The image does say "non-elderly" among other caveats.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this, I'm sure those asterisks are merely to placate those who aren't willing to dig deeper, but on its face, "non-elderly, non-pregnant adult Medicaid beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid on a basis other than disability" is less horrific than I expected it to be.
Until some fuckmuppet gets their hands on it, I'm sure.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this, I'm sure those asterisks are merely to placate those who aren't willing to dig deeper, but on its face, "non-elderly, non-pregnant adult Medicaid beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid on a basis other than disability" is less horrific than I expected it to be.
Plenty of folks need healthcare and aren't disabled. Have diabetes, better not lose your job if you like living.
No-one goes on Medicaid because they are idle. The truly idle folk out there don't give a shit about health insurance, because they don't give any thought to the future. But those folk are generally sponging off friends or relatives - much more patient and generous than the government.
One thing it will do is ensure junkies can't get rehab, because people who have hit rock bottom are not usually gainfully employed. Which will ensure that they *never* get a job, because no-one wants to employ a homeless addict.
It also takes into consideration people with opioid addictions so not necessarily.
Yeah, this is something I didn't think about until recently: people recovering from opioid addiction can spend a long time in treatment covered by Medicaid, and a job might not be an option.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this, I'm sure those asterisks are merely to placate those who aren't willing to dig deeper, but on its face, "non-elderly, non-pregnant adult Medicaid beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid on a basis other than disability" is less horrific than I expected it to be.
Plenty of folks need healthcare and aren't disabled. Have diabetes, better not lose your job if you like living.
No-one goes on Medicaid because they are idle. The truly idle folk out there don't give a shit about health insurance, because they don't give any thought to the future. But those folk are generally sponging off friends or relatives - much more patient and generous than the government.
One thing it will do is ensure junkies can't get rehab, because people who have hit rock bottom are not usually gainfully employed. Which will ensure that they *never* get a job, because no-one wants to employ a homeless addict.
Perhaps I was unclear.
I was expecting Sauron levels of villainy. Literal mustache twirling. Maybe some babies punched for good measure.
Getting 80% of the way there can still be 'fucking bad' and simultaneously 'not as bad as I expected'.
These are not mutually exclusive statements.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Only about 20% of people on medicaid are unemployed.
That’s why this is so stupid. These morons just assume that most Medicaid recipients don’t work because they’re “bad” and lazy and literally the opposite is true and the vast majority are employed.
Only about 20% of people on medicaid are unemployed.
That’s why this is so stupid. These morons just assume that most Medicaid recipients don’t work because they’re “bad” and lazy and literally the opposite is true and the vast majority are employed.
Watch them craft the definition of "employed" to be like, 40 hours a week, rendering a bunch of people who work as much as they physically and mentally can, given their disabilities, suddenly be cut off.
Only about 20% of people on medicaid are unemployed.
That’s why this is so stupid. These morons just assume that most Medicaid recipients don’t work because they’re “bad” and lazy and literally the opposite is true and the vast majority are employed.
Watch them craft the definition of "employed" to be like, 40 hours a week, rendering a bunch of people who work as much as they physically and mentally can, given their disabilities, suddenly be cut off.
Only about 20% of people on medicaid are unemployed.
That’s why this is so stupid. These morons just assume that most Medicaid recipients don’t work because they’re “bad” and lazy and literally the opposite is true and the vast majority are employed.
Watch them craft the definition of "employed" to be like, 40 hours a week, rendering a bunch of people who work as much as they physically and mentally can, given their disabilities, suddenly be cut off.
Disabled people are exempt from the requirement.
And if you expect that'll be applied well I have a bridge to sell you.
Only about 20% of people on medicaid are unemployed.
That’s why this is so stupid. These morons just assume that most Medicaid recipients don’t work because they’re “bad” and lazy and literally the opposite is true and the vast majority are employed.
Watch them craft the definition of "employed" to be like, 40 hours a week, rendering a bunch of people who work as much as they physically and mentally can, given their disabilities, suddenly be cut off.
Disabled people are exempt from the requirement.
Cue a whole load of them being declared "fit for work"
It's cheaper to get someone an apartment and a psychiatrist than it is to see them in the ER 6 times a month.
I don't understand why it's so difficult to explain that people without insurance go to the ER and get expensive care built around speed instead of fiscal efficiency. Care which ends out being offset by the insurance model we currently have in this country and by state/federal reimbursement.
It's like refusing to pay your credit card bill even though you're perfectly capable because interest is stupid and instead waiting for bankruptcy. Healthcare is a cost no one can avoid.
I'm actually not against certain work requirements for assistance programs, but they have to be very well crafted laws. I don't trust any lawmaker on a national level to get it right.
+14
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i don't mind assistance being linked to income in some way such that it is properly needs-based without disincentivizing work for people who can or unduly restricting access
but i'm also not sure how you do that effectively
also i'm not against just giving everyone free non-elective healthcare regardless of whether they can work but
It'd be sure swell if you could work and not lose medicaid immediately as soon as you make more than $10 an hour and then you're in a worse position than just not working.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It'd be sure swell if you could work and not lose medicaid immediately as soon as you make more than $10 an hour and then you're in a worse position than just not working.
Won't that trap a lot of poor people with health conditions in a lovely dilemma? They can't lose their medicaid by getting a job because then they can no longer afford the medications that keep them alive. But if they don't get a job, they also lose their medicaid, and the job doesn't pay enough to get their medications.
It'd be sure swell if you could work and not lose medicaid immediately as soon as you make more than $10 an hour and then you're in a worse position than just not working.
Won't that trap a lot of poor people with health conditions in a lovely dilemma? They can't lose their medicaid by getting a job because then they can no longer afford the medications that keep them alive. But if they don't get a job, they also lose their medicaid, and the job doesn't pay enough to get their medications.
That was the problem before too.
It just so happens it's worse for those kinds of people now.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It'd be sure swell if you could work and not lose medicaid immediately as soon as you make more than $10 an hour and then you're in a worse position than just not working.
Won't that trap a lot of poor people with health conditions in a lovely dilemma? They can't lose their medicaid by getting a job because then they can no longer afford the medications that keep them alive. But if they don't get a job, they also lose their medicaid, and the job doesn't pay enough to get their medications.
Depends on the State they live in. States with ACA expansions of Medicaid basically just transition you from Medicare to highly subsidized private insurance on the exchanges. It isn't great, and a high effective marginal tax, but at least the incentives line up right. Of course, expansion States are less likely to do work requirements. Instead it might happen in Texas, where earning $3,760 per year makes you too rich for Medicaid. And not having a kid makes you ineligible regardless.
It'd be sure swell if you could work and not lose medicaid immediately as soon as you make more than $10 an hour and then you're in a worse position than just not working.
Won't that trap a lot of poor people with health conditions in a lovely dilemma? They can't lose their medicaid by getting a job because then they can no longer afford the medications that keep them alive. But if they don't get a job, they also lose their medicaid, and the job doesn't pay enough to get their medications.
Depends on the State they live in. States with ACA expansions of Medicaid basically just transition you from Medicare to highly subsidized private insurance on the exchanges. It isn't great, and a high effective marginal tax, but at least the incentives line up right. Of course, expansion States are less likely to do work requirements. Instead it might happen in Texas, where earning $3,760 per year makes you too rich for Medicaid. And not having a kid makes you ineligible regardless.
What, the exchanges that the Republicans sweated blood to shut down last year. Those exchanges? Lucky they failed, right? Hope they don't figure out a way to do it.
It'd be sure swell if you could work and not lose medicaid immediately as soon as you make more than $10 an hour and then you're in a worse position than just not working.
Won't that trap a lot of poor people with health conditions in a lovely dilemma? They can't lose their medicaid by getting a job because then they can no longer afford the medications that keep them alive. But if they don't get a job, they also lose their medicaid, and the job doesn't pay enough to get their medications.
Depends on the State they live in. States with ACA expansions of Medicaid basically just transition you from Medicare to highly subsidized private insurance on the exchanges. It isn't great, and a high effective marginal tax, but at least the incentives line up right. Of course, expansion States are less likely to do work requirements. Instead it might happen in Texas, where
It'd be sure swell if you could work and not lose medicaid immediately as soon as you make more than $10 an hour and then you're in a worse position than just not working.
Won't that trap a lot of poor people with health conditions in a lovely dilemma? They can't lose their medicaid by getting a job because then they can no longer afford the medications that keep them alive. But if they don't get a job, they also lose their medicaid, and the job doesn't pay enough to get their medications.
Depends on the State they live in. States with ACA expansions of Medicaid basically just transition you from Medicare to highly subsidized private insurance on the exchanges. It isn't great, and a high effective marginal tax, but at least the incentives line up right. Of course, expansion States are less likely to do work requirements. Instead it might happen in Texas, where earning $3,760 per year makes you too rich for Medicaid. And not having a kid makes you ineligible regardless.
What, the exchanges that the Republicans sweated blood to shut down last year. Those exchanges? Lucky they failed, right? Hope they don't figure out a way to do it.
Yes, the exchanges that you can currently purchase subsidized insurance from after a major life event.
NPR had the Lt. Gov from Kansas (apparently a practicing MD) on this morning to talk through this. The interviewer tossed out a half dozen examples of people on Medicaid -- including those who care for others who can't work -- and he said, "of course, they would not have to work," for each one of them. Which, at that point, I'm not even sure who this is supposed to affect if everyone is an exception to the rule.
I mean, I get the intent, but it still leaves me confused.
It'd be sure swell if you could work and not lose medicaid immediately as soon as you make more than $10 an hour and then you're in a worse position than just not working.
Won't that trap a lot of poor people with health conditions in a lovely dilemma? They can't lose their medicaid by getting a job because then they can no longer afford the medications that keep them alive. But if they don't get a job, they also lose their medicaid, and the job doesn't pay enough to get their medications.
The subtleties of the vagaries means that the only thing you must know is that only the people you don't like will be denied benefits in a manner that will satisfy your pique and ensure the future expansion of policies that are far more to your personal edification.
NPR had the Lt. Gov from Kansas (apparently a practicing MD) on this morning to talk through this. The interviewer tossed out a half dozen examples of people on Medicaid -- including those who care for others who can't work -- and he said, "of course, they would not have to work," for each one of them. Which, at that point, I'm not even sure who this is supposed to affect if everyone is an exception to the rule.
I mean, I get the intent, but it still leaves me confused.
Doctors don't know anything about how insurance works... at all.* I assume this was just the first step on changing language that allows gross discrimination. First you change language, then you lie about the impact and start changing laws.
Edit: * beyond their own practice. Most don't even understand how billing is done.
NPR had the Lt. Gov from Kansas (apparently a practicing MD) on this morning to talk through this. The interviewer tossed out a half dozen examples of people on Medicaid -- including those who care for others who can't work -- and he said, "of course, they would not have to work," for each one of them. Which, at that point, I'm not even sure who this is supposed to affect if everyone is an exception to the rule.
I mean, I get the intent, but it still leaves me confused.
All those lazy wastrels who for some reason care deeply about having health insurance will be denied!
NPR had the Lt. Gov from Kansas (apparently a practicing MD) on this morning to talk through this. The interviewer tossed out a half dozen examples of people on Medicaid -- including those who care for others who can't work -- and he said, "of course, they would not have to work," for each one of them. Which, at that point, I'm not even sure who this is supposed to affect if everyone is an exception to the rule.
I mean, I get the intent, but it still leaves me confused.
All those lazy wastrels who for some reason care deeply about having health insurance will be denied!
It will no doubt be applied to all of them after it is passed to the states and out of the media.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
Posts
I mean.....no
The image does say "non-elderly" among other caveats.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this, I'm sure those asterisks are merely to placate those who aren't willing to dig deeper, but on its face, "non-elderly, non-pregnant adult Medicaid beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid on a basis other than disability" is less horrific than I expected it to be.
Until some fuckmuppet gets their hands on it, I'm sure.
they'res tons fo jobs that don't offer insurance
or offer insurance that would cost literally 100% of your paycheck
Plenty of folks need healthcare and aren't disabled. Have diabetes, better not lose your job if you like living.
No-one goes on Medicaid because they are idle. The truly idle folk out there don't give a shit about health insurance, because they don't give any thought to the future. But those folk are generally sponging off friends or relatives - much more patient and generous than the government.
One thing it will do is ensure junkies can't get rehab, because people who have hit rock bottom are not usually gainfully employed. Which will ensure that they *never* get a job, because no-one wants to employ a homeless addict.
If it has enough loopholes to not be cruel, it will also be entirely pointless, since Medicaid isn't exactly generously given out.
Yeah, any cut back to access just opens up further cut backs.
Yeah, this is something I didn't think about until recently: people recovering from opioid addiction can spend a long time in treatment covered by Medicaid, and a job might not be an option.
Perhaps I was unclear.
I was expecting Sauron levels of villainy. Literal mustache twirling. Maybe some babies punched for good measure.
Getting 80% of the way there can still be 'fucking bad' and simultaneously 'not as bad as I expected'.
These are not mutually exclusive statements.
we'll see. The devil's in the details. We won't know until states start drawing up actual rules.
That’s why this is so stupid. These morons just assume that most Medicaid recipients don’t work because they’re “bad” and lazy and literally the opposite is true and the vast majority are employed.
Watch them craft the definition of "employed" to be like, 40 hours a week, rendering a bunch of people who work as much as they physically and mentally can, given their disabilities, suddenly be cut off.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Disabled people are exempt from the requirement.
And if you expect that'll be applied well I have a bridge to sell you.
Cue a whole load of them being declared "fit for work"
i mean our system is literally set up to be as complicated and difficult as possible already because of all the bugaboos about abusers
certainly there exists fraud in some cases, but it's not exactly easy to be on medicaid even if you clearly need it
all these restrictions do is hurt people who need the assistance
I don't understand why it's so difficult to explain that people without insurance go to the ER and get expensive care built around speed instead of fiscal efficiency. Care which ends out being offset by the insurance model we currently have in this country and by state/federal reimbursement.
It's like refusing to pay your credit card bill even though you're perfectly capable because interest is stupid and instead waiting for bankruptcy. Healthcare is a cost no one can avoid.
I'm actually not against certain work requirements for assistance programs, but they have to be very well crafted laws. I don't trust any lawmaker on a national level to get it right.
but i'm also not sure how you do that effectively
also i'm not against just giving everyone free non-elective healthcare regardless of whether they can work but
Won't that trap a lot of poor people with health conditions in a lovely dilemma? They can't lose their medicaid by getting a job because then they can no longer afford the medications that keep them alive. But if they don't get a job, they also lose their medicaid, and the job doesn't pay enough to get their medications.
That was the problem before too.
It just so happens it's worse for those kinds of people now.
Depends on the State they live in. States with ACA expansions of Medicaid basically just transition you from Medicare to highly subsidized private insurance on the exchanges. It isn't great, and a high effective marginal tax, but at least the incentives line up right. Of course, expansion States are less likely to do work requirements. Instead it might happen in Texas, where earning $3,760 per year makes you too rich for Medicaid. And not having a kid makes you ineligible regardless.
What, the exchanges that the Republicans sweated blood to shut down last year. Those exchanges? Lucky they failed, right? Hope they don't figure out a way to do it.
Depends on the State they live in. States with ACA expansions of Medicaid basically just transition you from Medicare to highly subsidized private insurance on the exchanges. It isn't great, and a high effective marginal tax, but at least the incentives line up right. Of course, expansion States are less likely to do work requirements. Instead it might happen in Texas, where
Yes, the exchanges that you can currently purchase subsidized insurance from after a major life event.
I mean, I get the intent, but it still leaves me confused.
Doctors don't know anything about how insurance works... at all.* I assume this was just the first step on changing language that allows gross discrimination. First you change language, then you lie about the impact and start changing laws.
Edit: * beyond their own practice. Most don't even understand how billing is done.
All those lazy wastrels who for some reason care deeply about having health insurance will be denied!
It will no doubt be applied to all of them after it is passed to the states and out of the media.
Andy Slavitt ran Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA for Obama
E: under 30 hours/week, don't pay premiums, 6 month lockout, financial/health literacy test
They never get abused
... the fuck. Who the fuck hears those two words in this country and doesn't immediately think Jim Crow?
(I know who, but...)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
What is the non Jim Crow rationale for requiring literacy for health coverage