Working builds self-esteem. Every able-bodied adult ( not disabled or elderly) who is not already working, needs to be doing something for their taxpayer-funded benefits.
On Thursday, the Trump administration announced it is offering a path for states that want to seek work requirements for Medicaid.
The letter to state Medicaid directors opens the door for states to cut off Medicaid benefits to Americans unless they have a job, are in school, are a caregiver or participate in other approved forms of “community engagement” – an idea that some states had broached over the past several years but that the Obama administration had consistently rebuffed.
“The administration’s latest action spells out safeguards that states should consider to obtain federal approval for waivers imposing work requirements on ‘able-bodied’ adults,” CNBC reports.
“Technically, those waivers would be ‘demonstration projects.’ In practical terms, they would represent new requirements for beneficiaries in those states.”
In other words, states can experiment with different initiatives to see what creates a better environment to encourage more able-bodied Americans to work in order to “earn” the benefit.
The new rules come as 10 states are already lined up, waiting for federal permission to impose work requirements on able-bodied adults in the program. Three other states are contemplating them.
But Thursday’s announcement comes with caveats, ensuring these stipulations are only applied to “able-bodied” people. Among them are:
Exempting pregnant women, disabled people, and the elderly.
Taking into account hardships for people in areas with high employment, or for people caring for children or elderly relatives.
Allowing people under treatment for substance abuse problems to have their care counted as “community engagement” for purposes of meeting a requirement.
Both the federal government and the states share the financial burden of Medicaid services that covers 70 million people, or 1 in 5 Americans. White House officials have said the cost of Medicaid spending is growing at an unsustainable rate.
Judy Solomon of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for the poor said: “It is a very major change in Medicaid that for the first time would allow people to be cut off for not meeting a work requirement, regardless of the hardship they may suffer.”
The Obama administration would have never approved such waivers, she added.
According to Investor’s Business Daily, Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion added 11.5 million adults to the program, largely funded at first by the federal government. But starting last January, states had to begin paying 5 percent of the cost of all those newly eligible to receive Medicaid.
The original idea of Medicaid and Welfare was to take care of the elderly, children and single parents and the disabled. For people that fell into a temparary situation where they needed help, it was there for them to help until they could get back on their feet. It was never meant to be a permanent recliner for the able bodied person to lay back in and do nothing or women to continue to pop out babies they know they can’t supprot just to get an increase on their check.
This is how it should be. Able-bodied people would have to work or get job training and contribute to society rather than leech off of those who do work. There is no reason for able-bodied recipients not to work for the money they receive. Whose idea was it that they shouldn’t?
I can see that the ones who are totally unable to perform a job because of their health reasons…but people just laid off from work or between jobs…I see no reason why they can’t be performing some kind of job for receiving their funds! I believe people would have more pride in themselves if they still had some kind of job to do between being laid off or unemployed rather than take the money and do absolutely nothing for it!
What do you think about this? Scroll down to leave a comment below!
Natalie D. is an American conservative writer who writes for Supreme Insider, Right Journalism, and Conservative US! Natalie has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot,” and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do,” drawing criticism from the left, and sometimes from the right. As a passionate journalist, she works relentlessly to uncover the corruption happening in Washington .She is a “constitutional conservative”.