Some states will now require medicaid patients to get jobs salt mine - Thanks Trump!

[InLivingTuna]

I don't see anything here that would describe able-bodied as narrow, what are you referring to?

They mention specifically "substance abuse" being a long term medical condition that could potentially lead one to being able to keep their Medicaid even if they're unemployed, so it seems to me like they aren't just going to kick people off the program if they legitimately can't work since they're including things that might not necessarily be counted as a disability. It's all just speculation anyways though since no state has actually changed how they handle Medicaid applicants to the best of my knowledge.

 

[OwO What's This?]

They mention specifically "substance abuse" being a long term medical condition that could potentially lead one to being able to keep their Medicaid even if they're unemployed, so it seems to me like they aren't just going to kick people off the program if they legitimately can't work since they're including things that might not necessarily be counted as a disability. It's all just speculation anyways though since no state has actually changed how they handle Medicaid applicants to the best of my knowledge.

You're confusing acute and chronic

 

[MasterDisaster]

I altered the OP so it actually has some fucking examples now. Go nuts.

 

[OwO What's This?]

On the surface? Good. A sedentary lifestyle is only going to exacerbate health issues.

But I'm going to be a huge hypocrite and post some dissent (I commonly gripe about people using salt mine like deep thoughts) because it deals with a lot of information most people aren't even aware of.

Despite being federally-funded services, Medicaid and Medicare are well known for being every bit as slimy as insurance companies and are constantly looking for ways to cut people on a technicality. I don't quite remember how long ago it was, I think it was actually before Obamacare, but there was a downpour of successful lawsuits against Medicaid for cutting people who didn't even have the means to take care of themselves.

And while I'm usually for states rights, I don't think states should be controlling Medicaid/Medicare requirements. This is a bit of a tangent, but quite often, patients with chronic conditions have to relocate to be able to see a qualified specialist. Even if there's another specialist in the area qualified to handle your case, they usually turn down delicate ones, because they could easily get sued for a hell of a lot of money if something they do early on worsens the health of the patient.

Not everyone with a condition like that is incapable of working, some of them are considered able-bodied, and generally, most of them choose to work - people with life-threatening illnesses live with a daily reminder that their existence is fragile, and they should actually have a life while there's time.

So what happens when a patient has to relocate from one state to another just to be able to continue receiving treatment, and the state they go to has more stringent policies that they simply aren't able to cope with?

They get fucked.

So I'm pessimistic about this. I guess it's all going to come down to the provisions the states are required to adopt.

 

[MasterDisaster]

On the surface? Good. A sedentary lifestyle is only going to exacerbate health issues.

But I'm going to be a huge hypocrite and post some dissent (I commonly gripe about people using salt mine like deep thoughts) because it deals with a lot of information most people aren't even aware of.

Despite being federally-funded services, Medicaid and Medicare are well known for being every bit as slimy as insurance companies and are constantly looking for ways to cut people on a technicality. I don't quite remember how long ago it was, I think it was actually before Obamacare, but there was a downpour of successful lawsuits against Medicaid for cutting people who didn't even have the means to take care of themselves.

And while I'm usually for states rights, I don't think states should be controlling Medicaid/Medicare requirements. This is a bit of a tangent, but quite often, patients with chronic conditions have to relocate to be able to see a the proper specialist. Even if there's another specialist in the area qualified to handle your case, they will likely turn it down if it's a delicate one, because they could easily get sued for a hell of a lot of money if something they do early on worsens the health of the patient.

Not everyone with a condition like that is incapable of working, some of them are considered able-bodied, and generally, most of them choose to work - because often, people with life-threatening illnesses live with a daily reminder that their existence is fragile, and they should actually have a life while there's time.

So what happens when a patient has to relocate from one state to another just to be able to continue receiving treatment, and the state they go to has more stringent policies that they simply aren't able to cope with?

They get fucked.

So I'm pessimistic about this. I guess it's all going to come down to the provisions the states are required to adopt.

Here's my two cents since you make some good points. If you cut off the bad branches on the tree the rest of it can flourish. If we get rid of that itty bitty percent (3%) that money can be delegated back to the people that need it far, far more desperately.

Spoiler: Spergery

I've never been a huge fan of stuff like Welfare or Food Stamps because I've personally seen the underbelly of how people abuse it. When I was younger I worked as a cashier at a grocery store on the weekend for some extra scratch. Me and my friends, extended family, all that jazz...we like to get together for the 4th of July for explosions and charred meats. Now none of us are rich but we get what we can afford; cheap ass brats, hotdogs, burgers. Then one day when I'm cashing some guy out he's coming through the line and he's buying thick, juicy steaks, porkchops, fucking six lobsters...expensive shit. I'm thinking 'shit, this guy must be loaded'. It comes out to just under 400$ and I'm thinking he's gonna pull out a fat wad of cash or a credit card...and instead he takes out his foodstamp card and spends his entire month on one meal. He even laughs about it and straight up tells me he doesn't even need the card.

So yeah, fuck the leeches.

 

[OwO What's This?]

Here's my two cents since you make some good points. If you cut off the bad branches on the tree the rest of it can flourish. If we get rid of that itty bitty percent (3%) that money can be delegated back to the people that need it far, far more desperately.

Spoiler: Spergery

I've never been a huge fan of stuff like Welfare or Food Stamps because I've personally seen the underbelly of how people abuse it. When I was younger I worked as a cashier at a grocery store on the weekend for some extra scratch. Me and my friends, extended family, all that jazz...we like to get together for the 4th of July for explosions and charred meats. Now none of us are rich but we get what we can afford; cheap ass brats, hotdogs, burgers. Then one day when I'm cashing some guy out he's coming through the line and he's buying thick, juicy steaks, porkchops, fucking six lobsters...expensive shit. I'm thinking 'shit, this guy must be loaded'. It comes out to just under 400$ and I'm thinking he's gonna pull out a fat wad of cash or a credit card...and instead he takes out his foodstamp card and spends his entire month on one meal. He even laughs about it and straight up tells me he doesn't even need the card.

So yeah, fuck the leeches.

Yeah, that's why I do see a lot of good in this. If it weren't so wishy-washy about the state requirements, I'd be 100% behind it.

It's a federal program, so why even let states set any requirements? Like I said, it's really going to screw with people who are forced to travel to continue to receive treatment.

 

[MasterDisaster]

Yeah, that's why I do see a lot of good in this. If it weren't so wishy-washy about the state requirements, I'd be 100% behind it.

It's a federal program, so why even let states set any requirements? Like I said, it's really going to screw with people who are forced to travel to continue to receive treatment.

I would think giving it to the states is based more on what they have to offer if anything. If state A has certain criteria that can be met but state B is lacking it wouldn't be right to give them the same standards.

 

[OwO What's This?]

I would think giving it to the states is based more on what they have to offer if anything. If state A has certain criteria that can be met but state B is lacking it would be right to give them the same standards.

To be honest I wish they'd just make Medicaid a thing only for people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness and/or can't take care of themselves

Let states handle the rest with block grants.

 

[Male Idiot]

This is good. We also have this requirement here for child support! No child support unless you got a job sounds like a good thing to do Mr President!

 

[Absolutego]

Lol say goodbye to the gravy train, 80% of all Fibromyalgia "patients"

 

[GethN7]

I think this is a good idea.

Trump seems to be obsessed with ending free lunches for people who could obviously pay for them but aren't, and I think that is reasonable enough, and since it's not going after people who have good reasons they can't work (people with obvious disabilities, crippling mental health issues that prevent work, etc.) and instead going after people who could hold down a job but aren't for no other reason than wanting to abuse resources intended for the obviously deserving who can't work but would if they weren't in a position where they are unable to, then I don't see the objection.

Well, unless you are a worthless leech expecting Uncle Sam to pat your ass and you can just suck off his generosity for no good reason in perpetuity, I expect it will infuriate those people, and my response to that is:

Gnash your teeth you lazy bastards, grow up already, and get a fucking job.

 

[Dolphin Lundgren]

I'm gonna have to go by slight personal experience so a bit of a :powerlevel: warning, whatever.

Last year Medicaid was getting stricter in my state with having to prove that you are disabled enough to be on government assistance. Before it was every few years or so and in my state they started investigating a lot more often with professional psychiatrists who question mentally handicapped people to see if they can work or not. As soon as that happened I figured things would really start to change with Medicaid patients. Other people I know started losing their shit and were going on about how disabled people will get screwed from changes, but tbh, I think there should be some changes with Medicaid and I think it could help benefit the country in some ways.
If people on Medicaid can do a little bit of work and are capable of working, then sure, I think some people should be required to work in order to be functional in society.

 

[AnOminous]

That idea is nice in principle. But how useful is it? Does it save money? Or are we now coughing up more taxes to police this bullshit than it would have cost just to do it the way we were already?

Where are the numbers?

Most of this kind of "workfare" crap is just moralistic bullshit punishing people for being poor.

Why not just set up debtor's prisons or workhouses again like we used to have?

I'm pretty sure the works of Dickens explained why this kind of shit is absolute idiocy in numerous novels.

 

[MasterDisaster]

That idea is nice in principle. But how useful is it? Does it save money? Or are we now coughing up more taxes to police this bullshit than it would have cost just to do it the way we were already?

Where are the numbers?

Most of this kind of "workfare" crap is just moralistic bullshit punishing people for being poor.

Why not just set up debtor's prisons or workhouses again like we used to have?

I'm pretty sure the works of Dickens explained why this kind of shit is absolute idiocy in numerous novels.

None of the state's that want to start this system have even really implemented it. They simply have the choice to do so now. I think a lot of people, especially those on medicaid, take the idea of getting rid of 'freeloaders' as a personal offense. Just like welfare and foodstamps for every four people that desperately need it there's one who's just taking advantage. There's a big difference between 'my baby needs chemo' and 'I have a tummy ache and need to go to the emergency room'. Phil is the perfect example of doesn't need it but wants it because reasons.

 

[Male Idiot]

That idea is nice in principle. But how useful is it? Does it save money? Or are we now coughing up more taxes to police this bullshit than it would have cost just to do it the way we were already?

Where are the numbers?

Most of this kind of "workfare" crap is just moralistic bullshit punishing people for being poor.

Why not just set up debtor's prisons or workhouses again like we used to have?

I'm pretty sure the works of Dickens explained why this kind of shit is absolute idiocy in numerous novels.

Well I don't know nuffins about that Dick guy, but I'll leave this here:
https://sonichu.com/cwcki/Monthly_tugboat

 

[UptownRuckus]

Well finally someone made the right choice

 

[Vorhtbame]

How many people have been literally killed yet?

Based on Internet activity around this...all of Tumblr, so that's a good start.

And while I'm usually for states rights, I don't think states should be controlling Medicaid/Medicare requirements. This is a bit of a tangent, but quite often, patients with chronic conditions have to relocate to be able to see a qualified specialist. Even if there's another specialist in the area qualified to handle your case, they usually turn down delicate ones, because they could easily get sued for a hell of a lot of money if something they do early on worsens the health of the patient.

Not everyone with a condition like that is incapable of working, some of them are considered able-bodied, and generally, most of them choose to work - people with life-threatening illnesses live with a daily reminder that their existence is fragile, and they should actually have a life while there's time.

So what happens when a patient has to relocate from one state to another just to be able to continue receiving treatment, and the state they go to has more stringent policies that they simply aren't able to cope with?

They get fucked.

So I'm pessimistic about this. I guess it's all going to come down to the provisions the states are required to adopt.

Part of the problem with legislating for massive populations and massive systems is that you can't legislate for every possible contingency. There will always be some situation where someone just falls through the cracks. It's not possible to have the government solve everything in a free country.

But that's where people like you and me come in. Instead of sitting around waiting for the government to do something and then being upset because they can't, we can do something: donate, raise money, house someone in dire straits, volunteer. Americans are fundamentally not helpless. We have incredible power, and it lies in getting the fuck off the sofa and doing shit.

 

[El Garbage]

Pretty impressive that the administration is actually doing stuff they promised. Trump's been surprisingly consistent.

Spoiler: offtopic rant

You should see the saltrage here in Commiecuckistan, when people try even slightly to reduce the benefits for students (taxpayer-funded college AND you get money for attending) or the unemployed, or tweak the inefficient universal healthcare system that's bankrupting the entire country. I'd love to see a Trump-style EVIL administration destroy the death-spiraling welfare state.

 

[Mrs Paul]

Part of the problem, as in why this might not have been done before is that it takes some resources to find out who qualifies and who doesn't. I don't know if it would count for Medicaid, but as far as food stamps go, when a few states tried drug testing, it ended up costing them money and they didn't even catch that many people.

How does a working age, non-handicapped person get on Medicaid in the first place?

Sometimes it can be a temporary thing, if your income is below a certain level, like to help pay off a medical bill. (Happened to me once when I landed in the hospital -- I was working, but I had a huge bill to pay and no insurance because my job didn't provide it.) It was only for that bill, though, and once it was taken care of, then the aid stopped. (I cannot remember all the details, it was ten years ago)


(Sorry for the :powerlevel: , just trying to provide an example of why someone might be on Medicaid, even while they're working.)