Evil. Just evil. Terminally ill patients can't work, they're on deaths door. If they don't get treatment, they are dead. Let's let the medical decisions be handled by doctors and not some politician.
Honestly things like this show me the President has to much power. There should be government agencies where no political party can touch it without significant oversight and approval from both the president and both houses of congress.
Medicare, Medicaid, FBI, FCC, FAA, The Fed, and more all should be outside admin control of the president and any single party or group of individuals. Only when you have a 2/3s majority of both the houses and the president should you be able to make such broad sweeping policy changes.
The headline is categorically false, and people with qualifying conditions are automatically exempt from work requirements. [1]
Most will never be asked for 'proof' they are unable to work as this memo directs states to review medical records to automatically exempt qualified patients.
Blindly believing a source with a known history of both bias and lying leads you to these conclusions. It's pure garbage, the headline is literally false by any angle.
> Honestly things like this show me the President has to much power.
Not just the executive, but the federal government in general has way too much power. There are so many things that the federal government does which it wasn't meant to do, all justified by an extremely bad faith reading of the commerce clause. It is a significant source of problems for our nation, because it makes federal elections (and in particular the election for president) super high stakes for people. We would be much better off without the various perversions of the constitution that FDR pushed through, but I suspect there's no political will to walk it back (because people love getting money from the government).
The person you are responding to wants for agencies to be able to exist, not to destroy the US government & society.
"Significant source of problems" that what, we have health care and clean air? You indicate your desire to tear it all down & that's what we are seeing everywhere, but why, and for what? It's so unfathomable, so unclear that "we would be much better off" to not have the world's best institutions as we do, the greatest science the best education, the world's leading medicine.
It's so unclear what drives this destructive anti-government fervor to me. You've given me not even a single remote small hint. Neither had this administration as they have, as barbarians, come in and chainsawed as much as they can down. For what? What makes people so opposed to a society? Wanting so badly to make sure there is no government, no services, no help, no collective will?
This is incredibly cruel, and not surprising at all.
On par with this administration- Goons pulled back because they're murdering innocent civilians at car stops? Chief goon steps up and says "put them back!"
Then he takes to the waves to instill fear and uncertainty in our election process.
Americans are being boiled alive, nice and slow- and a third of them love it!
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.
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.
Not-American here: the issue is having to have a program like Medicaid in the first place.
A half-century of struggle in other industrialized western nations happened precisely because of this kind of thing. And in the 50s and 60s and 70s ... because of that -- and because of fear of contagion from the USSR -- most countries put in universal health care systems of various forms which eliminated the need for means testing and "charity" type medical care in the first place and defined quality health care as universal available.
The US's problem seems to be that citizens demand a very high level of (costly) medical care, which would not be sustainable if implemented as a taxpayer-funded universal program. As an example, the numbers which I've seen indicate that the USA has about 10x as many MRI machines per capita than Canada (which is generally a comparable country). The other big problem is the way that Medicaid is implemented, with funding and accountability divided between the Federal Government (which doesn't have the constitutional authority to run healthcare), and the States (which do); this is rather similar to Canada, which also has major issues caused by this division.
Awkward... I "bowdlerized" the title to fit the character limit. While I think the "who" is crucial information, in this case (and many others) the "what" is the newsworthy part and the part I was willing to sacrifice least of.
I try not to risk the appearance of misattributing a particular instance of an argument, whether or not Trump personally makes the same argument in different words on TV. What's more, this article is about representations that a government body dares to make in court.
> 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.
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. Without insurance people die from cancer. With insurance some people do not die. If we cut their insurance due to more red tape, we're condemning those to death.
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.
They would meet the requirements to not have to work. Having nothing to do with terminally ill status and everything to do with the things you just listed. The article doesn't say anyone is proposing to change that.
Parkinson's lol do you know what that actually looks like? It's degenerative. In a country where only the poor are expected to do all the work, seems fair to me that when they cannot work, the state provides them at least a meagre allowance. What exactly should they do, waste away and starve to death? Pay for it with the money from some billionaire who doesn't work for a living
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.
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".)
People have always suffered under the banality of indifferent evils. A blanket policy is bad policy and that dovetails into Trump's laziness/stupidity.
Putting that aside, is the estimated terminal deadline a good measure for subsidy qualification...ie I'm dead in 5 years from my conditions, so when should I be exempt from the work requirement?
Evil. Just evil. Terminally ill patients can't work, they're on deaths door. If they don't get treatment, they are dead. Let's let the medical decisions be handled by doctors and not some politician.
Honestly things like this show me the President has to much power. There should be government agencies where no political party can touch it without significant oversight and approval from both the president and both houses of congress.
Medicare, Medicaid, FBI, FCC, FAA, The Fed, and more all should be outside admin control of the president and any single party or group of individuals. Only when you have a 2/3s majority of both the houses and the president should you be able to make such broad sweeping policy changes.
They specifically mention AIDS and Parkinsons, both of which the patient could be terminal for decades but otherwise mostly fine.
There's plenty here to discuss without being hyperbolic.
The headline is categorically false, and people with qualifying conditions are automatically exempt from work requirements. [1]
Most will never be asked for 'proof' they are unable to work as this memo directs states to review medical records to automatically exempt qualified patients.
Blindly believing a source with a known history of both bias and lying leads you to these conclusions. It's pure garbage, the headline is literally false by any angle.
[1] https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-11094.pdf
> Honestly things like this show me the President has to much power.
Not just the executive, but the federal government in general has way too much power. There are so many things that the federal government does which it wasn't meant to do, all justified by an extremely bad faith reading of the commerce clause. It is a significant source of problems for our nation, because it makes federal elections (and in particular the election for president) super high stakes for people. We would be much better off without the various perversions of the constitution that FDR pushed through, but I suspect there's no political will to walk it back (because people love getting money from the government).
The person you are responding to wants for agencies to be able to exist, not to destroy the US government & society.
"Significant source of problems" that what, we have health care and clean air? You indicate your desire to tear it all down & that's what we are seeing everywhere, but why, and for what? It's so unfathomable, so unclear that "we would be much better off" to not have the world's best institutions as we do, the greatest science the best education, the world's leading medicine.
It's so unclear what drives this destructive anti-government fervor to me. You've given me not even a single remote small hint. Neither had this administration as they have, as barbarians, come in and chainsawed as much as they can down. For what? What makes people so opposed to a society? Wanting so badly to make sure there is no government, no services, no help, no collective will?
This is incredibly cruel, and not surprising at all.
On par with this administration- Goons pulled back because they're murdering innocent civilians at car stops? Chief goon steps up and says "put them back!"
Then he takes to the waves to instill fear and uncertainty in our election process.
Americans are being boiled alive, nice and slow- and a third of them love it!
Commondreams is a questionable source. Read with a grain of salt and good judgement.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/common-dreams-media-bia...
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.
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.
Not-American here: the issue is having to have a program like Medicaid in the first place.
A half-century of struggle in other industrialized western nations happened precisely because of this kind of thing. And in the 50s and 60s and 70s ... because of that -- and because of fear of contagion from the USSR -- most countries put in universal health care systems of various forms which eliminated the need for means testing and "charity" type medical care in the first place and defined quality health care as universal available.
Time for that struggle again.
The US's problem seems to be that citizens demand a very high level of (costly) medical care, which would not be sustainable if implemented as a taxpayer-funded universal program. As an example, the numbers which I've seen indicate that the USA has about 10x as many MRI machines per capita than Canada (which is generally a comparable country). The other big problem is the way that Medicaid is implemented, with funding and accountability divided between the Federal Government (which doesn't have the constitutional authority to run healthcare), and the States (which do); this is rather similar to Canada, which also has major issues caused by this division.
Maybe certain Kentucky Senators shouldn't be exempt from work requirements, then.
This just sounds cartoonishly evil
This is America.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49089109 (citations)
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.
Awkward... I "bowdlerized" the title to fit the character limit. While I think the "who" is crucial information, in this case (and many others) the "what" is the newsworthy part and the part I was willing to sacrifice least of.
You could have chosen to use "Trump" instead of "Admin" and met the same character limit. But you chose not to.
I try not to risk the appearance of misattributing a particular instance of an argument, whether or not Trump personally makes the same argument in different words on TV. What's more, this article is about representations that a government body dares to make in court.
[flagged]
> 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.
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. Without insurance people die from cancer. With insurance some people do not die. If we cut their insurance due to more red tape, we're condemning those to death.
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...
They would meet the requirements to not have to work. Having nothing to do with terminally ill status and everything to do with the things you just listed. The article doesn't say anyone is proposing to change that.
Weird that you comment on rage bait and end your comment with the idea that this group of people are all a bunch of worthless drug users.
Medicaid defines terminally ill as under 6 months to live. So there's no risk of someone mooching off the system for decades.
Parkinson's lol do you know what that actually looks like? It's degenerative. In a country where only the poor are expected to do all the work, seems fair to me that when they cannot work, the state provides them at least a meagre allowance. What exactly should they do, waste away and starve to death? Pay for it with the money from some billionaire who doesn't work for a living
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.
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".)
Arigatou
The Cruelty Is the Point.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...
People have always suffered under the banality of indifferent evils. A blanket policy is bad policy and that dovetails into Trump's laziness/stupidity.
Putting that aside, is the estimated terminal deadline a good measure for subsidy qualification...ie I'm dead in 5 years from my conditions, so when should I be exempt from the work requirement?