7 ms·

The work requirements force people to file paperwork proving 80 hours of work monthly, and Arkansas showed this paperwork maze caused 18,000+ people to lose cov

The work requirements force people to file paperwork proving 80 hours of work monthly, and Arkansas showed this paperwork maze caused 18,000+ people to lose coverage even though 95% already met the requirements or qualified for exemptions. Arkansas spent $26.1 million just on administration with no increase in employment, and Georgia has spent over $40 million with 80% going to bureaucracy, not healthcare. For rural hospitals, the bill cuts $58 billion in Medicaid funding over 10 years but only provides a $25 billion rural fund that covers less than half the losses. This puts 300+ rural hospitals at immediate risk of closure since they're already operating on thin margins. For elderly people, the bill blocks nursing home staffing rules until 2034 and freezes home equity limits at $1 million permanently, plus adds more verification requirements. The evidence shows these aren't about efficiency. They're about creating barriers that cost more money to administer than they save, while cutting care for people who already qualify.

xp84 1y ago
Why can't people without disabilities or dependents work 20 hours a week?
- postpawl 1y ago
  It's not about whether they can work 20 hours. Most already do. Arkansas found 95% of people either met the requirements or qualified for exemptions, but 18,000+ still lost coverage due to the paperwork maze. The requirements are designed to create barriers through bureaucracy. You have to report every month through a specific online portal, track your hours precisely, navigate exemption processes. Miss one monthly filing deadline and you lose healthcare. It's the most socially acceptable way to kick people off coverage without saying "we don't want poor people to have healthcare." And it's not just work requirements. The bill also adds income verification twice a year instead of once, more asset checks, and cuts the actual funding. Each new hoop is another chance for eligible people to fall through the cracks. The goal is reducing enrollment through administrative friction, not promoting work.
  - frumplestlatz 1y ago
    The reporting requirements don’t seem particularly onerous. It’s on those individuals to not “fall through the cracks” if they truly need our money to fund their healthcare — I don’t see the problem.
    - postpawl 1y ago
      What's the point of making requirements even stricter if they cost more to administer than they save and don't increase employment? The Congressional Budget Office estimates 5.2 million people would lose coverage by 2034, with savings primarily coming from eligible people losing coverage due to paperwork barriers rather than increased employment.[1] The new bill allows states to verify monthly instead of every three months, so people lose coverage faster. Even working people get tripped up because 43% of workers would fail to meet 80 hours in at least one month due to variable schedules common in low-wage jobs.[2] People with multiple jobs have to submit paystubs from each employer monthly. Seasonal workers and food service workers are especially vulnerable because their hours swing wildly due to factors beyond their control. [1] https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/05/27/medicaid-and-chip-cuts-in-the-house-passed-reconciliation-bill-explained/ https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/05/27/medicaid-and-chip-cuts... [2] https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-work-requirements-will-harm-low-paid-workers https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-work-requireme...
      - frumplestlatz 1y ago
        The cost of government subsidies isn’t in just the subsidies or the administrative overhead alone. It’s in training people to rely on the government, in effectively subsidizing employers that pay less than a living wage, etc.
        postpawl 1y ago
        You're right that Medicaid subsidizes employers who pay poverty wages rely on taxpayers to provide healthcare for their workers instead of paying living wages themselves. But the solution isn't to eliminate Medicaid and leave workers with nothing. The solution is to raise the minimum wage or have universal healthcare so employers actually have to provide real benefits. Most Medicaid recipients already work. They're not choosing dependency, they're working jobs that don't pay enough to afford healthcare. Taking away their healthcare doesn't suddenly make employers pay more, it just leaves workers desperate, which is exactly what those employers want. You're essentially arguing we should eliminate the safety net that keeps our low-wage economy functioning. That would either force employers to pay living wages (unlikely) or create mass suffering among workers (more likely). Which outcome are you hoping for? Because right now it sounds like you'd rather have sick, desperate workers than challenge the employers who created this system.

xp84 1y ago

Why can't people without disabilities or dependents work 20 hours a week?

postpawl 1y ago
It's not about whether they can work 20 hours. Most already do. Arkansas found 95% of people either met the requirements or qualified for exemptions, but 18,000+ still lost coverage due to the paperwork maze. The requirements are designed to create barriers through bureaucracy. You have to report every month through a specific online portal, track your hours precisely, navigate exemption processes. Miss one monthly filing deadline and you lose healthcare. It's the most socially acceptable way to kick people off coverage without saying "we don't want poor people to have healthcare." And it's not just work requirements. The bill also adds income verification twice a year instead of once, more asset checks, and cuts the actual funding. Each new hoop is another chance for eligible people to fall through the cracks. The goal is reducing enrollment through administrative friction, not promoting work.
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  The reporting requirements don’t seem particularly onerous. It’s on those individuals to not “fall through the cracks” if they truly need our money to fund their healthcare — I don’t see the problem.
  - postpawl 1y ago
    What's the point of making requirements even stricter if they cost more to administer than they save and don't increase employment? The Congressional Budget Office estimates 5.2 million people would lose coverage by 2034, with savings primarily coming from eligible people losing coverage due to paperwork barriers rather than increased employment.[1] The new bill allows states to verify monthly instead of every three months, so people lose coverage faster. Even working people get tripped up because 43% of workers would fail to meet 80 hours in at least one month due to variable schedules common in low-wage jobs.[2] People with multiple jobs have to submit paystubs from each employer monthly. Seasonal workers and food service workers are especially vulnerable because their hours swing wildly due to factors beyond their control. [1] https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/05/27/medicaid-and-chip-cuts-in-the-house-passed-reconciliation-bill-explained/ https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/05/27/medicaid-and-chip-cuts... [2] https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-work-requirements-will-harm-low-paid-workers https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-work-requireme...
    - frumplestlatz 1y ago
      The cost of government subsidies isn’t in just the subsidies or the administrative overhead alone. It’s in training people to rely on the government, in effectively subsidizing employers that pay less than a living wage, etc.
      - postpawl 1y ago
        You're right that Medicaid subsidizes employers who pay poverty wages rely on taxpayers to provide healthcare for their workers instead of paying living wages themselves. But the solution isn't to eliminate Medicaid and leave workers with nothing. The solution is to raise the minimum wage or have universal healthcare so employers actually have to provide real benefits. Most Medicaid recipients already work. They're not choosing dependency, they're working jobs that don't pay enough to afford healthcare. Taking away their healthcare doesn't suddenly make employers pay more, it just leaves workers desperate, which is exactly what those employers want. You're essentially arguing we should eliminate the safety net that keeps our low-wage economy functioning. That would either force employers to pay living wages (unlikely) or create mass suffering among workers (more likely). Which outcome are you hoping for? Because right now it sounds like you'd rather have sick, desperate workers than challenge the employers who created this system.