Current Events > Michigan Medicaid bill exempts white counties from work requirement

(+) Yeah! (+)

Under the bill, Medicaid recipients in 17 mostly white counties, all represented by Republican senators, would be exempt from the work requirements, according to an analysis by the Center for Michigan, a liberal think tank. But Medicaid recipients in the six municipalities with the highest unemployment rates, including Detroit and Flint, would have to work at least 29 hours a week to keep their health benefits. All six cities have black majorities or significant numbers of black residents.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michigan-medicaid_us_5af49fa3e4b032b10bf8c60c
---

Both sides are the same though
---

---

This is scummy, but is the policy justification not that these are white counties, but rural counties where there aren't as many job opportunities?
---

Michigan is actually pretty segregated and racist as hell.
---

lilORANG posted...

This is scummy, but is the policy justification not that these are white counties, but rural counties where there aren't as many job opportunities?

Goes by county income and the poor black towns are flanked by suburbs.
---

lilORANG posted...

This is scummy, but is the policy justification not that these are white counties, but rural counties where there aren't as many job opportunities?

But in cities like Detroit, it is a large city with few opportunities, and the surrounding towns and cities have comparably better employment opportunities. However, people living in Detroit who are chronically unemployed won't suddenly be able to travel dozens of miles away for work. The lack of good infrastructure, bus lines and their own personal lack of a vehicle will see to that.

In other words, rather than doing it on a city by city basis, it's by county and therefore white people win and white people in counties that have poor black cities keep winning, but black people lose.
---

lilORANG posted...

This is scummy, but is the policy justification not that these are white counties, but rural counties where there aren't as many job opportunities?

Of course they don't say what it's really about.
---

Ignore, HuffPo, it's race baiting shit.

Here is the non-clickbait version of this story and the actual exemption language. This is still scummy and disproportionately hurts people in cities with high unemplopyment, but there is no need to exaggerate with race hysteria language like the TC's article is doing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/michigan-medicaid-work-requirement.html

For those who are too poor to afford health insurance, Medicaid is a lifeline. This joint federal and state program doesnt care whether youre white or black, Christian or Muslim, Republican or Democrat, a city dweller or a rural resident. In states that expanded their Medicaid programs under Obamacare, all you have to be is poor enough to qualify.

But maybe not in Michigan. Last month, the State Senate passed a bill that would require Medicaid beneficiaries to find work or else lose their coverage. The bill, now under consideration in the Michigan House, has come under fire for harming the poor and disabled, as well as for burdening struggling families with needless paperwork. More than 100,000 people may lose health instance if it passes.

Theres another flaw in the bill, however, one that exposes it to serious legal challenge: Its racially discriminatory.

Many of the legislators supporting Michigans work requirements come from rural districts with high unemployment. Many of those districts are predominantly white. To protect their constituents, these legislators have included a safety valve in the bill: If you live in a county with a high unemployment rate (over 8.5 percent), youre exempt from the work requirements. The rationale? When there are no jobs to be had, it doesnt make sense to punish you for not working.

---

Doom_Art posted...

Both sides are the same though

---

The Admiral posted...

but there is no need to exaggerate with race hysteria language like the TC's article is doing.

Do you think the racial disparities of the counties affected are purely coincidental?
---

imo its actually kind of a weird framing for this, typically liberals like exemptions for work requirements and especially for high unemployment areas
---

Balrog0 posted...

imo its actually kind of a weird framing for this, typically liberals like exemptions for work requirements and especially for high unemployment areas

The work requirements themselves are new, though. And they are measuring unemployment at the county level, which as the article notes, works to the disadvantage of the urban areas with the actual highest unemployment.

In effect, these rules just create a new work requirement for urban areas.
---

Antifar posted...

The Admiral posted...

but there is no need to exaggerate with race hysteria language like the TC's article is doing.

Do you think the racial disparities of the counties affected are purely coincidental?

he was clear that he does not think it's a coincidence

he's right to advise use of NYT over huffpo.

Balrog0 posted...

imo its actually kind of a weird framing for this, typically liberals like exemptions for work requirements and especially for high unemployment areas

i feel as though it's a dual outrage to liberals:

1) work requirements for anyone
2) limiting the exemptions to a specific subset of the population, and not on realistic basis of 'high unemployment areas' so much as republican constituencies
---

The Admiral posted...

Its racially discriminatory.

lol
---

It's odd that the city has such high unemployment. All down grand river you see places hiring, especially now that summer is revving up and downtown new big businesses are added daily.
---

Basically Republicans want welfare for themselves and not anyone else, we hear this story time and time again. I thought Trump was raising unemployment for you guys not the number of welfare recipients.
---

Systematic racism
---

Antifar posted...

The work requirements themselves are new, though.

I'm very aware.

Antifar posted...

And they are measuring unemployment at the county level, which as the article notes, works to the disadvantage of the urban areas with the actual highest unemployment.

that's how most statistics are tallied, it has more to do with how benefits are distributed through intergovernmental relations than anything else. the regulations require that they justify their waiver based on data collected and distributed by the BLS, which doesn't really do much on the municipal level. They would need to tie it to the metro area in order to exempt Detroit, but that would become complicated because then there would most likely be conflicting status of different counties within the metro area

I'm not saying it's good or anything, I don't think work requirements themselves are good, and they could indeed do that to exempt Detroit. I just feel this framing is odd. Cities don't typically have higher unemployment in general than rural areas, either. There are counties in Michigan with unemployment rates approaching 20%, that is much higher than Detroit
---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm not saying it's good or anything, I don't think work requirements themselves are good, and they could indeed do that to exempt Detroit. I just feel this framing is odd. Cities don't typically have higher unemployment in general than rural areas, either. There are counties in Michigan with unemployment rates approaching 20%, that is much higher than Detroit

one would think the question wouldn't be where is it highest

but where is it high enough that this requirement serves no purpose except to fuck the poor
---

Darkman124 posted...

but where is it high enough that this requirement serves no purpose except to fuck the poor

that is the entire point of work requirements, though, regardless of what circuit breakers and exemptions you give

I guess that is the ultimate reason for my ambivalence here
---