

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Cara Stewart, a legal advocate opposing Medicaid work requirements in Kentucky, comforts Pauline Creech after they talked about Pauline's cancer coming back at Mr. T's Bar in Covington, Kentucky on January 15, 2018.
If Congress actually imposes a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, it should also enact a governmental program to employ anybody who is unable to find work elsewhere.
Republicans in Congress are planning to slash funding for Medicaid in order to help pay for major tax reductions for wealthy Americans and corporations. But they don't want to cut Medicaid openly, because it will gravely injure many people who voted for them.
One way to cut Medicaid expenditures without overtly reducing benefits is to increase required paperwork. Additional bureaucratic hassle will discourage people from applying for what they are eligible for. The "big beautiful bill" currently discussed in Congress incorporates this strategy.
The major provision aimed at saving money requires Medicaid recipients to work at least 80 hours a month.
Until American conservatives wise up and emulate the conservatives in Taiwan, who introduced universal medical insurance there, we will have to live with a lot of unnecessary complexity and inflated administrative expense.
The work requirement requires frequent verification that a recipient is employed—more hassle. It will deny coverage to individuals who—for one reason or another—can't find work.
Given likely job loss due to artificial intelligence, mass corporate layoffs, and huge reductions in government payrolls, the number of people without insurance because they can't find work will likely be large.
This policy will be rather hard on people who through no fault of their own are unable to find work. And inability to get medical treatment may leave some people in such poor health that it makes it even harder to find and hold a job.
The work requirement, though, appears to be popular when people are polled. But many of the polled people may underestimate the danger that they themselves will lose their jobs, their job-related insurance, and their eligibility for Medicaid.
Fortunately, the bad consequences of the requirement could be completely eliminated by one simple additional government policy: that it will hire anybody who is otherwise unable to find work.
There is, of course, no end to the useful work that people employed by the government could do: elderly people who need help in their daily lives, children who could use tutoring, parks that need to be cleaned up, hiking trails that need maintenance, etc.
But guaranteeing jobs would cost the government (which is to say taxpayers) money, which would conflict with the desire to save money prompting Congress to restrict Medicaid eligibility in the first place.
And a guaranteed jobs policy, morally necessary in order to make federal medical policy less unjust, would also make public policy even more complicated than it already is.
A better solution to this problem would be to completely decouple medical insurance from employment. The United States is the only developed country that does not guarantee medical insurance for everyone, employed or unemployed, rich or poor, young or old.
Instead, we have a tremendously complicated system with different government programs for the old, for children, for Native Americans, for veterans, for the poor. As people's situations change, they can "churn" from one program to another, all too often falling into the gaps between programs, which leave them totally uncovered.
We'd all be better off, and would probably save money, if Congress wiped out all of today's complicated government insurance programs—including Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid—replacing them with a single program insuring everybody no matter their age or work status.
Unfortunately, American conservatives have been trained to reject a single-payer program like Medicare For All as "socialistic," without inquiring into the benefits such a program would produce. And enacting a major program like this would require bipartisan support.
Until American conservatives wise up and emulate the conservatives in Taiwan, who introduced universal medical insurance there, we will have to live with a lot of unnecessary complexity and inflated administrative expense.
Given this unpleasant fact, if Congress actually imposes a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, it should also enact a governmental program to employ anybody who is unable to find work elsewhere.
Since it is unlikely that Congress will do this, the best outcome we can realistically hope for is that the work requirement for Medicaid recipients will be stripped out of the bill in the Senate.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Republicans in Congress are planning to slash funding for Medicaid in order to help pay for major tax reductions for wealthy Americans and corporations. But they don't want to cut Medicaid openly, because it will gravely injure many people who voted for them.
One way to cut Medicaid expenditures without overtly reducing benefits is to increase required paperwork. Additional bureaucratic hassle will discourage people from applying for what they are eligible for. The "big beautiful bill" currently discussed in Congress incorporates this strategy.
The major provision aimed at saving money requires Medicaid recipients to work at least 80 hours a month.
Until American conservatives wise up and emulate the conservatives in Taiwan, who introduced universal medical insurance there, we will have to live with a lot of unnecessary complexity and inflated administrative expense.
The work requirement requires frequent verification that a recipient is employed—more hassle. It will deny coverage to individuals who—for one reason or another—can't find work.
Given likely job loss due to artificial intelligence, mass corporate layoffs, and huge reductions in government payrolls, the number of people without insurance because they can't find work will likely be large.
This policy will be rather hard on people who through no fault of their own are unable to find work. And inability to get medical treatment may leave some people in such poor health that it makes it even harder to find and hold a job.
The work requirement, though, appears to be popular when people are polled. But many of the polled people may underestimate the danger that they themselves will lose their jobs, their job-related insurance, and their eligibility for Medicaid.
Fortunately, the bad consequences of the requirement could be completely eliminated by one simple additional government policy: that it will hire anybody who is otherwise unable to find work.
There is, of course, no end to the useful work that people employed by the government could do: elderly people who need help in their daily lives, children who could use tutoring, parks that need to be cleaned up, hiking trails that need maintenance, etc.
But guaranteeing jobs would cost the government (which is to say taxpayers) money, which would conflict with the desire to save money prompting Congress to restrict Medicaid eligibility in the first place.
And a guaranteed jobs policy, morally necessary in order to make federal medical policy less unjust, would also make public policy even more complicated than it already is.
A better solution to this problem would be to completely decouple medical insurance from employment. The United States is the only developed country that does not guarantee medical insurance for everyone, employed or unemployed, rich or poor, young or old.
Instead, we have a tremendously complicated system with different government programs for the old, for children, for Native Americans, for veterans, for the poor. As people's situations change, they can "churn" from one program to another, all too often falling into the gaps between programs, which leave them totally uncovered.
We'd all be better off, and would probably save money, if Congress wiped out all of today's complicated government insurance programs—including Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid—replacing them with a single program insuring everybody no matter their age or work status.
Unfortunately, American conservatives have been trained to reject a single-payer program like Medicare For All as "socialistic," without inquiring into the benefits such a program would produce. And enacting a major program like this would require bipartisan support.
Until American conservatives wise up and emulate the conservatives in Taiwan, who introduced universal medical insurance there, we will have to live with a lot of unnecessary complexity and inflated administrative expense.
Given this unpleasant fact, if Congress actually imposes a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, it should also enact a governmental program to employ anybody who is unable to find work elsewhere.
Since it is unlikely that Congress will do this, the best outcome we can realistically hope for is that the work requirement for Medicaid recipients will be stripped out of the bill in the Senate.
Republicans in Congress are planning to slash funding for Medicaid in order to help pay for major tax reductions for wealthy Americans and corporations. But they don't want to cut Medicaid openly, because it will gravely injure many people who voted for them.
One way to cut Medicaid expenditures without overtly reducing benefits is to increase required paperwork. Additional bureaucratic hassle will discourage people from applying for what they are eligible for. The "big beautiful bill" currently discussed in Congress incorporates this strategy.
The major provision aimed at saving money requires Medicaid recipients to work at least 80 hours a month.
Until American conservatives wise up and emulate the conservatives in Taiwan, who introduced universal medical insurance there, we will have to live with a lot of unnecessary complexity and inflated administrative expense.
The work requirement requires frequent verification that a recipient is employed—more hassle. It will deny coverage to individuals who—for one reason or another—can't find work.
Given likely job loss due to artificial intelligence, mass corporate layoffs, and huge reductions in government payrolls, the number of people without insurance because they can't find work will likely be large.
This policy will be rather hard on people who through no fault of their own are unable to find work. And inability to get medical treatment may leave some people in such poor health that it makes it even harder to find and hold a job.
The work requirement, though, appears to be popular when people are polled. But many of the polled people may underestimate the danger that they themselves will lose their jobs, their job-related insurance, and their eligibility for Medicaid.
Fortunately, the bad consequences of the requirement could be completely eliminated by one simple additional government policy: that it will hire anybody who is otherwise unable to find work.
There is, of course, no end to the useful work that people employed by the government could do: elderly people who need help in their daily lives, children who could use tutoring, parks that need to be cleaned up, hiking trails that need maintenance, etc.
But guaranteeing jobs would cost the government (which is to say taxpayers) money, which would conflict with the desire to save money prompting Congress to restrict Medicaid eligibility in the first place.
And a guaranteed jobs policy, morally necessary in order to make federal medical policy less unjust, would also make public policy even more complicated than it already is.
A better solution to this problem would be to completely decouple medical insurance from employment. The United States is the only developed country that does not guarantee medical insurance for everyone, employed or unemployed, rich or poor, young or old.
Instead, we have a tremendously complicated system with different government programs for the old, for children, for Native Americans, for veterans, for the poor. As people's situations change, they can "churn" from one program to another, all too often falling into the gaps between programs, which leave them totally uncovered.
We'd all be better off, and would probably save money, if Congress wiped out all of today's complicated government insurance programs—including Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid—replacing them with a single program insuring everybody no matter their age or work status.
Unfortunately, American conservatives have been trained to reject a single-payer program like Medicare For All as "socialistic," without inquiring into the benefits such a program would produce. And enacting a major program like this would require bipartisan support.
Until American conservatives wise up and emulate the conservatives in Taiwan, who introduced universal medical insurance there, we will have to live with a lot of unnecessary complexity and inflated administrative expense.
Given this unpleasant fact, if Congress actually imposes a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, it should also enact a governmental program to employ anybody who is unable to find work elsewhere.
Since it is unlikely that Congress will do this, the best outcome we can realistically hope for is that the work requirement for Medicaid recipients will be stripped out of the bill in the Senate.