The like Medicaid. This school of thought doesn’t take

The
Republican/conservative call to reduce spending undeniably boils down to a very
simple concept: the deserving versus the undeserving. This ideology clothed in
monetary savings is a divisive way to prioritize cost savings above the health
of Americans. Many senators who question the legality of these overhauls
highlight, “the purpose of the program is to ‘provide medical assistance (to
eligible individuals) whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the
costs of necessary medical services'” (The Associated Press, 2018b).

Certainly, there must be
income eligibility requirements, but mandated work or community activity
stipulations are a stretch. Work requirements serve only to underscore the idea
that somehow a persons’ plight is a failure on their part, rather than
examining the root cause as to the persons need for Medicaid coverage.
Basically, that somehow if an individual works “hard enough,” they can exist
independently of welfare systems like Medicaid. This school of thought doesn’t
take into consideration that, “most non-disabled Medicaid enrollees who would
be helped by Medicaid are already working” (1115 Waiver Element, 2018). If most
recipients are already employed, then these changes don’t equal significant
savings for states and the federal government. Additionally, I imagine that
people who fail to meet new eligibility requirements and lose Medicaid coverage
will not seek out healthcare because of overbearing costs. Not seeking out
healthcare equates to many more sick Americans, and this eventuality perpetuates
fewer people working due to poor health status. I firmly believe that this
overhaul truly emulates a “good in theory, bad in practice” situation. An
overburdened Medicaid system is not a great thing for America, but mandated work
requirements sorely miss the mark by accentuating a division between the
deserving and undeserving poor. 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now