Hacker News Reader

Comment by vel0city | Hacker News Reader

> we should try to make conditions better for everyone such that fewer people are poor

Explain how work requirements to qualify for Medicaid makes conditions better to ensure there are fewer poor people. Doesn't this just harm people who can't work due to disability, and practically ensure they will never get better enough to work and contribute to society?

Sure saves a lot of money for wealthy people though.

View on HN

The work requirements only apply to the able-bodied. Coddling people like this isn't doing them any favors.

But isn’t Medicaid just healthcare. Being able to go to a doctor when you are sick or injured doesn’t really sound like coddling someone, “able-bodied” or not. Maybe I am misunderstanding and Medicaid is actually some new fancy handbag.

If finding work is this hard maybe we should be slowing down immigration.

Most here aren't arguing it's exceptionally difficult to find some kind of a job or education opportunity to meet the requirements. We're mostly arguing about adding all the additional bureaucracy to add additional requirements that will need to be documented and validated. And arguing that many who should be eligible for exceptions will end up not eligible because of some paperwork or bureaucratic oversight.

There is about the same amount of money allotted to help states stand up new programs to validate these requirements as the federal cost of Trump's birthday party.

The obvious answer is education and vocational training programs to help people develop skills that are needed today. Unfortunately, the people most affected by the changing demands of the modern economy are also people who have been negatively polarized against education.

We're on a tech forum and Trump approved of more H1b's to be hired this year. What does that say about his policies to create American jobs?

The able-bodied should be working before they receive any kind of government assistance on the basis of being low-income.

Anyone working shouldn't require government assistance on the basis of being low-income.

Why not?

The government shouldn't be subsidizing businesses that refuse to pay sufficient wages.

The government isn't subsidizing businesses when it gives low-wage workers welfare. Those workers would be working just as hard without the welfare, if not harder.

> Coddling people like this isn't doing them any favors.

Yes. Yes it is.

Pray you never find yourself in a situation where you can't work anymore or rely on anyone. Because under Trump's, this means guaranteed death. In the richest country ever.

Trump, speaking to his nephew about their disabled son [1]: "Maybe you should just let him die"

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/jul/24/trump-...

The work requirements only apply to the able-bodied.

How does the government know whether any specific person is "able-bodied"?

  > How does the government know whether any specific person is "able-bodied"?

easy, they create a new bureaucracy with lots of paperwork and inspections/visits to handle it all...

Costs that will be borne by the state and become unavailable to actually assist and help people.

Bonus points: we'll be able to remove people that should have had eligibility but failed to get the right paperwork in place. And we all know those who are severely disabled and unable to work are always excellent on filing their paperwork correctly and on-time and always make required meetings.

Don't you love all this government efficiency this year?

The same way they determined it for the draft.

Putting a burden on people who aren't able bodied is harmful to them, because it means you accept some threshold of fasle negatives -- people who aren't able bodied but who will not qualify for the support. What will they do? They can't work because they aren't able bodied, but they can't qualify for assistance because the government doesn't think they're broken enough. That person will become homeless, and then their existence is essentially criminalized in many places.

Ahh, so you fell for the spin. What about the "able bodied" laid off in the economy and no one wants to hire? What about the "able bodied" who just graduated and can't even get an interview because everyone wants 5 years of experience? What about the "able bodied" who can do basic math and realize that $8/hour can no in fact pay for rent that sky rocketed to $1200 a month?

Business and removing jobs and being rewarded with tax breaks while American workers can't find anything. Whose fault is that?

What you just described isn’t spin. The requirement clearly applies only to the able-bodied. You’re saying being able-bodied doesn’t guarantee you can get a job—so you're arguing the requirement is unfair. I completely disagree. In this economy, anyone can get a job. Welfare—whether it’s taxpayer-funded medical care, cash payments, or food stamps—should never be unconditional. It’s funded by people who are compelled under threat of imprisonment to pay taxes. No one is entitled to it.

For the pragmatic- and not -empathetic-minded, means testing still creates a huge bureaucracy, making useless government jobs and costing money to chase down people whose lives already suck

Reply on news.ycombinator.com