alt Hacker NewsMaybe 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.
Replies
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.
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...