The number of inaccuracies in this report is enough to break twitter if I were to tweet all of them. thefga.org/wp-content/upl…
Alright fine. Here we go folks. Put on your seat belts.
1. The entire report is centered on the premise that if someone is not making any money they have no good reason, don't want to get a job, and are dependent on Medicaid- instead of sick, parents, in school, or caregiving.
1. The entire report is centered on the premise that if someone is not making any money they have no good reason, don't want to get a job, and are dependent on Medicaid- instead of sick, parents, in school, or caregiving.
And we know that this is the reason a VAST majority of beneficiaries don't work. kff.org/medicaid/issue…
But let's dig into this page by page.
2. Page 1: Claims Medicaid expansion created a new welfare trap. For more than 20 years Medicaid has been delinked from Welfare. Medicaid is a health insurance program.
2. Page 1: Claims Medicaid expansion created a new welfare trap. For more than 20 years Medicaid has been delinked from Welfare. Medicaid is a health insurance program.
3. Page 1: They assume the only way to solve these non-existent problems is a work requirement while we know work referral programs are already successful and don't make people who meet the criteria lose insurance because of bureaucracy: cbpp.org/research/healt…
4. Page 2: Obamacare doesn't have a capital C.
5. 33 states plus DC have expanded Medicaid, not 31.
6. Able-bodied is a coded term and doesn't describe the Medicaid expansion population.
5. 33 states plus DC have expanded Medicaid, not 31.
6. Able-bodied is a coded term and doesn't describe the Medicaid expansion population.
7. Page 2: California enrolled about 3 times (not 4 times) as many people as one consultant estimated in 2013, not "more than they ever said they would possibly enroll"
8: Page 2: The claim that Medicaid expansion siphons away funds from other existing Medicaid programs has been debunked time and time again. kff.org/medicaid/issue…
9. "Unlike other welfare programs [Medicaid doesn't have a work requirement]" Medicaid isn't a welfare program. Medicaid is a health insurance program.
10. Page 2: This report randomly adds time limits to the the things it says Medicaid needs because why not. Medicaid time limits are unlawful and hurt primarily those who can't' work due to disability.
11. Pg 2: Report claims Medicaid was originally intended for the elderly and disabled. That was the Kerr Mills bill of 1960, not Medicaid. Or state grants of '50. Medicaid intended to serve low-income people subject to state laws- included children and pregnant women since '65.
12. Page 2: Report draws some some claim that unless required to work they won't at all, simply from getting an estimate of the number of people with $0 income.
Let's sit with this for a second. The claim went from people don't work to "they will never ever work." Medicaid doesn't pay for housing, for food, for things, for the American dream.
People generally want to work and with Medicaid we know that for most people it is temporary acting as a safety net for when they lose their jobs or need help because of the birth of a child or pursuit of eduction. These are things we want Americans to do.
13. Page 3: Now let's dig into the data - this is a survey of how many Medicaid expansion enrollees reported 0 income from a select number of Medicaid expansion states. They drop any state that did not reply to their survey but still make national estimates because sure.
The time periods states reported is all over the map from February 2015 till June 2018. That aside, it's extremely unclear that we could assume states reported the information in the same way and the numbers mean the same thing for each state.
For example, a state could assume of the applicants or of the people that ended up enrolling. The percentage could be based on the number of overall enrollees or the current enrollees. This seems small but is a huge difference.
Nevada and Ohio sent percentages while the remaining states sent whole numbers- clearly the states didn't understand the question.
14. Page 4: California who they call out earlier did not give data despite making up 1/4 of enrollees. That didn't stop them from extrapolating their sample to the nation.
15. Page 5: They point again to people with disabilities being on waitlists but neglect to mention that these people mostly live in states that did not expand Medicaid.
(15 was on page 4*)
16. Page 4: They continue their mistruth about the number of people on waitlists dying. See a previous threads dispelling that myth.
16. Page 4: They continue their mistruth about the number of people on waitlists dying. See a previous threads dispelling that myth.
(15 was on page 4 sorry again)
16. Page 4: They somehow link a CBO report on student loan and Fannie and Freddie into evidence that people don't try to get out of debt. That wasn't what the CBO report said and these are different programs.
16. Page 4: They somehow link a CBO report on student loan and Fannie and Freddie into evidence that people don't try to get out of debt. That wasn't what the CBO report said and these are different programs.
17. Page 4: A claim is made that the longer someone receives welfare the longer the more difficult to enter the workforce. The reference? An FGA report.
I'm not going to start a new thread on the problems of that report but just realize the context of who is out of work, yes long-term unemployement is a problem and makes it harder to reenter the workforce but the control here is not "people on welfare and people not."
There are many reasons why you can't compare certain groups against each other without controlling for certain factors like disability, education, poverty, etc.
18. Page 4: there are claims about how instituting work requirements in TANF doubled incomes and offset welfare benefits (Medicaid isn't welfare still) the citations? Yet again FGA employees.
I'm eager to get to page 5 so I'm not going to go into their methodology here because others have already debunked it: marketplace.org/2018/04/13/eco…
19. Page 5: Should note that the 1st paragraph is all true. The next graph says that Arkansas, NH, IN all approved "commonsense" work requirements -- what is commonsense about requiring people without internet to report work on the internet? arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/a…
20. Page 5: They forgot Virginia in their work requirement list.
21. They don't note that most of the states submitting work requirements haven't expanded.
21. They don't note that most of the states submitting work requirements haven't expanded.
22. Page 6: Falsely claim that Medicaid claims 1 in every 3 state budget dollar. It's closer to 1/6 on average, but sure, double the facts.
23. No citation for the above lie.
23. No citation for the above lie.
24. Page 6: Explicitly say that work requirements were a part of failed repeal debate then done through 1115 waiver. Obvious, but lawyers probably don't want you saying that right now because it doesn't help the case in court.
25. Page 6: Claim that this idea gained significant traction in Congress- unclear what the bar for significant traction is exactly.
26. Page 6: Last sentence is a run on sentence.
26. Page 6: Last sentence is a run on sentence.
27. Let's not forget the cover. It shows a dude in a beard on his phone with ripped jeans lying on a couch. Clearly they are trying to perform a 1980s era "welfare queen" imagery but with white hipsters.
I can go on for hours but apparently I have to debunk this White House report now. whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl… Call me if you ever need editing!
Apparently I wrote a rather long blog post. Read it all here: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1017434…
Blarg- thread died pick up the rest here:
