Michigan legislature reaches a new low with Medicaid-Work waiver scheme.

[brizee]

Michigan’s GOP has a plan to shield some people from Medicaid work requirements. They’re overwhelmingly white.

Michigan’s Discriminatory Work Requirements

But maybe not in Michigan. Last month, the State Senate passed a bill that would require Medicaid beneficiaries to find work or else lose their coverage.

Many of the legislators supporting Michigan’s work requirements come from rural districts with high unemployment. Many of those districts are predominantly white. To protect their constituents, these legislators have included a safety valve in the bill: If you live in a county with a high unemployment rate [[over 8.5 percent), you’re exempt from the work requirements. The rationale? When there are no jobs to be had, it doesn’t make sense to punish you for not working.

Yet that safety valve does not apply equally. Specifically, it does little for Michigan’s black residents, who are concentrated in cities like Detroit, Muskegon and Flint. Those cities suffer from chronically high unemployment rates, but they’re all in counties with low rates. The city of Flint, for example, has an unemployment rate of 10.4 percent; but in Genesee County, where Flint is located, the rate is just 5.8 percent. The upshot is that no one in Michigan’s biggest cities can take advantage of the safety valve — even if there’s no work to be had.

Satan's children serve him well.

[Bham1982]

Don't worry, the "what, me racist?" crowd will be here soon.

I'm sure it's just a giant coincidence that all the 99% white areas [[with vastly worse govt. dependence) are exempted while all the 99% black areas [[much more productive areas) are targeted for losing their benefits. They're just Making Michigan Great Again!

[ABetterDetroit]

The title of this thread is perfect.

https://www.bridgemi.com/public-sect...in-controversy

[Johnnny5]

I think this is totally wrong! The proposed work/job training requirements for Medicaid benefits should apply to the lazy crackers Up North the same as it applies to the lazy brothers in Detroit, Muskegon and Flint.

[Bham1982]

But "the brothers" aren't "real Americans" and aren't "deserving" like poor whites.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I think everyone “up north” needs to be tested for opioids before getting any assistance. And then be locked up if they test positive.

[Canadian Visitor]

I think everyone “up north” needs to be tested for opioids before getting any assistance. And then be locked up if they test positive.

How about everyone gets healthcare period. Full Stop.

No tests. Not means, Not ability, Not work ethic.

The only standard by which people are unethical in regards to healthcare is 'he or she doesn't deserve to be able-bodied or pain-free'.

That that attitude exists at all is repugnant.

There is no forgiving such antipathy and immorality.

Its not even good selfishness.

Denying people healthcare, even if they ARE lazy @###$ doesn't help anyone else.

If they are so sick/injured they can't work, how are you better off that they are in pain or at home in ever worsening condition?

You're not.

It doesn't raise tax revenue and it doesn't cut expenses, it just shifts them.

That person loses their house, they get public housing or emergency shelter. They get neither, they squat and cause insurance in your area to spike.

Really how sad, and how wasteful.

[Canadian Visitor]

People, ideally, should be self-reliant.

Start by making sure that's possible because they are in sufficient health to work or study or better themselves.

If they flub the opportunity, so be it.

That will be the exception, not the rule.

Most people want to have pride and want to contribute.

Denying a whole slew who do, but can't, in order to punish the few who won't is a gross waste of resources, and an ethical lapse of the highest order.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

How about everyone gets healthcare period. Full Stop.

No tests. Not means, Not ability, Not work ethic.

The only standard by which people are unethical in regards to healthcare is 'he or she doesn't deserve to be able-bodied or pain-free'.

That that attitude exists at all is repugnant.

There is no forgiving such antipathy and immorality.

Its not even good selfishness.

Denying people healthcare, even if they ARE lazy @###$ does help anyone else.

If they are so sick/injured they can't work, how are you better off that they are in pain or at home in ever worsening condition?

You're not.

It doesn't raise tax revenue and it doesn't cut expenses, it just shifts them.

That person loses their house, they get public housing or emergency shelter. They get neither, they squat and cause insurance in your area to spike.

Really how sad, and how wasteful.

Just because the rest of the developed world can do that, doesn’t seem
to mean we can.

[RaumVogel]

This business of "finding work" is BS.If you are poor,how much time and money are you going to spend to go to interviews that don't result in employment?Are they going to force you to work a job that pays so little that it's not worth working?

[CassTechGrad]

“How about everyone gets healthcare period. Full Stop.

No tests. Not means, Not ability, Not work ethic.”

Go ask Obama and all the other liberal democrats that passed Obamacare! They gave you 10,000 pages of bulls**t when they could have passed the true “free” healthcare that you are asking for and everyone else in the world has. And you still voted for him again in 2012 after you knew he lied: “If you like your plan you can keep your plan, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”

[Canadian Visitor]

“How about everyone gets healthcare period. Full Stop.

No tests. Not means, Not ability, Not work ethic.”

Go ask Obama and all the other liberal democrats that passed Obamacare! They gave you 10,000 pages of bulls**t when they could have passed the true “free” healthcare that you are asking for and everyone else in the world has. And you still voted for him again in 2012 after you knew he lied: “If you like your plan you can keep your plan, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”

1) As a Canadian I didn't vote for Obama or anyone else in any U.S. election.

2) Healthcare is not free in Canada, it is covered [[mostly) by a government funded health insurance, which everyone receives.

3) In defense of those who voted for Obama, exactly what better choice was on offer? [[one that might actually get elected). Further, which President [[or candidate for same) would have been able to get single-payer healthcare through Congress [[somehow I think 'none of the above' is the correct answer).

The principle stands as I outlined it above. Its the choice of the American electorate whether to abide the BS spewed by too many of your pols. The Dems are by no means exempt from criticism, but the Reps, are special in so far as they don't even pretend to care about better the quality of the life of the average American.

Reform your system, vote wisely, abide nothing less that constructive government.

[EastsideAl]

“How about everyone gets healthcare period. Full Stop.

No tests. Not means, Not ability, Not work ethic.”

Go ask Obama and all the other liberal democrats that passed Obamacare! They gave you 10,000 pages of bulls**t when they could have passed the true “free” healthcare that you are asking for and everyone else in the world has. And you still voted for him again in 2012 after you knew he lied: “If you like your plan you can keep your plan, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”

Hahahaha... this makes sound as if nothing and no one was in Obama's way. As if he could have just waved his magic hands and made single-payer health care happen, or at least a public option. But I do seem to hazily remember just a few obstructions in his way.....

[preserve]

Then comes the transition from Medicaid to Worker's Compensation, no one wins.

[Wesley Mouch]

This business of "finding work" is BS.If you are poor,how much time and money are you going to spend to go to interviews that don't result in employment?Are they going to force you to work a job that pays so little that it's not worth working?

Am I wrong that the history of welfare reform is one of success, at least in increasing work levels of the potential recipient population?

Are we arguing against any work requirements, or that targeting them to areas where there are jobs isn't appropriate. Seems reasonable to me. And it also does seem to fall mostly on the urban poor -- but if there are jobs for the urban poor, don't we want them to work, if they can?

Or does our sense of racial inequality blind us to what works best for the victims of welfare?

[[Nothing in the post is intended to suggest that welfare should not be available to those in true need, regardless of race, color, creed, or LGBTQ status.)

[EastsideAl]

One of the nastiest things about this is that I bet that pretty much all of the northern rednecks who pushed this BS would call themselves "good Christians".

I'm sure Jesus would be proud of every one of them today for coming up with a slickly deceptive way to make sure that only the "right" [[pale) Christian people get help. And the "wrong" [[dark) ones can screw off and die - just the way their all-loving god intended it.

[EastsideAl]

"victims of welfare"... Wow. Well it sure was nice for the legislators from Dogpatch and Bugtussle to save their little brown brothers and sisters from that fate. It's just a shame though that they couldn't spare their fellow pale b̶a̶c̶k̶w̶a̶r̶d̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶b̶r̶e̶d̶s̶ citizens from that same tragedy of being similarly "victimized" by basic health care for their families.

[Canadian Visitor]

Am I wrong that the history of welfare reform is one of success, at least in increasing work levels of the potential recipient population?

Are we arguing against any work requirements, or that targeting them to areas where there are jobs isn't appropriate. Seems reasonable to me. And it also does seem to fall mostly on the urban poor -- but if there are jobs for the urban poor, don't we want them to work, if they can?

Or does our sense of racial inequality blind us to what works best for the victims of welfare?

[[Nothing in the post is intended to suggest that welfare should not be available to those in true need, regardless of race, color, creed, or LGBTQ status.)

How about we back all of that out.............

Let's remember this was not a discussion about 'welfare' but about 'MEDICAID'.

This is not a cash benefit to the recipient but to a doctor, nurse etc. who receives payment, possibly less in some cases that from other insurers. Its a payment designed to ensure someone can receive care who is in pain, injured or suffering through disease irrespective of ANYTHING else about their life or condition.

You don't 'earn' the right to be treated for cancer or have a broken arm properly set and cast, or have your sick baby examined by a doctor.

That right is as inalienable as any. The right to be seen as a fellow human, and treated w/compassion. PERIOD, full stop.

The notion that there is some long line of moochers who either quit their jobs or stopped looking for work just so they could qualify for MEDICAID is so utterly preposterous on its face as to be laughable were it not so morally bankrupt as to induce tears.

***

Welfare is a separate issue.

Though in many ways governed by the same principle.

IF someone does not have enough to eat, don't ask they why they DESERVE food. Just feed them you callous soul.

Don't ask someone living on the street if they have 'earned' the right to a warm bed on a cold night. Just house them.

No one suggests an entitlement to luxury or to a middle-class living.

No one would not prefer to see people contributing to society [[through work or other means) as oppose to just subsisting.

In most cases, the people subsisting would be the first to agree and accept decent work were it on offer.

Regardless, it is not WORK then medical care or WORK then food, or WORK then not freezing to death.

It is care for those who need it, when they need it; then see what you can do for them by OFFERING opportunity.

Its not merely compassion and human decency its good public policy that results is lower healthcare costs, lower crime, less homelessness, higher levels of high school graduation, and higher levels of employment.

Being mean is cruel, AND bad public policy. It costs more than it saves and ultimately benefits no one.

[Canadian Visitor]

I'll pitch something else here. I want to be clear that I'm not anti-American, nor am I of the view than Canada doesn't have innumerable ways to improve [[it does, it can, it should).

But I'm going to quote something an AMERICAN just wrote as an open letter to Toronto and Canada upon being fired from his job as coach of the Toronto Raptors, because I thought it spoke volumes about what we TRY to be here, even if we fail too often.

"Thank you for teaching our all-American family the Canadian way. That being polite and considerate to one another is always the best way. That diversity is something to be embraced and celebrated. That taking the time to learn about each other’s cultures is the surest way to find common ground and understanding. Thank you for making our children feel safe, valued, and comfortable in their own skin. We cannot express how important it has been to build the foundations of who our children are as human beings in a country that shows through its words, actions and laws that all people deserve basic human rights, and a chance to reach their goals through education and hard work."

- Dwayne Casey [[former Head Coach, Toronto Raptors)

The relevance to this debate is that compassion and empathy come first.

The details follow the ideal.

[EastsideAl]

New York Times story on our state's neo-Jim Crow embarrassment.
https://nyti.ms/2GfLzRH

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...

The relevance to this debate is that compassion and empathy come first.

The details follow the ideal.

Yes, details can follow the idea. Mr. Casey's statement is very nice. Canadian politeness is a great attribute of their society. And both our countries mostly see diversity as a net positive, although the US Oval Office is occupied by someone who doesn't put diversity ahead of everything to be sure.

But to your comment here....

1) He doesn't say the empathy and compassion should come first.

2) He doesn't say that we should elevate E & C above all other ideals such as the value of citizenship.

At the risk of going all Jordan Peterson on you, "the details follow the ideal" fits best on statues of Karl Marx, and we know how that turned out. Bad idea. Really bad idea.

[Canadian Visitor]

At the risk of going all Jordan Peterson on you, "the details follow the ideal" fits best on statues of Karl Marx, and we know how that turned out. Bad idea. Really bad idea.

That makes no sense.

Every philosophy from Conservatism to Liberalism, Fascism to Communism, at all points on the spectrum endorse the notion that the ideal [[principles) come first, then you get the details [[laws, taxes, programs) that conform to the principle.

That is not some unique ideal of the left, its the ideal of a logical person.

The obvious thing to do to test it is to reverse it out, "the details should not bare any relationship to the principles held by a society." Foolish nonsense.

Of course the details should follow the principles.

Sometimes you disagree w/o just cause to the point of self-contradiction.

ps. Prof. Peterson teaches and taught at my alma mater, when I attended. We had some wonderful discussions.

He doesn't say the empathy and compassion should come first.

Actually, he does:

"in a country that shows through its words, actions and laws that all people deserve basic human rights, and a chance to reach their goals through education and hard work "

All people includes poor people. The chance to excel through education and hard word is not only predicated on equal access to a good education, but equal access to nutrition, adequate housing and quality healthcare. Absent those things, success is much less likely.

[Wesley Mouch]

...Every philosophy from Conservatism to Liberalism, Fascism to Communism, at all points on the spectrum endorse the notion that the ideal [[principles) come first, then you get the details [[laws, taxes, programs) that conform to the principle.

A discussion of principles, methods, and details would be a lot of fun, but I don't think we really disagree much on this. We probably agree on basic principles, but would disagree on the methods, and implementation [[details). So let's leave this alone.

...snip...
ps. Prof. Peterson teaches and taught at my alma mater, when I attended. We had some wonderful discussions.

Would be most curious to hear your thoughts on him. He's an interesting guy,.

Actually, he does:

"in a country that shows through its words, actions and laws that all people deserve basic human rights, and a chance to reach their goals through education and hard work "

All people includes poor people. The chance to excel through education and hard word is not only predicated on equal access to a good education, but equal access to nutrition, adequate housing and quality healthcare. Absent those things, success is much less likely.

A bit of a stretch here, Visitor. He doesn't say anything about compassion -- although I can see how you might imply it.

But more important, the idea that 'nutrition, housing, and healthcare' are not human rights at all. They are things you create or are given by others. The right to life is the most basic. No murder. The right to liberty grants you freedom from the whims of others. We limit this right to mean that you cannot harm others in their Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

You cannot have a basic human right to someone else's labor or goods. At best, that would be a secondary right, or perhaps you might call if a social right. If a government agrees that housing, food, and healthcare are valuable, it can tax others to provide it. And while I'd rather see Capuchin do food than the State of Michigan ... I'm all in favor of feeding those who can't feed themselves.

To call food a right, is to hollow out the idea of rights.

Means do matter. Communist ideals are noble. But the details are abhorrent. Taking the labor of grocers, farmers, doctors, and home builders to give to others as a basic human right is wrong. Great goals you have. Really bad method.

[Canadian Visitor]

Would be most curious to hear your thoughts on him. He's an interesting guy,.

Very smart in many ways, and thoroughly enjoy his desire to take down smug, self-satisified weaker intellects.

But, has odd contradictions in his views [[he's somewhat religious) that aren't really consistent w/the science he espouses.

While he's very good at seeing the falacies in the arguments of others, he's often not as good at seeing them in his own arguments. He often gets a break there because the people who most viscerally dislike him are often weaker intellects.

I found him quite personable and amusing. He loves to argue, as do I you might have noticed).

His biggest shortcoming intellectually though really is the exact same shortcoming he catches those he debates at. He confuses personal preference w/absolute truth; and he conflates correlation and causation more often than he should.

But I think he brings something useful to the conversation in so far he deflates some people's balloons who are very much in need of it.

***

They are things you create or are given by others. The right to life is the most basic. No murder. The right to liberty grants you freedom from the whims of others. We limit this right to mean that you cannot harm others in their Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

You cannot have a basic human right to someone else's labor or goods. At best, that would be a secondary right, or perhaps you might call if a social right. If a government agrees that housing, food, and healthcare are valuable, it can tax others to provide it. And while I'd rather see Capuchin do food than the State of Michigan ... I'm all in favor of feeding those who can't feed themselves.

To call food a right, is to hollow out the idea of rights.

There is so much wrong here.

First off, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to anything.

Including life.

All rights are concessions by your fellow travelers presumably exchanged for mutual courtesy.

I won't try to hurt you if you don't try to hurt me.

I won't steal from you, if you don't steal from me.

etc.

All rights are garnered by mutual understanding. They are not inscribed from a fictitious deity on stone tablets and they don't have inherent value because they were written out in 1776 any more that an 'ideal' that women were property or people could be slaves.

**

That said, let's agree that 'life' is the most important right whether we call it inalienable or granted, as every other right is essentially dependent on your being alive.

In so agreeing you seem to think that only means that you won't shoot or stab someone else and you've respected that right.

Yet, if they lack food, they will die. They're right to life is moot.

If they lack shelter on a cold or stormy night, they will likely die. They're right to life is moot.

IF they have a right to life they have a right to the necessities of life which include food and shelter, as well as available medical attention when ill or injured.

If they have no such claim, you don't really believe they have a right to life, only a right not to be murdered. Which is not the way that right is inscribed in law.

If the right to Life is the most fundamental then it surely trumps any right to property.

Which is after all an invented right.

One which could never be considered inalienable because property is an intellectual and legal construct with no absolute truth.

Property is not earned in most cases, its is often inherited. There is no merit, nor absolute worthiness to it.

So if life trumps that right, then someone hungry has a right to any surplus food you have or the money to get their own.

Likewise shelter and healthcare.

None of that is communist, no one is talking about an equal right to a big screen TV or a Rolls Royce, or backyard pool.

Though, curiously, if you wish to rank the pursuit of happiness as a top tier right, you might be making that argument.

Regardless the rest of the world would not agree that is a right of the first order. There are others better suited to that rank.

****

Finally, let's come back to this, irrespective of what the law says [[laws are changeable); an I've got mine so 'F@#K You" attitude is neither moral nor good public policy.

It doesn't save money. It doesn't encourage self-reliance. It doesn't result in greater freedom.

A reminder on every survey by freedom loving organizations, including business ones ranks Canada a freer nation than your own, in fact the U.S. isn't even top ten.


http://www.socialprogressindex.com/a...ne-21-2017.pdf

[[consult page 76 for the detailed breakdown which shows the US is not a top finisher is personal freedom/choice or personal rights)

Don't like their criteria? How about theirs?

https://freedomhouse.org/report/free...dom-world-2018

Or how about a right leaning org that looks at economic and civil freedoms as well?

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...om-index-2.pdf

Oddly the US almost always finishes behind Canada and the Scandinavian countries and sometimes behind many more.

More emphasis on the freedom to do the right thing would be nice.

It tends to create more freedom for everyone in the end.

[Shai_Hulud]

Work requirements don't work.

The initial spike from work requirements probably followed proponents’ plan: In the face of pressure—and sometimes aided by state-sponsored training and placement programs—people sought jobs. But those jobs were often low-paying, meaning they could not lift people from poverty as desired, and the newly employed workers were very soon sloughed from employment rolls anyway.

Pavetti explained what she described as the central failure of work requirements. “Getting people into the labor system quickly doesn’t necessarily have long-term benefits,” she said. And the reasons are pretty obvious. Low-paying and part-time jobs are usually unstable to begin with, and the vast majority of low-income people who can secure steady employment, including those on Medicaid, already do work.