Posted on 01/11/2018 5:38:40 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The Trump administration issued guidance to states early Thursday that will allow them to compel people to work or prepare for jobs in order to receive Medicaid for the first time in the half-century history of this pillar of the nation’s social safety net.
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 new policy comes 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. Health officials could approve the first waiver — probably for Kentucky — as soon as Friday, according to two people with knowledge of the process.
The guidance represents a fundamental and much-disputed recalibration of the compact between the government and poor Americans for whom Medicaid coverage provides a crucial pathway to health care.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Cue a Ninth Circuit judge declaring it “unconstitutional”.
But the childrennnnnnnn the childrennnnnnn
If people work the whole year they will have income and won’t qualify for medicaid in many states.
Isn’t this change simply a roll back of the expansion for eligibility that was created by Obamacare?
“recalibration of the compact between the government and poor Americans for whom Medicaid coverage provides a crucial pathway to health care”
Just a thought, you think there might be a correlation between not working and being poor? I know it never crossed the Compost writers mind.
I’m normally all for reducing cost of government, but if they’re going to impose a work requirement they need to kill those odious clawback clauses. In order to receive Medicaid, recipients have to agree to their next of kin being pursued for their medical bills. Medicaid will also go after the estate of any deceased recipients. Either it’s actuarial and based upon income or it’s a social safety net. Things are devolving to the point that we’re all going to end up on one or the other, Medicaid or Medicare. That’s the endgame. Do you want to your heirs to lose your house and any other assets? Do you want your next of kin on the hook for your medical bills? I don’t know how that’s even legal, obligating a third party to pay that has not agreed to pay and is possibly even unaware, but there it is. Get rid of that, it’s anti-private property and anti-wealth generation.
That can hardly be legal?
“...Medicaid recipients have to agree to their next of kin being pursued for their medical bills...”
-
That is not true.
- - - - - - - - - -
“...Medicaid will go after the estate of any deceased recipients...”
-
That is true, and proper.
I don’t think it is, but apparently these requirements have not been challenged. Maybe it varies from state to state, but here in North Carolina, recipients agree that next of kin will be obligated to pay medical expenses before they’re allowed to sign up. If they decline to agree to this, they’re kicked onto the exchange which is much less generous. The whole thing is so bassackwards that it’s evil, like they’re trying to destroy anyone who hopes to be self-supporting or build any assets.
I have a relative who went through exactly that set of questions online, she showed it to me, so you’re wrong. You are required to agree to your next of kin being obligated for your medical bills in order to be accepted into Medicaid, in the state of North Carolina at least you are. She declined to agree and was kicked onto the exchange, I watched her fill out the online form.
... and it sure ain’t “proper” if the only insurance option you’ve got is Medicaid and you’re living in a paid off house. Some states have no insurers on the exchange, so it’s Medicaid or nothing if they’re ineligible for a group plan.
“...a relative went through that set of questions online, she showed it to me...”
-
Well, if you saw it was on the internet, it must be true.
If one has low income but high assets,
one should not be on the dole.
That is completely crazy. The recipient could agree to anything but collecting from then next of kin should be impossible unless the next of kin agreed to the arrangement at the same time.
It was the state exchange online signup, smartass.
If one has assets but low income and one loses one’s job that provided a group insurance plan and one resides in a state wherein there are no insurers willing to enter the exchange in that state, then one has no option now does one?
uncalled for
adieu
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.