this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
67 points (94.7% liked)

News

29625 readers
2725 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
admiralpatrick@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
67
Work requirements could transform Medicaid and food aid under US budget bill (apnews.com)
submitted 1 week ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The U.S. social safety net would be jolted if the budget bill backed by President Donald Trump and passed Thursday by the House of Representatives becomes law.

It would require many low-income adults to work to receive Medicaid health insurance coverage and more to work to get food assistance, require hospitals to verify the citizenship status of patients, and cut funding for services like birth control to the nation’s biggest abortion provider.

Supporters of the bill say the moves will save money, root out waste and encourage personal responsibility.

A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposals would reduce the number of people with health care by 8.6 million over the decade.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The food assistance one is especially dumb because it is already set up so that if you work they reduce the amount of food assistance you get, based on your income. So forcing work requirements in tandem with the existing rules will do nothing but reduce access.

Of course, that's the point. They only "save" money if they are reducing the amount spent, and work requirements will absolutely reduce the amount going out.

Although I would argue the bureaucratic overhead required to check on employment status will offset most of the savings.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

It probably makes too much sense to say anyone that applies gets it and if your next tax return shows you didn't actually need it then you have to pay it back.

[–] FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So if we are too sick to leave the house to find work, we'll be SOL?

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago

Yes, that is the goal.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Work requirements defeat the purpose of having any sort of welfare which I guess is the point (to be cruel). It won't be the first time they've pursued this, though.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

When I was in university one of my profs told a story about a similar situation. The gov't wanted to trim the budget so figured they should use workfare (people on social assistance/welfare must work at whatever job the gov't gives them).

Unfortunaltely whoever was in charge decided that two older men, both lifelong alcoholics, should drive a tractor around a produce field to pick up the harvest. One of old guys ended up running over his buddy (both were drunk at the time).

It had been recommended that the program differentiate between those capable of working without constant supervision and those who couldn't ... but the higher ups ignored it.

[–] Eeyore_Syndrome@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

At least I can always self immolate at my family cemetery plot. Less distance for them to move my corpse and such.

[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah, fuck this.

I don't recognize this president and admin. It is illegal. Eos

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'd laugh at the idea of politicians that want to "encourage responsibility" if it wasn't for their actions being so evil.