Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Admin: Terminally Ill Patients Aren't Exempt from Medicaid Work Requirements

commondreams.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Admin: Terminally Ill Patients Aren't Exempt from Medicaid Work Requirements

#21

Post by pyuser583 »

Ok see what they’re doing - they’re taking a position that sounds (and mostly is) horrible. But they putting a poison pill for their opponents to consume: HIV patients have to work.

Thats common sense. People with HIV are usually able to work, and usually not terminally ill in the typical sense.

There are already comments defending the silly idea of HIV patients being excluded from work expectations: “if that’s the cost of a social safety net …”

That’s not the cost of a social safety net anywhere else in the world.

The current administration isn’t stupid. They know how get their opponents to freak out and say stupid things, and every stupid thing they say outweighs 100 reasonable things.

Be careful: work requirements are a mine field of helpfulness, good governance, and cruelty.

Re: Admin: Terminally Ill Patients Aren't Exempt from Medicaid Work Requirements

#23

Post by Catloafdev »

wang_li wrote: post #12
nkrisc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are we supposed to accept the idea that an IV drug user sharing needles contracts HIV and they never have to work again even though they'll be getting medication which completely suppresses the virus and will leave a largely normal lifespan? Is that the price of the “right” people being exempted? Then sure. Also simply having HIV doesn’t mean you’re terminally ill.

HIV is literally called out in the subhead of the linked web page. If you bothered to read the article and get a sense of what is being argued in court, you would understand that there is nothing outre here.

If you bothered to read the article, you'd understand why this is, in fact, a problem.

Re: Admin: Terminally Ill Patients Aren't Exempt from Medicaid Work Requirements

#24

Post by quickthrowman »

wang_li wrote: post #5

[flagged]

It all depends on how “a terminal diagnosis” is defined.

Is someone that is 30 years old, HIV positive, and on antiretrovirals with a low viral load considered a terminal diagnosis? HIV may end their life in 40 years but they’re clearly capable of working.

The article does say “medically frail” people are exempted, so Stage 4 pancreatic cancer would be enough to exempt someone from the rules, but where the line is drawn does matter.

Re: Admin: Terminally Ill Patients Aren't Exempt from Medicaid Work Requirements

#25

Post by kelnos »

deepsun wrote: post #11
wang_li wrote: post #5

[flagged]

Don't know why people downvote and flag your comment, vouched for it. HN votes are a not designed to be "agree/disagree", they supposed to mark interesting comments that spark curiosity, even if I disagree with them. Your comment is the only one like that here.

pg and mods have stated that using votes as agree/disagree is perfectly fine.

Regardless, I don't think the GP comment was particularly interesting or insightful. First they complain the article is rage bait, and then end the comment with rage bait of their own. (Way to anchor "terminally ill person" as "junkie".)

Re: Admin: Terminally Ill Patients Aren't Exempt from Medicaid Work Requirements

#26

Post by wang_li »

snow_mac wrote: post #13
wang_li wrote: post #5

[flagged]

Maybe your argument works for a few specific cases, what about those that do not meet that? What about someone with stage 4 cancer who needs radiation and will likely live a year or two longer without treatment? Without treatment they can't recover, without recovering they can't go to work; their body is literally dying. With treatment they might be able to live, work and recover. That is what the article is saying.…

The policy being argued exempts such people from the work requirement.

People who are not exempt can meet the work requirements through a variety of different activities from part-time work earning $580/month, or 80 hours through a combination of part-time work, volunteer work, and care giving to dependents.

https://www.chcs.org/resource/a-summary-of-national-medicaid...

Re: Admin: Terminally Ill Patients Aren't Exempt from Medicaid Work Requirements

#27

Post by theflyingelvis »

I have what is ostensibly an incurable terminal cancer and i work, by my own choice, 40+ per week. I see no issue with making folks in similar positions show that they are in fact, too sick to work.

If an individual IS too sick to work it should be relatively simple to get the required documents to prove that fact. God know i had enough hospital social workers and doctors asking me if it wanted said documentation.

Re: Admin: Terminally Ill Patients Aren't Exempt from Medicaid Work Requirements

#29

Post by Yopolo »

theflyingelvis wrote: post #27

I have what is ostensibly an incurable terminal cancer and i work, by my own choice, 40+ per week. I see no issue with making folks in similar positions show that they are in fact, too sick to work. If an individual IS too sick to work it should be relatively simple to get the required documents to prove that fact. God know i had enough hospital social workers and doctors asking me if it wanted said documentation.

That you are defending this while having terminal cancer is more depressing than not.

I really hope you have a great job which fullfills you and thats the reason why you continue working but A LOT of people do not have something like this.

It only shows how little our society values humans despite us having all resources and all knowledge necessary to feed and house every single human on the planet right now.

Wish you a fullfilled happy life.

Re: Admin: Terminally Ill Patients Aren't Exempt from Medicaid Work Requirements

#30

Post by buildsjets »

hn_acker wrote: post #2

The original title is: > Trump Admin Argues Even Terminally Ill Patients Shouldn’t Be Exempt From Medicaid Work Requirements

Thanks, that's a lot more accurate and informative than the bowdlerized Hacker News title.
Post reply on HN