[RD] Are Employment Requirements Reasonable For Access to Welfare?

Offspring are the motivating factor, not necessarily the only focus. I.e., mom and dad do stuff like volunteer at church or school or coach little league or lead the scout troop or regularly donate to the local food pantry because they believe in those activities for their children, and they have roots of their parents doing that for them, the hope their children will do it for their grandchildren. And because they know all their kids' friends' parents and derive social benefits from doing those things.

There are indeed a lot of stressors on that, one being the availability of time and especially money for so many folks. But the geographic dispersement of family units is a huge part of it. When your kids aren't around to be the next generation of little league coaches and soccer moms in town, it's easier to withdraw and become inwardly focused. And then nobody is out there doing the "community" work, and the "community" ceases to exist in any meaningful way.
 
Gnawing Away at Health Care
By Paul Krugman


At the beginning of 2017, Republicans promised to release the kraken on Obamacare — to destroy the program with one devastating blow. But a funny thing happened: Voters realized that repealing the Affordable Care Act would mean taking health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans. They didn’t like that prospect — and enough Republicans balked at the backlash that Obamacare repeal fizzled.

But Republicans still hate the idea of helping Americans get health care. So instead of releasing the kraken, they’ve brought on the termites. Rather than trying to eliminate Obamacare in one fell swoop, they’re trying to undermine it with multiple acts of sabotage — while hoping voters won’t realize who’s responsible for rising premiums and falling coverage.

Which is why it’s important to place the blame where it belongs.

The first thing you need to understand is that Obamacare has been a highly successful program. When the legislation was passed, Republicans insisted it would fail to cut the number of uninsured and would blow a huge hole in the federal budget. In fact, it led to major gains in coverage, reducing the uninsured rate to its lowest level in history, at relatively low cost.

It’s true that the coverage expansion was somewhat less than originally predicted, although the shortfall was much less than you may have heard. It’s also true that after initially offering surprisingly cheap policies on the Obamacare exchanges, insurers found that the people signing up were sicker, on average, than they expected, leading to higher premiums. But as of last year, the markets appeared to have stabilized, with insurers generally profitable.

Nobody would claim that Obamacare is perfect; many Americans remain uninsured, and too many of those with coverage face troublingly high out-of-pocket expenses. Still, health reform delivered most of what its advocates promised and caused none of the disasters its opponents predicted.

Yet Republicans still want to destroy it. One reason is that much of the coverage expansion was paid for with taxes on high incomes, so repeal would be a way to cut taxes on the wealthy. More broadly, conservatives hate Obamacare precisely because it works. It shows that government actually can help tens of millions of Americans lead better, more secure lives, and in so doing it threatens their low-tax, small-government ideology.

But outright repeal failed, so now it’s time for sabotage, which is taking place on two main fronts.

One of these fronts involves the expansion of Medicaid, which probably accounted for more than half the gains in coverage under Obamacare. Now a number of Republican-controlled states are trying to make Medicaid harder to get, notably by imposing work requirements on recipients.

What is the point of these work requirements? The ostensible justification — cracking down on able-bodied Medicaid recipients who should be working but aren’t — is nonsense: There are very few people meeting that description. The real goal is simply to make getting health care harder, by imposing onerous reporting and paperwork requirements and punishing people who lose their jobs for reasons beyond their control.

The other front involves trying to reduce the number of people signing up for private coverage. Last year the Trump administration drastically reduced outreach — the effort to let Americans know when and how to get health insurance.

The administration is also promoting various dodges that would in effect let insurance companies go back to discriminating against people in poor health. And when Congress passed a huge tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, it also eliminated the individual mandate, the requirement that people sign up for insurance even if they’re currently healthy.

Preliminary evidence suggests that these efforts at sabotage have already partially reversed the coverage gains achieved under Obama, especially among lower-income Americans. (Curiously, all the coverage losses seem to have happened among self-identified Republicans.) But the worst is yet to come.

You see, G.O.P. sabotage disproportionately discourages young and healthy people from signing up, which, as one commentator put it, “drives up the cost for other folks within that market.” Who said that? Tom Price, President Trump’s first secretary of health and human services.

Sure enough, insurers are already proposing major premium hikes — and they are specifically attributing those hikes to G.O.P. actions that are driving healthy Americans out of the market, leaving a sicker, more expensive pool behind.

So here’s what’s going to happen: Soon, many Americans will suffer sticker shock from their insurance policies; federal subsidies will protect most of them, but by no means everyone. They’ll also hear news about declining insurance coverage. And Republicans will say, “See, Obamacare is failing.”

But the problem isn’t with Obamacare, it’s with the politicians who unleashed this termite infestation — who are doing all they can to take away your health coverage. And they need to be held accountable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/...health-care.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytopinion


There's the point in the middle of that. It's nonsense to assume that people are trying to cheat, and that the system needs the work requirements. Those are just evil minds at work.
 
Sure, but then that indicates that the incentives are off. Though I still am not sure I buy it totally. Offspring, as in youth, sure. Children of Men and all that. Offspring, as in your testicle juice or ovary chunks - overstated albiet important. We tend to isolate ourselves by age and generation, especially kids, especially for thier protection and "development."
 
Last edited:
I'm not opposed to pressuring able-bodied people into finding employment if they are in the welfare system. Even those with negative habits generally aspire to feel more than useless and employment is an excellent path to that. The government, however, is woefully incapable of considering its citizens as individuals worthy of compassion. There is a set path to employment set out for you that you are simply expected to adhere to, and any failure or obstacle is a personal failing of the citizen and not the path.

It would be ideal if the system were revamped to be more individualistic. Welfare recipients should have social workers that meet with them regularly to discuss their life and what would lead them to fruitful participation in society in a way that takes their reality into consideration. But this would require that welfare become redefined from a trap for the temporarily embarrassed millionaire and instead become a system of personal well-being. I have little hope something like this would ever come to pass.
In Germany, we have a system where people are evaluated based on their health condition by proper doctors and/or psychologists, and the system is designed so that those who are actually ill get the help they need to become stable and, if realistically achievable, move onto the job market once they are. If you need therapy, you get therapy. And the Jobcenter can only demand of you what doctors say you are realistically capable of, and that judgement is made partly based on direct conversations with you.

Of course there are problems with that system, such as the people who are not strictly "ill", but simply do not have the ability to even have a basic life that is organized enough so they can actually fulfill the demands of the Jobcenter. These people would need help getting their very lives organized, and instead what they're getting is monetary penalties, which makes their lives even harder.

But aside from these... let's say, oversights, the system demands from each according to his ability, and gives to each according to his needs.
 
Last edited:
Government oversight of the health assessment would go a long way towards remedying the problems I've personally faced in the past four years.

I know that there is some oversight in certain conditions. My dad had to meet with government doctors but he was involved in a court case about his injuries. I'm not sure I've met anyone here that went the traditional disability route and got to see a government doctor for it. That'd make things easier and at least more consistent.
 
Back
Top Bottom