Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Trump’s Medicaid Work Requirement Will Backfire






Although Republicans in Congress have failed so far to repeal or replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, they are still attacking the program, and are even attempting to “[kick] economically vulnerable people off Medicaid.” Both Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration are trying to work with states to set up work requirements for Medicaid. This means than unemployed citizens could quickly lose access to medical coverage. This could take away health care for thousands of low income families and individuals. This could lead to a number of negative consequences, including less access to care, financial security and overall health for low income adults.

There is also no proof to show that implementing a work requirement would be beneficial. The main argument for the people supporting this requirement is that Medicare discourages work, but this is also true. Not only can Medicare not be used to get housing or buy food, “among adults on Medicaid who don’t work and could be subject to the work requirement, more than a third have a chronic health problem or disability, about half take care of their family or go to school, and just under 10 percent can’t find work.” Implementing these work requirements could potentially lower the quality of life for many sick, injured, or disabled underprivileged Americans.

This article also claims that there is little that Democratic congresspeople can do, so the states must fight against these Medicaid work requirements.



What do you think? Do you think that that repealing Obamacare is the best choice, and if so, what do you think should replace it?

Sources:

1 comment:

Unknown said...

While I understand that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are big guzzlers of national federal spending, Medicaid services ought to stay. I believe access to health services is almost a fundamental human right. Other types of spending, such as national defense, investment in national infrastructure, investment in transportation, etc. ought to be secondary. If Trump truly wants to save money on the federal budget right now, he would find Betsy DeVos, secretary of education, willing to cut down the size of the US Department of Education, such that all current employees responsible for determining state education standards have their jobs transferred over to the state level. In this manner, the size of the Department of Education would be reduced and more funding available on the budget, and Betsy DeVos would be willing to support this measure as well as a strong proponent of school choice.