Companies pay taxes for gov Medicaid. eliminate Medicaid, then Companies can direct that money into Company sposeredBecause companies like Walmart exist and use Medicaid as a backstop so they can excuse paying their employees peanuts and not actually providing them health insurance.
65% of the people on Medicaid have jobs.
Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says
Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of Medicaid and food stamps, according to a GAO study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders.www.cnbc.com
So, we can take away Medicaid and a bunch of people can lose the little access to medical care that they have and places like Walmart will need to make a decision to pony up to pay for health insurance which will result in inflation of prices or to employ a bunch of cronically unhealthy people.
This is the US health system
- Thread starter watu05
- Start date
Federal support for Medicaid is paid for out of general revenues, not specifically by companies.
Have we proposed taking Medicaid away from people who are working ? ….and F WalmartBecause companies like Walmart exist and use Medicaid as a backstop so they can excuse paying their employees peanuts and not actually providing them health insurance.
65% of the people on Medicaid have jobs.
Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says
Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of Medicaid and food stamps, according to a GAO study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders.
So, we can take away Medicaid and a bunch of people can lose the little access to medical care that they have and places like Walmart will need to make a decision to pony up to pay for health insurance which will result in inflation of prices or to employ a bunch of cronically unhealthy people.
lets addresd the root cause for people being Dependant on the gov? Lack of skills for the better job
Walmart and McDonald’s can’t employ purely college / high school students. If they could they would.
Someone has to be there during the daytime. Secondly… some people will only ever be mentally or emotionally qualified to stock shelves or flip burgers. They will never move beyond being worker ants…. That doesn’t mean we should let them all get sick and die.
so I have to pay for HI for these unmotivated people. You want benefits, take the initiative to better yourself
Medicaid work requirements. The Arkansas experience.
www.nytimes.com
Opinion | When Arkansas Embraced Medicaid Work Requirements, Chaos Ensued
America isn’t ready for what could happen to health care.
Can I throw out a hypothetical to do a bit of reductio ad absurdum?
Let's assume that the premise.... "able bodied people should be made to have work requirements in order to receive public benefits" is true....
What happens in a depression when 20% or so of the population have no chance of steady employment? Do we modify the laws at that point in time? Do we make them all go to sham interviews and make Walmart and McDonalds bare the burden of signing meaningless job interview notes for them? Do we just neglect them for a decade or so?
I think you can see some absurdity (or at least inanity) in such an thought experiment.
Last edited:
You would see a modification of practically every safety net program with 20% unemployment. Besides Medicaid, we would have 32 million people out of work. Most of whom would have lost their health insurance. Theirs is zero chance we wouldn’t enact measures to support those people who lost their ability to support themselves and their families along with insuring them and their dependents. Look at what we did during Covid.
They wouldn’t have anywhere close to the resources required to provide for the tens of millions of out of work Americans during an economic collapse like Aston is referring.
Sending people 1000 bucks and giving rich folks a payday loan that they turn around and pocket (and never payback) doesn’t really help with health care.
Correct but during Covid the Federal government expanded health coverage for millions as well as increased funding for Medicaid and relaxed restrictions. If we have 20% unemployment you would see a massive increase in Medicaid funding combined with relaxation of eligibility requirements. Not sure how a payday loan applies to what we’re discussing here
I don’t want the only time that we relax work requirement for people having trouble getting a job to be when we have a full blown pandemic or a depression.
Cases of recession probably wouldn’t be so severe that it would spur Congress to relax those requirements, but it would make it so millions of Americans didn’t have healthcare for some period of time.
Do I think people who can work should work. For the most part yes…. But I do see occasions when that requirement leads to unnecessary and I also feel like it leads to a bunch of people being put into employment positions just for the government benefits. Many of those people typically are not good workers and can often be more of a burden to the company than the value of their labor provides.
I would rather pay them to be out of the workforce than providing poor quality work, breaking stuff, having safety violations, having poor interactions with customers etc…
Last edited:
You’re the one who brought up the extreme example. I haven’t read the proposal but I hope there would be a temporary coverage window while the individual would find a new job. Doesn’t get away from the primary issue here…should able bodied people be required to work in order to have those who do work pay for their healthcare?
You didn’t read my final paragraph…. Some (many?) able bodied people create a greater liability / drag on the companies you’re encouraging to take time assessing hiring them than they are worth in terms of labor value,
I think there are as many incompetent employees on that Medicaid roster as there are fraudsters and some people will be incompetent wherever they go, regardless of which role or how much attention you dedicate to them.
Take this money so I don’t have to deal with you.
The majority of any Medicaid ‘savings’ will come from requiring so much extra paperwork or navigating government online sites that qualified recipients will fall off. The added list of documents and frequent recertifications from employers, doctors and applicants will fall hardest on the poor and poorly paid.
I’m not encouraging companies to hire anyone. I’m encouraging able bodied people to stop relying on the tax dollars of their neighbors and break their cycle of government dependency and poverty. I assume there are people who aren’t on disability but for whatever reason just can’t basic tasks required to have a job. I would think that number is small. Those people should ba able to apply to opt out of the work requirement. I fail to see why the government should enact public policy to encourage its citizens to rely on other citizens for their well being when they have the means to be self sufficient. Dependency on government is not a good thing. Especially with a looming fiscal crisis on the horizon where our ability to continue to pay dependent people will tested
Last edited:
Do you disagree that there are people who are more of a burden / liability to most employers than they are a benefit / revenue generator?
(And I’m not just talking about the disabled or severely mentally handicapped)
back on the 50s when things were tight, people got a Second job, they didn't get a Government debit card
Yeah that's exactly what happened during the depression and covid crisis. SMH During the 50's the economy was good, and you could make your way to a much better place than today. The American Dream is not what it once was.
the depression was an exception. the gov didn't just hand out check, they created Work Projects.
I would think that number is very small as long as they show up for work and don’t steal. It takes very little skill or mental aptitude to clean residential or commercial properties or similar jobs. One would hope many enter areas where they can learn a skill or trade and become valuable to an employer
The world can only support so many janitors and cleaning ladies and often that work is not full time. Even then, those people are often let go for not being thorough in their tasks.
Aston….why do you do this? I gave one example because I was watching my cleaning people as I responded. You know full well there are multiple jobs and fields which don’t require skill or an especially high aptitude. Especially for entry level employees. (I’ve done a lot of them growing up) As far as my specific example, they empty the trash cans and sweep. Anyone who wanted to be employed could accomplish those two tasks.
Companies actually have to have a need for those sorts of workers. Paying someone to sweep when there’s no dust makes no sense. Paying someone to dig a hole doesn’t make any sense when there’s no need for the hole and it doesn’t make anyone any money to exist. This isn’t an argument that there aren’t tasks that unskilled people can accomplish it’s an argument that the domestic product of that labor isn’t worth more than the cost of their small share of the entitlement programs.
In other words… we shouldn’t make people work when their labor isn’t actually valuable especially if it’s mostly because people feel angry when they work hard and see others doing nothing. They’re doing nothing because they’re essentially useless (not that they’re valueless)
It’s the same reason we don’t ask 90 year olds to work… they don’t have labor value.
Last edited:
Unskilled laborers is actually one of if not the fastest growing segments in the job market. We are currently experiencing a shortage of these workers which is sure to grow worse due to the latest immigration policies.
Companies wouldn’t be employing these people and needed more if their labor wasn’t valuable. Not to mention our economy needing these jobs filled. Your last sentence doesn’t make much sense to me.
What I’m saying is that many workers (typically Republicans) see people not working who could as an affront to their principles. They have a visceral reaction to people sitting on the sidelines while they work.
My counterargument is that a lot of people who are sitting on the sidelines are people who would tend to hold us back anyway and I’m prepared to write them off. They’re on the sidelines because they don’t want to work….and not wanting to work is something that’s inherently counterproductive to business.
Conservatives think very simplistically that if you just begin to starve them, they will suddenly grow a work ethic…. Which is not really true. What’s more true is the movie Office Space. They will come to work and phone it in just enough to keep their job whilst simultaneously providing zero (or minimal) real value.
Essentially what I’m saying is that I would prefer them to stay out of the workplace rather than phoning the job in for a paycheck they didn’t really earn. I’m more willing to subsidize their ineptitude if they just stay out of my way so the people who actually want to build the GDP can do so and it will cost my company less in the long run.
Last edited:
…and you’re perfectly fine with working and giving part of your paycheck every week to your neighbor who simply doesn’t want to work? You would be in the small minority.
Retaining an employee who is “phoning it in” is between the employer and employee. In almost all cases the employee who is “phoning it in” will quickly be terminated. Which should ease your mind as you won’t have to deal with them.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
🏈 Recruiting TU making waves in recruiting with big-time commitments
- Latest: Dawg.pound22
