Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 149
Thanks Tree162Thanks

Thread: Kentucky imposes work requirements for Medicaid

  1. #21
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,117
    Thanks
    32064

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    That makes no sense.
    It makes perfect sense to those who trump is trying to impress....perfect sense.

    If it makes one moron happy, it makes the law worth it.
    Thanks from HayJenn

  2. #22
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    54,033
    Thanks
    41736

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronwyn View Post
    It makes plenty of sense. The government shouldn't be subsidizing someone's drug habit.
    I guess you didn't bother to read how when Florida tried this is was a total failure and ended up costing the state more than anything they got back?

    Kind of cracks me up to think that somehow "poor" people all do drugs.

  3. #23
    Established Member Bronwyn's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    7,255
    Thanks
    1842

    From
    CA
    It worked in Maine quite well. Job requirements and drug testing for welfare benefits. Cut their numbers down quite a bit since 2014.

  4. #24
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    95,692
    Thanks
    73602

    From
    <-- "Meme Boy"
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronwyn View Post
    Even one caught is worth the cost.
    The supposed party of fiscal responsibility...

    Hilarious.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  5. #25
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    82,037
    Thanks
    44699

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by jacobfitcher View Post
    It will likely cost more to enforce this than it saves.
    it's counter-intuitive too. Likely, to actually lead to more unemployment. People who are injured can't go to the doctor to get back in the proper physical conditions to work. Bunch of bigoted dummies in Kentucky , or what?
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and labrea

  6. #26
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    22,992
    Thanks
    11942

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    The majority of people benefiting from Medicaid are children, disabled, or elderly, and would be exempt from work requirements. If you exclude pregnant women and parents with young children, the number of affected people shrinks even more. The majority of the remaining non-disabled adults are working. And some of them can only work because they get Medicaid — such as people who have mental illnesses or struggle with substance abuse but who, with reliable health care, are healthy and stable enough to work. Making work a prerequisite for Medicaid could, perversely, wind up preventing such people from working.

    Nearly two-thirds of Medicaid recipients are children, blind or otherwise disabled, or elderly. Work requirements would be plainly inappropriate in those cases, and so proposals typically exclude them. Kentucky’s proposed plan applies only to “‘able-bodied’ working age adults,” not including students and caregivers, per the Kaiser Family Foundation. If you drill down into the third or so of Medicaid beneficiaries who are working-age adults and don’t get Supplemental Security Income for a disability, you find that the majority work, and an even larger majority live in households where someone works. Those who don’t have understandable reasons, as this chart from Kaiser Family Foundation president Drew Altman suggests — they’re sick, they’re in school, they’re retired, or they can’t find a job:



    This is a solution in search of a problem,” Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health policy at George Washington University who serves on a board advising Congress on Medicaid policy, says. “There’s just no evidence that too many people aren’t working who can work. If you say ‘able-bodied’ enough times, you give a sense that there are people just sitting around who could work, but that’s just not the case.”

    https://www.vox.com/2017/4/6/1518131...irements-trump

    So another "policy" that won't really do much, but appeals to his base.
    This is not a new proposal...Clinton signed in The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which included a strong work requirement for those who are able to work. The reform also included 3 years and off. I remember when this was in effect for Ohio, it was either school or work for those who were able to work. Obama repealed the act during his first term because of the recession and the lack of jobs.

    https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/personal...ation-act-1996

    It was successful according to some reports...

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi.../#104679d07390

    I really don't have a problem with this...if there are jobs available, it is not unreasonable to require employment to supplement benefits. At least now, a person can work and still receive assistance. I remember if a person had a job...no benefits.
    Thanks from boontito and Blues63

  7. #27
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    54,033
    Thanks
    41736

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    This is not a new proposal...Clinton signed in The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which included a strong work requirement for those who are able to work. The reform also included 3 years and off. I remember when this was in effect for Ohio, it was either school or work for those who were able to work. Obama repealed the act during his first term because of the recession and the lack of jobs.

    https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/personal...ation-act-1996

    It was successful according to some reports...

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi.../#104679d07390

    I really don't have a problem with this...if there are jobs available, it is not unreasonable to require employment to supplement benefits. At least now, a person can work and still receive assistance. I remember if a person had a job...no benefits.
    That pertained to Welfare - not Medicaid.
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #28
    Established Member Bronwyn's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    7,255
    Thanks
    1842

    From
    CA
    It's all the same thing. A Government benefit.

  9. #29
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    56,818
    Thanks
    32695

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronwyn View Post
    There's enough in just that 8% that need to go to work. It should appeal to you too, but then again, you want to pay for leeches who live off taxpayers.
    I think this hypermoral, victim blaming anger at the poor is self-defeating. I define a healthy society as one in which most people are middle class, while far fewer are rich or poor. One in which paths for upward mobility are easily found and reliable.

    By my measure, the U.S. does not have a healthy society and has not had one since the late 1950's.

    We have a very serious future challenge, as to how to offer young people not just a universal benefit they can subsist on, but a meaningful life if they can never work.

    I suspect you resent the poor because you have a mistaken belief that your family lives less well and is more insecure because the government diverts too many resources to the poor.

    The truth is, beginning no later than the 1970's, our government has been diverting middle class income and assets to the 0.01%.

    These are not moral or philosophical questions we can never know the answer to. These are observable economic facts, and we need look no further than Mexico to observe the impact of ever more extreme income inequality.

    After WWII, Mexico had a stable, expanding middle class and a responsible government. Over the last 70 years, the uber rich of Mexico have destroyed their middle class by "legal" means, gobbling up those assets for themselves.

    And destroying Mexican society in the process.

  10. #30
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    82,037
    Thanks
    44699

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronwyn View Post
    It's all the same thing. A Government benefit.
    so?

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Alabama replaces work requirements on food stamps
    By Southern Dad in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 6th July 2017, 05:43 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24th March 2017, 02:21 PM
  3. Replies: 121
    Last Post: 8th February 2017, 01:01 PM
  4. Work Requirements Don’t Cut Poverty, Evidence Shows
    By Babba in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23rd June 2016, 07:14 PM
  5. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 8th August 2012, 11:03 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed