applies to many impoverished folks who play the same system.
Your discrimination of the white (whatever that is) race is palpable and offensive to this woman of no color. Please give it a rest, lest you be described as racist yourself.
Combine a disdain for all things Government with an apathy towards others and you get a sizeable percentage of the GOP. Add the mindset that being poor is always a matter of choice rather than also a set of circumstances and you have the Ayn Randian distorted view of the world that is not only completely wrong, but utterly heartless as well.
25
Idolizing dollars is just as silly as idolizing anything else.
This is red meat for his base. The Administration and Republicans in general continue to talk about welfare reform by lumping all means-tested programs into that category. They know that 20 years after 1996 Welfare Reform Act passed, very few people receive cash benefits. In fact, just 3 million people or slightly less than 1 percent of the population. Those who rely on Medicaid or SNAP often work but aren’t paid a living wage. A policy that requires “able-bodied” people to work is a rhetorical throwback to 80s-era tropes that sought to paint black people as Cadillac-driving beneficiaries of government handouts. Because they no longer can scapegoat welfare recipients, they are attempting to cast anyone who receives government assistance for health care or food as lazy. Sen. Orin Hatch in December, said he was tired of the government spending billions on people who won’t help themselves in reference to the Children’s Health Insurance Program. This “able-bodied” rhetoric is a ruse. The government deficit will increase as a result of the Trump tax cuts. The administration is trying to create a false narrative that says spending on Medicaid is the reason.
25
Find republican Christian women and men who voted Trump. Share data that this is unChristian and mean.
I had dinner with military trump voter friends who explained the homeless have it easy with iPhones and laziness, jeez. Perhaps only when social issues hit whom they know will they care. These are good people who think Draconian policies work. Teach them otherwise.
12
Did you dissuade them by speaking up with facts vs fiction?
You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into.
-- H.L. Mencken
@ModerateNewMom
You want to appeal to the goodness of Christian men and women who voted for Trump?
Their party denies healthcare to sick people and refuge to refugees. Their party lusts for war with Iran and North Korea. Their party takes money from the poor and sends it to the rich. Their party tried to install a child molester in the Senate. Their party is abandoning responsible stewardship of the environment in order to boost the profits of conservative donors.
There is no Jesus in Christianity anymore. I wouldn't count on Christians if I were you.
The same logic should apply to the bums on the plush: Let the trust fund millionaires work a full time job to qualify for their reduced capital gains tax rates.
44
Trump doesn't have a real job, and certainly isn't fulfilling his oath of office, and he has government sponsored health insurance. He is the most ill-prepared, underperforming, disinterested and uncaring person who has been elevated to the Office of the President of the United States. He is a embarrassment to himself and the country.
35
Given that Medicaid recipients can lose eligibility if their income is above a certain level, getting a job could easily
land them in a situation where they (and their children) lose their Medicaid and can't afford health insurance/healthcare. If they don't work they can't get Medicaid. Maybe this is what Ryan and co. intend-no Medicaid period! But it's not what caring
Americans want for their fellow citizens.
29
Based on first hand experience, you should understand that things are not as simple as suggested here. Social Security disability is another work-related benefit, one that I receive. I was hospitalized in a crisis some 15 years ago and received disability payments. I wanted to get back to work and put an end to my disability situation. I went to work for a year, but it didn't work out. I did volunteer work instead, not successfully. I wanted to keep trying different jobs, but if I worked too many months, I would lose my disability even if the work was going poorly. In effect, the government penalized me for continually trying.
The best system rewards you for your effort and does not penalize you for failed efforts. Medicaid should reward you for trying to find a job, should not penalize you for failed efforts and should not reward you if you don't try at all.
12
Healthcare is a right, not a reward.
1
Why are most of the people commenting ignoring the statement in the article about Republicans trying to impose the work requirement on "able-bodied adults"?? This would mean that those with a disability and need additional help would still get it. This is not about giving Medicaid to those with documented disabilities.
After grad school I was making $30,000 a year. After taxes that is ~2000 per month. I spent ~200 per month on gas for work and ~300 per month on health care. On top of that I was paying ~100 per month for student loans. If I was not internally motivated to improve my life, I could have cut my work in half, received Medicaid, qualified for food stamps, qualified for housing subsidies, and had potentially a better standard of living.
Why is it wrong to encourage people to strive to improve themselves rather than remaining stagnant with government support?
2
If you think living in subsidized housing and using food stamps is improving your standard of living I'd be curious to know where in the US you actually live. I know people who work hard, often at two jobs for $10 or less per hour, and live in subsidized housing that is in lousy condition and in semi-dangerous neighborhoods. They would be happy to earn more, but that is what jobs pay where they live and that they can get to on public transportation.
2
In other words, you had no health and either stayed lucky or stuck us with the check.
Why's that okay?
As an able bodied person you would never qualify for food stamps (it’s called EBT now for those who aren’t clearly talking without knowing what they’re speaking about). Adults with underage children or elderly adults can qualify. Your situation is based on your choices. Quit trying to punish others because “it’s not fair that I have to work so hard”. Talk about lazy...
This should not even be an issue. It is time we accept that in a wealthy country like ours, HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT. The vast majority of developed nations have some form of universal healthcare, ensuring that all citizens have access that they can afford. There are many different ways of achieving this and none of them is perfect. However, all these countries have better population health outcomes than the United States. The current Republican Party is determined to undo what modest progress we have made in the last few years. First they tried to repeal The Affordable Care Act, then they tried to make it fail, and now they are trying to reduce Medicaid access for the poor. This is not only morally reprehensible, but also hinders the economic health of this country. Sick people do not work as effectively as healthy people. It is time to stand up and fight for healthcare for all. It is in the interest of all of us, rich and poor.
16
Public health is a national security concern. Mental health too. Unreasonable people are impossible to govern by logical persuasion.
1
Medicaid isn't the place to start, for the reasons stated in the editorial. But what is wrong with the idea that people receiving government benefits should contribute to society to the extent they can? Government has a duty to protect the vulnerable, in housing, food and health care. But those same people have duties to the society that helps them. They can work or take job training or volunteer at non-profit organizations.
The separation of rights and responsibilities has hurt our society and the people who need its help. While we would have to change how our assistance programs are run, the end result would be better for everyone.
3
Every person has a life cycle of taking and giving to the economy. One starts out taking, eventually working to begin giving, and ultimately retiring to take again.
1
Here in Maine the Republican governor has cut the funding to local job training programs even though he has a lot of federal funds received for that purpose. He just refuses to release them because he is an angry mean guy.
2
The work requirement is completely nonsensical. There’s already a work requirement clause in TANF funds which is the welfare policy that was reviled under the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations and revamped under Clinton. These Senators should remember recent history. This move is simply classist and cruel. People with Medicaid usually have a lot harder time making and keeping drs appointments due to their work and drs office policies. This policy won’t help medical field or the recipients or taxpayers.
16
Maybe we should stop pretending the republican policy changes made under Trump are done in good faith. To believe that is to live in denial. The only thread in common that connects republican policies like requiring Medicaid recipients to work in order to get health care is that the people making these decisions take pleasure in harming people less fortunate than themselves. What else explains the nightmare threat to expel 800,000 Dreamers and 200,000 Salvadorans?
6
Imagine that the VA instituted a policy to deny medical care to Veterans on the grounds that having a job would be good for a veteran, and that this is part of the therapy.
Imagine the uproar.
But, its no different treating a veteran this way than treating a poor person this way if its good for them.
9
This is merely the continuation of a historical pattern:
Why is the population so gullible? It seems the nation is dumbed down further with every passing decade. It's partly due to social media, the press is also at fault, or then there's the educational system that gives a propagandistic, distorted view of the nation's economy, culture and history.
The above faults combine to reinforce an archaic, self-defeating view among the populace that life is a zero-sum game in which the losers deserve to lose, hard power is better than soft power and that Might is Right. This is why the nation suffers from unprecedented socio-economic divisions domestically, and generates such pity globally.
Those recent historical figures who perpetrated such injustices -- Reagan, Bush, Trump -- are not heroes but traitors. Beneath the flag-waving of all 3 lay a hidden agenda to destroy precisely that segment of the population most eagerly waving the flags, in the hope of establishing a permanent form of cheap labour and modern day slavery on which the rich could build further riches.
5
Amen brother. I will make one addition—anyone supporting these people deserves ZERO empathy. Reap what ye sow.
2
Look at the states that are asking for this change. Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin are all conservative states. Sadly this is what their voters have voted for by continuing to vote for the GOP even though they are voting against their own economic interests. These people consider being poor a moral failing and they vote accordingly.
Going after Medicaid is a test. If we don't protest this move then Medicare and Social Security are next. It doesn't say much about our country that we protest any effort to provide a social safety net for those at the very bottom of society.
12
Please stop pretending to take at face value what Trump's GOP claims. With their tax cuts for the very, very rich, they already have worsened the budget losses for states and the federal government. Taking health care away from the poorest will help their budget shortages and those poor who die or otherwise can't get to the polls to vote against them is just an added incentive for them.
9
The GOP/Trump have to save to afford the tax cuts they gave to the wealthy. Medicare is easy, since the poor and meek are easy to take advantage of. The Dems need to shout this from the rooftops to prepare for the Nov. 2018 elections.
6
Disadvantaging the poor and disabled is a prerequisite to funding the expansion of wealth care. Ensuring that those who have the most get even more at the expense of those who have the least is as inconsiderate, thoughtless and cruel as it gets. The regression continues. I for the life of me do not understand what value there is in not helping those who need help. It is not as though we don't have the means.
7
It's time to reframe this whole argument by enumerating and calculating the important values that the sick, the disabled, or people otherwise dealt a bad socio-economic hand have to offer society in this crowded, high-tech civilization.
For example, many of the geniuses and innovators in history, whether individuals, teams, or movements, began--to greater or lesser extents--as disadvantaged members of society due to persecution, ill health, poverty, or behavioral problems. This actually gave them the impetus to overcome their disadvantages.
Further, in a vibrant culture with altruistic leanings, the desire of society to help others overcome their problems and disadvantages has produced many of the great strides in medicine, health care, education, engineering, etc. that we enjoy now.
A society that praises and enforces cultural uniformity and is unwilling to tolerate individuals that do not mostly fit the ideal soon stagnates. It becomes unable to anticipate unexpected, unforeseen events and adapt to restore socio-economic health or evolve to even greater prosperity.
3
Just remember that every dollar saved from providing resources for the poor is a dollar that helps pay for our wealthiest citizens to enjoy their massive tax cuts. This is our government properly serving the people who bought and paid for it.
11
"By letting states deny Medicaid to people with no job, the administration says more recipients will work. The opposite is true."
Change "is true" to "is what we predict".
A future event cannot be "true," as Aristotle pointed out long ago. It can only be predicted. Some predictions are reliable, like that the sun will rise tomorrow.
But predictions of THIS editorial board about the results of Republican policies are no more than 50% reliable, if THAT.
1
Did you even read the article? Or are you just spouting off mindless support of whatever this despicable administration comes up with? Clearly, you missed the parts about the studies that showed that indeed, "the opposite is true".
Work on your reading comprehension and then get back to us.
1
Another classic example of negative reinforcement, similar to spanking a child for wetting the bed or sending a child to bed without supper for not learning her math lesson. The problem with negative reinforcement is we know that it doesn't work, while positive reinforcement produces extraordinary results.
When facts and research are viewed as distractions from what we "know," we can only expect more dysfunction and regression.
136
It highlights the immaturity that leads to concepts like "S4!thole countries".
They lack the sophistication of mature adults and exhibit all the fearful behavior and language of adolescent bullies trapped in the fear created by the insecurity that they cannot get past.
TM, I totally agree regards negative reinforcement, but by all accounts, working is not NEGATIVE reinforcement, it is positive. This is part of the fault in logic. In fact, if such a program could in fact serve as a mechanism to get people back to work, wouldn't that be a good thing.
Now, if, as the article tries to imply, somehow you'd be taking away the healthcare, that's a different story. But the whole problem with the logic of this article is that nothing is being taken away...only more given.
Sorry to be a pedant, but any "reinforcement" increases a behavior. "Negative reinforcement" is removing an unpleasant stimulus in a way that increases behavior -- such as when an medicine relieves pain you are motivated to take more medicine. What you are describing is "positive punishment" -- the application of a stimulus that reduces a behavior. ("negative punishment" is removing a stimulus that reduces a behavior, such as taking away car keys.)
Punishment does work, but you must shape it to the actual person so that you see it is actually punishing (reducing a behavior).
Finally, we need reinforcements and punishments to get better behavior from people, but taking away their medical care IS an inhumane punishment.
Given that Trump doesn't start his day until 11 a.m., and that Congress reports in to work about half the number of days than the rest of us, one could argue that they are getting free taxpayer-funded health insurance without working, either.
12
You can't just blame the Federal Government. States had the opportunity to offer Medicaid and get help from the Federal Government to fund the costs.
It is the States who opted out that are too blame.
Those States, interestingly enough, are run by Republican Governors. I would say that this fact alone should generate the defeat of these Governors when they run for re-elction. Show me a Republican with a heart and conscience and I will show you a relic of past times.
4
It is really hard to believe that the Trump administration is this heartless and vindictive.
As a poverty law worker for over twenty years, it is hard to understand how nasty these people are. Having dealt with the beneficiaries on an intimate and confidential basis year in and year out, it was quite obvious that those who received benefits had many physical and or emotional problems which were obvious to any employer and basically made them unemployable. Those that were temporarily in the program were more than happy to find employment that included health care coverage. There are, of course, a few greedy needy but no more than the greedy billionaires who seek to game the tax system to not pay their fair share. It seems to me that we must go after the greedy billionaires who game the system, not those who simply want access to some health care. How are you gaming the system to receive needed medical treatments. Where are you ahead by helping you get back to normal. How cruel is it to make persons suffice physical pain rather than maybe denying the billionaires another chalet in Aspen or St. Mloritz. We should focus on making sure those billionaires pay for the stable society paid for by middle income taxpayers and not worry about a few people receiving necessary medical treatment. It is much easier to demonize all for digressing of the very few gaming the system. It is more cost effective that those billionaires gaming the system be made to pay their share.
6
"When Ohio and Michigan expanded their Medicaid programs to broaden coverage, residents who became eligible found it easier to look for work..." Yes, Governor Kasich accepted federal Medicaid expansion funds, to his credit. He's not depraved. But it's important to note that within the last 6 months, he refused to use a line-item veto to thwart the very Medicaid work requirements this editorial rightly condemns, and he has himself pushed a proposal for fees on Medicaid recipients that would also hurt the poor and leave many without coverage. Kasich's image has unjustly benefited from pack journalism and a lack of scrutiny.
3
The elitist plutocrats that run the GOP are bidding to become oligarchs.
NY Times readers can recite the mantra of how this began to roll and continues to happen. ‘Trickle down’ tax cuts from the 1980”s GOP that simply enriched the US wealthiest, similar tax cuts under W. Bush, the ‘Citizens United’ decision by the US Supreme Court and now Trumps populist doubletalk that diminishes the middle class and the poor and needy by enriching corporations and the wealthiest GOP donors.
1
Great idea... let's make all poor people in America go to the E.R. for their health care. This way we can make all of our health insurance and hospital costs, which have gotten so low lately, absolutely skyrocket for the entire country. This is some real stable genius thinking. We can also at the same time destroy the credit rating of all poor people in America. Serves them right for being poor. After all, what good is credit for poor people. Let's figure out what else we can do to destroy the lives of the poor. They don't deserve to be Americans anyway.
12
Trump and the Republicans have already built their wall, a proverbial gated community for the donor class keeping out the poor, working class, and middle class. And and third of the country believed Donald J Trump when he campaigned as a working class hero aiming to aid the forgotten Americans. Americans he'd forgotten all his gilded life. I guess he forgot. Or perhaps he was lying. You think?
4
What if state programs enrolled people in Medicaid and also helped them find work if they are able bodied? If it's just a blanket you don't have a job so no Medicaid, that is cruel. But if it is, you don't have a job, but we can grant you Medicaid now and here is a counselor who is going to help you find work, then that's could be a good solution. Why not focus on the objectives here - to care for people and help them enjoy their lives to their fullest potential?
As Krugman states elsewhere on this page, for Republicans it's not about the money, it's not about the policy, it's all about the cruelty. They have, as a party, decided that the poor and middle class are unworthy of assistance, regardless of circumstances and the way to cure them of their unworthiness is to be as cruel as possible and punish them at every turn. Sooner or later appeals to racism, anti-abortion sentiment, hatred of liberals, etc. is no longer going to save them as their voters, many of whom are victims of their cruelty, catch on.
All the while larding vast rewards on the richest of the rich, regardless of need or merit.
4
Let's deny asthma sufferers oxygen. That way they'll have to try harder to breathe and be more self reliant. What's happened to my country?
5
Is healthcare a service to be purchased or a human right?
Are people poor because they are unworthy or unlucky?
We get wrapped up in a lot of value judgements we don't even know we are making. The most basic is that if you work hard, you will be rewarded, and that those rewards will be financial. People who are poor are therefore not hard workers. The second is that we get what we deserve from God, and therefore people with nothing deserve nothing. by this standard, Mother Theresa was a demon and the Koch are God's chose people,
Hence the push to make our poor deserving.
So, the people I have met who do not work but have medicaid: Retirees, with Medicare/Medicaid, A blind woman who needs a corneal transplant but cannot find a provider under Medicaid. By the time she does, the damage from glaucoma - that cannot be assessed because of her condition - may render her legally blind anyway. She'd be able to work if she could see. A large number of children, most of whom have parents who are employed, but do not have insurance. A man living in assisted living with sever complications from disease. Several people with cognitive difficulties living in assisted living. An elderly woman who had a stroke. A really charming guy I figure is a conman or a crook, but cannot be sure.
Do we punish all of the others because of the last? I don't like to play God.
4
This is the Victorian approach to poverty. The prevailing belief at the time was that poor people were just lazy, so any help given to them was provided under the most unpleasant conditions possible.
The infamous workhouses of the period not only provided starvation rations (cf. "Oliver Twist") but put "work requirements" on able-bodied adults. The catch was that the work was not only pointless but also likely to cause stress injuries: carrying rocks back and forth from one pile to another, turning a crank that was not attached to anything, and spending an entire day walking on treadmills.
It should not surprise anyone in the present day that people stayed poor, especially in an era when depressions happened every few decades.
I'm old enough to remember when there were compassionate and sensible Republicans. Such Republicans are now an extinct species.
Today's Republican Party has morphed into the party of self-centeredness, money-grubbing, heedlessness about the future, and deliberate cruelty, although the seeds of it were there even back in the Nixon era. My mother had an acquaintance--a relative of a friend whose will she was executor for-- who was a bigwig in her local Republican Party, and this woman actually said with glee, "One day we'll get rid of welfare, and will those [racist epithet]s ever squeal." Yes, those were her exact words.
]
It looks as if her branch of the Republican Party has become the dominant force.
5
What audacity - coming from a man who debunks all sciences. After all he’s addicted to junk food, doesn’t exercise, and probably never even worked a legitimate job in his adult life.
7
Most of the people I work with on a daily basis receive Medicaid or Medicare (or some combination of both) and are supported by SSI or SSDI. Health coverage allows them to seek needed services to treat addiction and psychiatric illnesses. Most of them are either unemployed due to these illnesses or they are part of a larger picture. This could be generations of folks who have received benefits and lack access to education and decent paying jobs. Most of the jobs available in our area are low paying and do not include health care. So what's a poor person to do? Do I take a low pay job that will kick me off of HUD and other assistance so I can keep my Medicaid? Do I stop my treatment for addiction to work at the local Sheetz? I understand there are people scamming the system (just look at what the 1% are doing to scam the system!)...but I believe they are in the minority. We need job training and then actual jobs with affordable health care.
And we need to stop shaming people of lower economic status...
10
Health and education enable personal responsibility, the GOP's keywords of the day. If you support both, independence and security may follow. Kicking people, who are down already for either or both, is cruel and ineffectual. Haters love to hate. The new opiod crisis.
3
Oh I am angry. Very angry. And I plan on venting my anger by supporting candidates both with my wallet and with my vote. Candidates who don't scapegoat the poor and disabled.
5
Universal single-payer healthcare for ALL.
This is not an issue in most industrialized countries. Why is the United States so backward when it comes to providing healthcare, a universal human right, to ALL of its citizens? Why do We the People allow this?
The United States is US. We get the government we deserve.
5
Wealthy people who have everything, going out of their way to make life hard on people at the bottom because they can. Let's all have a round of applause for Donald Trump and the Republican party.
5
Wouldn't it be nice if our elected officials were people
that accept/respect that people form liberal (in Lockean sense) democratic government to serve and protect them
---- that the whole notion of forming and nurturing these governments is predicated on the FACT that we are a social species and our survival (philosophically and physically) depends on our coordinated and collective cooperation and efforts
---- that government is expected to play a MAJOR unifying role in our collective lives
that recognize politics is about fairly/effectively allocating scarce resources, promoting/protecting core values/principles e.g., life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. and lifting up citizens especially the least among us
that recognize that politics is not in the main just the way to win elections, maintain power, force personal ideology, and further aggrandize the already grand
that devote their their time, resources, and energy to identifying and understanding our REAL problems and opportunities
that accept that solving our REAL problems, with REAL solutions and ethically seizing our REAL opportunities is their MAIN job
that hold to an honest method of discovery and evaluation
that accept only things that comport with reality or most likely assumptions
that accept facts and empirical evidence over perceptions, revelation, and ideology
that are committed to objective honesty even it rubs against their personal druthers
and to sum it up.......
THAT ARE NOT GOP!
4
Giving people money for nothing is one of the most destructive things you can do. I fully support compelling people to work at anything, if they are receiving free money in any form including health care. It baffles me my you want to damage people by giving them free money.
1
How does it "damage" someone by helping them at their most desperate? We are not talking about giving people vast riches, we are not talking about the very small number who cheat (which will happen in any system at all), we are talking about people, many of them already working, who literally can't pay rent and still buy food, have heat, afford any health care... Many of them have physical and mental problems that may not be apparent to you, which very likely will not be helped by "compelling them to work at anything."
4
Since the revolutionary war, this country has shown little compassion for its most vulnerable citizens. The mobs have been left to deal on their own while the opportunist pursues riches. To me is now clear that the “good” US that appeared after WWII was an illusion that ended with the deregulation of the late 70s. So nope, not surprised by the President’s remarks note the idiotic enablement of his crazy agenda by Congress.
4
Excluding seniors and the disabled, what keeps these 'most vulnerable' people from rising up? It seems everyone gets upset but them. Why? But then again, people need to realize it's not always the same people and not always a permanent situation.
Let's hope that those adversely affected by this decision, especially if they voted for Trump and/or other Republicans, come to their senses and throw the bums out in '18 and '20.
4
There is nothing wrong with the idea of requiring some form of work for unemployed people on Medicaid but, as usual, the devil is in the details.
Using the New Deal's W.P.A. and C.C.C. as models to be adapted might benefit both the aid recipients and the community at large. The important thing is that work be provided by the states be meaningful and accessible. The W,P.A. built Hoover Dam, while also supporting Jackson Pollock's art. Meanwhile, many of the best structures still gracing our Parks were built by the C.C.C., as they employed and trained many Americans, including those, such as Raymond Burr, Stan Musial, and Chuck Yeager, who subsequently built their own independent careers.
Yes, we must be prepared to fight for good programs, but to simply reject out of hand the idea that those receiving public aid should be exempt from providing some form of public service consonant with their physical and mental circumstances is self-defeating in the long run. Done right, programs can provide much-needed training, create public goods, and garner support from taxpayers who might otherwise oppose entitlement programs.
Let us support these state efforts to devise good programs, while fighting to make them useful and fair. Yes, they will be experiments, and some will work better than others, but that is how we learn to improve what we do. Remember, Obamacare essentially started out as a state program instituted by a Republican governor.
To repeat, the devil is in the details.
57
Interesting point, but I think you're too optimistic about the intent of the states seeking waivers. Recent history shows that they're more intent on cutting public sector expenditures rather than instituting any sort of meaningful government programs.
5
There is a huge difference between the WPA programs designed to provide employment to physically capable individuals--especially young men and women--and requiring work from individuals (often elderly and children) with chronic diseases that limit their physical capability of performing work.
While many people who are "differently abled" (blind, deaf, lost the use of limbs or other permanent conditions) desperately want to work in positions for which they are qualified but require simple accommodations from employers to work, the chronically ill are often not able to work at all.
Providing employment in times of high unemployment was/is a necessary gov't function. Requiring sick people to work in order to receive access to health care is simply punishing the poor for being poor. It is time to call out the often racist, certainly misguided and mean agenda of those who would deny health care to the poor because of their poverty. Don't try to wrap this radical Republican agenda up in the clean words of "state experiments to improve what we do". The devil is in the intention of the agenda as well as the details of any Republican restriction on safety net programs.
4
I don't disagree with much that you said, but the devil is more than in the details. The devil is also in the hidden agenda.
If these state programs, and federal support for them, are truly compassionately aimed at the goal of finding useful, gainful outlets for the energies of people forced into Medicaid, then yes, that's wonderful.
But all signs from this administration and the angry, rich, while men that stand behind it are that they just don't want their money going to these useless, lazy, slovenly people, who are no doubt at fault for their own predicaments. They want a way to make them earn their keep. Basically, they want an excuse to take Medicaid away from them.
The idea of improving the programs is a noble one.
But if the execution does not match that idea, because the real intent is to just cut people out of the loop, then no, the devil is not in the details, but rather the details are decided by the devil, and match evil intentions.
2
Blatant racism and an utter lack of respect for evidence are so evident here. They hardly bother with the usual dog whistles anymore. The “poor” to GOP minds means black, and black means shiftless and lazy. They tell women to have their babies, deny adequate birth control to the poor, and then balk at providing basic medical care for the offspring. They “know” all this because someone said so over a beer at at the local bar. Actual evidence will be hand-waved off as “libtard crap”. And, of course, they are not racist, you know. (They precede all their racist remarks with this disclaimer.)
It bothers me that any number of editorial contributors to this paper keep exhorting me to “engage” with these people. You cannot argue with faith and the views of the working class Trumpies are forged in faith with little regard for data or evidence.
54
Wait a second, I thought liberals call Trump supporters poor, uneducated, and lazy (and a lot of other more derogatory terms). Now the poor are all of a sudden Hillary supporters? And if a poor person is out of a job and able to work and the government has a job or training opportunities for that person, what is the excuse for not taking it and saying thank you? What’s wrong with working? Are you saying that poor people shouldn’t have to work? That we should just enable their poverty by just handing out money and services paid for by people that do work? Or maybe the moral obligation to help the poor can be set aside by forcing the rich to pay for it? What a confusing rationalization against a logical quid pro quo for services rendered.
Maybe ideology? Sad state of faith otherwise.
What do think is revealed about Trump supporters when you clearly have not bothered to read the editorial? Most of the recipients are already working.
"It will also hurt people who, through no fault of their own, lose their jobs and are not able to quickly find another one because they live in a depressed area or because economic changes have made their skills less valuable. Then there are people with chronic conditions like diabetes who do not qualify for disability, but are often unable to work."
This new cruel twist to link an income based program to active employment would affect many of the president's ardent supporters--out of work coal miners, people who lack skills in regions without job training programs, and folks in their 50s and early 60s unable to find work because of age discrimination.
Do the HHS Secretary, and Donald Trump, really think able-bodied unemployed Americans are just laying around watching TV, cracking beers, and living off the fat of the federal government?
Most Medicaid recipients are trying to eke out a living with the deck permanently stacked against them--and as the Board points out, having health insurance makes it easier to find work.
Their rationale that "work will make their lives better and employed people are happier patients" is a bunch of pap to mollify the rampant prejudice against the poor in the party of the rich.
Any social worker will tell you, if your health is marginal in the first place, it needs to be addressed before--not after--you can take a job.
81
A lot of folks in their 50s and 60s are taking care of their children's children.
5
Giving an unemployed person free medical care and a job as well (or training) is not cruel, it’s a helping hand out of poverty. You make it sound as if they are being sent to some Victorian workhouse.
They are not going to help anyone get a job or training. They will just claim that people who can’t really work should be, and throw them off the program.
More pandering to the ill-informed base, which believes that most folks on Medicaid or other assistance are simply lazy folks getting something for nothing. The move is punitive, nothing more.
68
And, black, brown, yellow or some other non-white color.
1
The long sought after Republican dreams are now becoming realities. First cut Medicaid. Then Medicare. Then Social Security. Don't let in any immigrants from those shithole countries. Build that wall. Give tax cuts to the 1% and ignore the other 99%. And this is called Making America Great Again?
180
And spend whatever monies DO come in on defense. I wonder when they will free up our SS dollars for the gambling that is the stock market, those poor souls need more obscene profits and are running out of cons to run.
4
What is wrong with cutting? If all of Medicare, Medicaid and defense are cut by a mere 10%, we would have plenty of money for rebuilding our infrastructure and we could feed every single American for free.
As for cutting social security, it is no more than what a Democrat will predict about Republicans. I take Democratic predictions about Republican policies with a huge grain of salt.
You want to win in November. Of course. And presenting Republicans as worse than they actually are is part of an electoral strategy. I am not buying it.
Cut my Medicare by 10%, Aruna, and I will drop it. There is no law currently in place that requires me to pay for it out of my crummy salary. (And, if I get terribly sick or have an accident, I'll just use the emergency room.)
Figure out what will happen to funding if others decide to do the same.
1
Let's call out Trump and the Republican plan for what it is: an $800 billion cut over 10 years to offset the wealth transfer they just legalized in the so-called tax overhaul. Let's also look at one state currently receiving the largest share of federal dollars: Kentucky. Mitch McConnell's Kentucky is more dependent on federal dollars than any other state. With plans to cut existing Medicaid recipient numbers, how does furthering the distress of vulnerable and desperate citizens supposed to work? Kentucky already sits near the bottom of health rankings for smoking rates, cancer deaths, and diabetes and faces an opiod epidemic. McConnell--who became a millionaire while in office--should be taken to court for criminal malfeasance, misrepresentation, and incompetence. Kentucky deserves better.
319
Kentucky voted 63% for Trump, and its mostly the better educated Kentuckians in the urban areas who voted for Clinton. Sorry, but the poor Kentuckians now get what they voted for. Hopefully this will get them thinking about what to vote for in 2018 and 2020. But my hopes are not very high...
3
But the voters of Kentucky keep reelecting him.
1
Kentuckians do deserve better.
However, they reap what they sow!
They are the ones who vote for and keep in office McConnell, Trump, and all the other lying, despicable Republicans who are making their life difficult and killing America.
2
Demanding people work to receive benefits assigned to their status fixes another government mandate in place. It fixes hypocrisy as well.
The shrill screams over the ACA mandates claimed freedom from illness and high costs/limited benefits was socialism. An open door for death panels, an attack on corporation capitalism—strong profits were more important than strong people, mandates destroyed freedom.
Now comes a new mandate is that is fine thing, enforcing the virtues of contribution and work. Never mind that those being mandated are a selected population of the elderly and infirm.
This hypocrisy is politically driven. People who toiled without benefits, are expected to work for what they were denied.
Why the hypocrisy about mandates, their larger meaning and purpose? Because Republicans embrace the historic autocratic structure that exploited democracy and is its most deadly danger and contradiction. Wealth grew from both free work and slavery in America; the GOP blurs the lines between the two.
Its politics are built on old divisions: that the underprivileged be denied value or fairness to benefit the rich. That freedom—good health--is the provenance of wealth and power. A mandate without an option establishes a new class of serfs and enslaved because power embraces the cruelty and myth that the privileged can fault the poor.
136
I'm sorry but I don't even know what half of this means. It seems you just want to show your outrage without bothering to account for any facts whatsoever. The Times starts the trend with a headline saying "Trump's plan to hurt the poor" rather than even a still questionable "Trump's plan that hurts the poor" and then it's as if readers scramble to outdo one another as well the original editorial itself. It's as if you strung a bunch of keywords together. I almost don't know where to start but here it goes: 1. You appear to have zero concept of what a mandate is. a)The government mandates hypocrisy? b)You sarcasticly say mandates destroy freedom. While a reasonable argument could be made that the benefits from certain mandates outweigh the costs in personal freedom, a mandate by definition does in fact destroy freedom. c)In what way is this policy a mandate? The states are required to seek wavers to even implement changes but even if implementation occurs, how does denial of benefits to certain parties a mandate. d) A mandate with an option would no longer be a mandate. 2. No one claims freedom from illness is socialism because a person's clean bill of health has nothing to do with socialism. 3. Corporations by definition are capitalistic. At least you got more keywords in. 4. The editorial explicitly says the wavers don't apply to the elderly and infirm. 5. The party of states' rights and deregulation embraces autocracy? 6. I can make no sense of that last paragraph.
1
Mandates for thee, but nor for me. Poor people are not "real people". I am surprised that these creeps don't demand that the poor come on hands and knees wearing sack cloth and ashes, as the presence of "normal clothes" would signify they aren't really poor.
1
Do you know what the term “able bodied” means? It does not mean the elderly and infirm. Quit making things up.
People seeking Medicaid are not free-loaders looking to abuse government entitlement programs. They are usually sick with chronic disease or even cancer. They probably had 3 low paying jobs at one point, maybe even landscaped your yard, but could not afford healthcare insurance. And their employers did not offer such benefits. Now they cannot work due to illness. They have no primary care MD, so they go to the ER for help. I see this even in my affluent town. And Utah did not pass the Medicaid expansion like many states did with the intent to help others. So most do not get the coverage. Medicaid is hard to qualify for. Hospitals here do a lot of free care. This all goes back into the system because someone needs to pay for it. It is stealing from Peter to pay Paul. It is nonsense.
This is just the Republicans trying to roll-back more Obama administration policies. The Medicaid expansion was part of the ACA. States were allowed to opt out and many did. So now they want to give more power to the states to deny even more coverage to the poor and down trodden. How noble. Of course, it will only hurt more people and drive up healthcare costs, but, they do not care.
I have such Trump fatigue. We were one step closer to Universal healthcare with the ACA and now we have taken a hundred steps back.
Meanwhile, citizens of this country are in peril and I suppose they are just collateral damage to the brainless current government who swore to serve the people. Such rubbish.
342
I agree with the editors’ basic conclusion, but not for the arguments they offer in support of it.
Their arguments boil down to this: free medical care is a basic human right and we shouldn’t place conditions on the enjoyment of basic rights. Yet that’s one of the primary chasms of political conviction that divide us. You’re not convincing to more than one side in that disagreement when you seek to justify a conclusion based on arguments and premises that only one side accepts. My arguments supporting the same conclusion are very different.
By leaving Medicaid work requirements (to the extent that there are any) to the states, we strengthen and perpetuate the kinds of differences that until 1973 and Roe made abortion unmanageably contentious among our states – it’s approaching unmanageable contentiousness again because we’re permitting individual states to interpret it differently. There are appropriate differences in regional culture that are fit subjects for regulation by individual states, but access to what is basically a federal program (even if the states contribute mightily to it) isn’t properly one of them. Beyond that, there are matters of culture that SHOULD be decided at a national level, when the matter is basic enough to affect the understanding of what it means to be “American”, as opposed to “Texan” or “Californian”.
14
Then, by watching as some states enact work requirements and some don’t, we could see our poorest protect perceived self-interest by merely walking across the state line from the Idaho Panhandle to Washington, artificially burdening Washington (a state without an income tax).
That ain’t no way to run a cathouse or a nation – even one that lives in a federalized framework.
Either enact work requirements that apply universally, or leave them out of Medicaid entirely. I suspect that would mean no work requirements.
25
According to this piece, there have already been studies in Ohio and Michigan that provided data to answer the question. It's not necessary, nor desirable, to make people suffer to test the hypothesis.
That being said, it makes sense to have some universal benefits that go along with being a citizen of the US. Access to some level of health insurance seems like a good idea to me.
We should be talking about how we are going to make it possible for people who are able to work to do so as automation destroys more jobs. Even if, eventually, the net result is more jobs, the transition will be painful.
2
It is unusual to read a comment I agree with about where states fit in the structure of gov't in the US. To allow the artificial divisions of state boundaries to impose laws which harm US citizens is both wrong and ineffective in 2018.
The court decision against North Carolina's re-districting which tried to ensure a majority Republican government despite the will of its voters, and other efforts to counteract the influence of one-party state governments which impose laws to benefit only a minority of state voters is a good example of the strong push against artificial re-districting for a political advantage.
As the Republican party ideology has become more extreme and less evidence-based--Medicaid work requirements for the very ill, children and the elderly are an example--voters are becoming more motivated to push back against unfair state level actions.
The political Roberts Court decision-- which allowed for Medicaid expansion exemptions and hurt so many citizens who were needlessly denied access to health care simply because of where they lived--may turn out to be the match which lit the fire against the Republican control of states.
The organizational ability of Republicans to enact through ALEC the same laws in many states to benefit only a few seems to be leading to an organized rebellion by or on behalf of those harmed by the radical ideology imposed by an overreaching GOP.
The Reagan welfare "queens" are corporations in 2018. Old men, old ideas.
8
"Make sick people work." Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?
168
Sorry friend, but "compassionate conservatism" was just as valid a chimera as "tax cuts for the middle class" is today. In other words it was an attempt from the GOP to rebrand and co-opt our language to foist another horrendous GOP heist for the 1% upon the American taxpayer.
3
Compassionate conservatism has always been a myth. Like trickle-down economics. Like balancing the budget by cutting fraud and waste. Like being the Party of Lincoln. Like every word that comes out of the mouth of our barking mad President.
6
This is compassionate conservatism. Your mistake is that you expect compassionate conservatism to show compassion to those in need of it.
1
Boy! It is time to point the finger at the people not the government office that are behind these heartless ignorant and down right cruel "policies". Let's have the names of those who made these policies and put them into practice. Let's look at them in the eye and have them justify these stupid, uninformed, probably racist, driven instruments of pain and suffering in to play.
See what they say when the light of the day is shining on them.
184
well we will have to wait for e.g. Rand Paul to come back from his extended sick leave recovering nicely with his government paid for medical care to ask him.
4
What?!? Do you not know who is behind this inhumane treatment of the most vulnerable in our affluent society? Really? Every Republican member of Congress, that’s who. Look them in the eye if it makes you feel better but better yet vote them out of office and let them find a real job.
You really think guys like Mick Mulvaney are capable of shame?
The statistics you provide from the Kaiser Family Foundation showing that two-thirds of recipients are seniors, disabled people, or children are ones I've seen before and should be all any rational Congressional representative needs to make the compassionate and responsible decision. I think that among those who are working, many include single moms or other people who make very minimal wages, and apparently more than half are working among the able-bodied younger adults.
How has this obviously necessary program, one that any compassionate country would be proud to provide, become a target of the GOP? We all know the answer. The modern GOP no longer represents the interests of average people, they only make a show of it, yet somehow manage to convince those who might well need these types of programs, and the rest who support them are interested only in how they can increase their slice of the pie even if it means those in need get none.
This latter group of Republicans isn't just the 1%; it includes many much less well off but who hold a cold, hard view of how we should take care of and pay for helping those in need.
The US is full of compassionate, willingly helpful and caring people, but our voices are being systematically silenced by interests who have most of the power in government. On the one hand, I am immensely proud of the people who share my views, but on the other hand, I have become ashamed and increasingly angry at those who are uncaring and selfish.
335
Not everyone who disagrees with your views are "uncaring and selfish". The reflexive attribution of ill character to those with whom we disagree about public policy is the basis for the failure of democracy and civic life.
2
The cold hard facts are that despite trillions in spending since LBJ's Great Society, we've only reduced poverty by 2.5% (17.3 % in '65 vs 14.8 in '15). By any measure, that's a failure to accomplish anything measurable, a massive waste of tax dollars and a distortion of not only society, but the workforce and free markets as well.
3
LCA: I take issue with your speculation. During that time, countless poor, elderly, handicapped, and the children involved have received help. The studies I've seen have shown that, other than the elderly and handicapped, those who receive help in social welfare programs are not permanent recipients, with the average time spent in programs ranging from 1 to 4 years. The intent of these programs are not to reduce poverty but to provide a safely net for those who have real needs. The poverty rate has to be addressed by changes in our economic and social structures. I fail to see how safety nets for people who are not gaming the system, and probably some small percentage do but not the vast majority, distorts our society, the workforce, and free markets. There are often not enough jobs in certain areas and at certain periods of time. You know that.
3
Living in the USA is like living in a chamber of horrors at this moment in history. My experience working with poor people is that many of them are not in the workforce because they suffer from debilitating illnesses and CANNOT work. Where is the humanity in denying Medicaid coverage to these already-suffering people? Where is the logic? But, what am I thinking --- this intent is is not to be humane or logical; it is part of the ongoing and misguided war on the poor.
And another thing, my long experience with people at all socioeconomic levels informs me that the vast majority people truly want to work. The notion that there are a bunch of lazy people sitting around waiting to depend on Medicaid or any other form of assistance is patently false! Much of one's self-esteem and well-being is derived from the ability to generate income and this holds true for the multitudes.
447
"my long experience with people at all socioeconomic levels informs me that the vast majority people truly want to work. The notion that there are a bunch of lazy people sitting around waiting to depend on Medicaid or any other form of assistance is patently false! Much of one's self-esteem and well-being is derived from the ability to generate income and this holds true for the multitudes."
This is well-stated and accords with something in my long experience as a teacher of elementary age children. Almost all children want to learn and be like their peers showing understanding and making process. When they consistently act out or say they are bored, it's usually because they have underlying problems of hunger, insecure home life, or they can't comprehend due to some learning difficulty. Children want to win approval and be accepted by their peers and teachers. Spanking and denial of help is not going to fix children. And it's not going to save the government all the imaginary huge sums of money wasted on the indigent and unfortunate.
But it will hurt them.
12
Why is this not a Times Pick even as Steve Pfankuchen's tired notion that the unemployed need to be made to work fallacy is highlighted?
2
Should we be surprised at this? From Trump?
This is in line with everything he has attempted to do so far.
130
Don't forget to mention the Republican representatives and Republican-led states which are VERY eager to implement this. It isn't just tRump.
3
None of those who attempt to require work for health care have walked in the shoes of someone whose physical body fails them. Are we now going to become the country of the throwaways? If you can't muster up then away with you. This is not a benevolent or compassionate country as we all don't come out with the same capacity and often those with a disability have greater hearts and souls than the well. It still galls me that Paul Ryan professes to a catholic faith when he believes in such policies. His are not in the tradition of Catholic faith or action.
228
I also noticed that in the NYT profile of him several months back. He abandoned his Catholic teachings. You can abandon a faith (as I have) but still appreciate and live by the lessons learned from my "faith time." My wife and I have raised several children, our own and adopted, in a moral manner without church.
2
Incorrect. Catholics are taught to give money and assistance. They are NOT taught to forcibly take from others to fund their charities. Taxes-funded services are not charity. Don't get confused.
1
We already live in a country that throws people away. Just look at all the homeless on the streets.
Our leadership is filled with ignorant, heartless, people. Donald Trump is hurting the people that delivered him this office. Yet, you have people like Mitch McConnell nodding their heads and smiling while their constituents will be hurt the most. Vote out every Republican that supports and covers for this fool. They will soon find out what Steve Bannon did - eventually the bully turns on you.
256
Most people voting for Trump had incomes of about $70,000. The poor did not support him as much. So Trump is not hurting his deplorable supporters by this particular move, although much of his agenda will hurt them. When they start removing Medicaid support for nursing homes and all those elderly are shifted back on their families, that will impact this group, and YUGELY.
3
The beatings will continue until the morale improves.
279