Under a new policy the administration is defending in court, low-income people with cancer, HIV, Parkinson's, and other life-threatening illnesses must prove they're too sick to work or risk losing their health insurance.

A federal judge on Thursday denied a request by more than two dozen Democratic states to halt a Trump administration policy announced last month that would require Medicaid recipients with terminal diseases to prove they are too sick to work in order to be exempt from new work requirements that go into effect this coming January.

While introducing over $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, last year’s massive GOP tax and budget bill also imposed new 80-hour-per-month work requirements that states must implement for Medicaid expansion recipients, who receive government-subsidized insurance coverage at or below 138% of the poverty line.

The law specified that those who are “medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs” are excluded from the work requirement, and specifically listed people with a “serious or complex medical condition.” But it remained unclear what exact conditions met these criteria.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced a new rule stating that even if a person receives a terminal diagnosis for a disease like cancer, HIV/AIDS, or Parkinson’s, that is still not enough for them to be exempt from the work requirements.

Beginning on January 1, 2028, it says they must also demonstrate to states that their condition “significantly impairs” their ability to meet the work requirement.

  • Nollij@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    71·
    4 days ago

    I don’t think it matters if you’re too sick to work. That’s treating people as existing solely for your own benefit, to be exploited.

    What does matter, IMHO, is what your expected timeline is. At one time, HIV could’ve been considered a terminal diagnosis. It couldn’t be treated, it would always advance to AIDS, and eventually that would cause your death. But that was likely to be 10+ years away.

    If you’ve got less than a year to live, the government should cover your fucking medical care, no exception. Well, maybe the ultra-rich, but I’m sure they’d find a way around it anyway.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      211·
      4 days ago

      That’s treating people as existing solely for your own benefit, to be exploited.

      What do you mean by that in this context? I don’t think Medicaid pays for people’s healthcare in order that they might work (at least not in this context). It is rather more like a charity program, with the associated reasoning being that people who could work instead of accepting charity should.