"And we all know who this is aimed at. The millennials"

LOL.
This is aimed at poor people of all stripes.

And watching Republicans blame Millennials for not thriving in the economy Boomers created?
Well that's a fine example of what's wrong with Republicans.

Unless you show up
twice a year
in person
to provide the proper paperwork
While you're supposed to be out working or looking for a job.

"Does that seem easy to falsify?"

To the party that says illegals are voting, to the party that says illegals are eating cats and dogs, yes that seems very easy to falsify.

"I don't think it's fair for me to determine what's a reasonable request for medicaid recipients to fufill in order to receive health benefits."

Well you're wrong.
You're a big boy now.
You can tell "fair" from "unfair."
And you can tell "reasonable" from "unreasonable" too.

You just don't want to.

"What should a medicaid recipient be required to do?"

What shouldn't a medicaid recipient be required to do?
What's "medicaid?"
What's a "recipient?"
What do you mean by "required?"
--Eberly

"I work a full time job and pay a portion of the premiums to qualify for my health benefits."

So if you had to show up at the Medicaid office twice a year, would that be a burden, over not having to do that now?

Because you're saying it's not a burden for the people who are gonna have to start doing that, over not having to do that now.

Oh... right... you're saying it's above your pay grade to know if having to show up at some place twice a year creates a new burden to have to show up at some place twice a year.

"So they're cutting $35 billion over a decade, AND requiring the states pay for a system of tracking and enforcement?"

Spoiler Alert:
The lion's share of the money will be spent on tracking and enforcement. None left for recipients.

"Only mooches like you have an issue with it."

You don't know anything about what it means to really work.
My paycheck, by virtue of getting one, is bigger than yours.
And my dividend check is smaller. Because I wasn't born with a rich mommy and daddy to hand me a future, that I squandered.

currently, I show up at my actual office around 200 times a year.
It's likely I could add 2 visits somewhere in addition.
#25 | Posted by eberly

But you have to do it without a car, because you're on Medicaid and you don't get a car on Medicaid.
How long is that gonna take you?

The lion's share of the money will be spent on tracking and enforcement. None left for recipients.
#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-17 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag
Source?
Show your math.
#26 | Posted by lfthndthrds

^
You show your math, not that you're enough of a thinker to even hazard a guess.

How much do you think Louisiana will have to spend to track 1.5M Medicaid recipients?
That's 3M appointments per year to review eligibility, if they all show up.
Let's say each appointment is 30 minutes.
That's 1.5M man-hours of work per year.
So right there is tens of millions of dollars in additional expense, just in the labor cost of doing these pointless interviews.

"I guess anything is an additional barrier if it takes time."

Oh, so you can answer, when spoon-fed the correct answer!
Look at you, big boy!

"I think Danforth makes a reasonable point about the additional costs that render no real benefit and recipients are being asked to do more."

We agree. Kumbaya.

"Snoofy wants everything to be delivered to their door(which is also being given to them for free)."

Actually I'm the conservative here. Hard, hold the line, conservative:
I literally don't think anything needs changing when it comes to Medicaid.
Now of course there are tweaks and adjustments. But this is a major evolution of the program.

Now, how did I get to be such a conservative. Probably from working in a lot of complex environments. Situations where the cost of making a change includes hidden costs that come to the fore that weren't foreseen when making that change.

For example, as I described above, The State of Louisiana now needs to find payroll for 1,500,000 labor hours that they didn't have to supply before, in order to check all these documents.

Who is Louisiana going to tax, to pay for that?

If you know who pays for tariffs, you just might get the right answer!

I have to wager this program, even with the disenrollment of lost of otherwise eligible people, will not be revenue positive.

And if it is revenue positive, it is not considering the externalized costs.

The reason to be a conservative in all matters health care is found in the answer to a very simple inquiry about cost:
"Does it cost society more when everyone has health insurance? Or does it cost society more when some people, particularly the poor, don't?"

I mean, even this value judgment about people being lazy and needing to be punished by having their health care taken away
Setting aside how barbaric that is
The real fix here is for everybody to have health care all the time regardless of the circumstances, because you need health care when you're not working in life too.

And dhat absolutely terrifies Republicans, so they completely ignore the fact that their fear is why health care is so expensive here.

They want health care to be expensive here, to punish the poor for existing.

Republicans are cutting government to starve out the poor, the same way we slaughtered the buffalo to starve out the Indians in the 1900s.

Engineering a massive die-off of Indians... I mean the poor... will Make America Great Again.

"I'll let experts on receiving social services be exactly your pay grade, little fella."

You'd be surprised, perhaps, that unemployment benefits in California are ---- compared to every other state I've gotten unemployment in.

In IT, layoffs are common. I have been on unemployment a lot. For those unfamiliar with the idea, you can't get unemployment if you get fired for cause, like coming in drunk, or spending all day on the Internet. You get unemployment when the company you work for goes out of business, or there's a round of layoffs, or the company "takes a different direction" and your department gets pruned from the corporate tree. Or your President lets a deadly virus rampage the country with no testing and not even enough masks and it's unsafe to even go to work. Then, you get an extra six hundred bucks a week.

There is a nugget of truth in this. Honestly an extra six hundred bucks a week was too much for people on the bottom end of California's unemployment, which was $135 a week. Now they're getting $735 a week. Giving poor people a bunch of free money doesn't result in good financial outcomes for poor people. What they need is the things the state could provide if you gave the state $600 for every person on unemployment. At scale, that money could make a difference. Left in the hands of poor people it isn't going to self-organize into something greater than the whole of its parts.

So I don't really like handouts, but in the absence of a proper welfare state, it's better than nothing.

I got fifteen grand, because Trump's failure as our nation's leader led to about a half million extra people dying.

I don't really like it, but it's better than nothing.

I doubt the unemployed will be getting fifteen grand, from Trump's next economic disaster.

I'm starting to imagine you as Joe Dirt, Snoofy.
#38 | Posted by eberly

Wow, that's quite the compliment!

(Also, I have not seen Joe Dirt, but I know people love to meme on it.)