
Congress wants Medicaid recipients to work
Michelle Baruchman,
Tribune News Service
Georgia could soon become the poster child for administering Medicaid with work requirements — for better or worse. As Congressional Republicans seek to pass a budget bill enacting President Donald Trump's agenda, they're looking to require able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work in order to receive their health care coverage. Georgia is presently the only state in the nation with work requirements for its Medicaid population. Here, Medicaid provides government-funded health care for some low-income people, with about 30 categories of eligibility including certain pregnant women, older widows and primary caregivers. Instead of embracing traditional Medicaid expansion, Gov. Brian Kemp sought to grow the number of insured Georgians through a conservative framework; his program provides Medicaid to people earning up to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level — about $15,000 for a single person — if they work at least 80 hours per month or meet academic or other requirements.
But rather than leading to more Medicaid recipients working, Georgia's experience has led to people who could be eligible for the program unable to receive Medicaid, mostly because of bureaucratic red tape. While experts say Kemp's program, called Georgia Pathways to Coverage, has different aims, it could still provide lessons in both politics and policy.
Pathways is designed to use health care as an incentive to get able-bodied individuals into the workforce on a limited basis. Eventually, the thinking goes, those part-time workers would transfer into full-time employees and become eligible for company-sponsored private health care plans, moving them off the government's rolls. According to Kemp's Office, at least 1,025 Pathways members have been referred to 'better, private health care coverage' through Georgia Access, the state's health care exchange, because their income increased. 'With this success it's no surprise that others are starting to emulate our innovative approach to health care coverage,' said Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for Kemp. Chris Denson, the director of policy and research at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, said Pathways is a way to increase health care coverage that is in line with the governor's vision without expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
States that expand Medicaid for people earning up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level, about $21,000 for an individual, have received additional federal funding to pay for it. About 40 states have expanded; Georgia has not. In Congress, lawmakers are looking for cuts that reduce the federal deficit, which is currently more than $1 trillion. Implementing work requirements nationwide among the existing able-bodied Medicaid population has been a Republican goal among those who believe there is waste and abuse in Medicaid. 'Medicaid has grown beyond its original intention to cover the aged, the blind, the disabled population, children, single mothers, and has grown to cover able-bodied individuals. That has long been an issue within conservative health circles,' Denson said. As part of discussions last year around easing regulations to establish new hospitals in Georgia, state Sen. Matt Brass, a Republican from Newnan, had voted for a form of Medicaid expansion. His thinking has shifted since then, and he supports work requirements and the Pathways programme.
If you're going to use public money to pay for something, outside of those who are deaf, blind and disabled, you need to have some skin in the game,' he said. 'As long as you're working and a contributing member of society, then absolutely, I'm good with providing health care to help you do that.'
Democrats understand that requiring Medicaid recipients to work for their benefits sounds like a good idea. A poll from the health research group KFF found that 62% of adults support work requirements. 'That actually makes sense to a lot of people. That sounds reasonable,' said state Rep. Michelle Au, a Democrat from Johns Creek. The problem, she said, is not with the work, it's with the administrative burden of reporting. 'There are people who actually are working and meet those hour eligibilities that still are not eligible for access through Pathways because of how onerous and difficult the reporting requirement is,' she said. 'It's building in a barrier to patients getting care.'
KFF found that support for work requirements drops to 32% 'when those who initially support the proposal hear that most people on Medicaid are already working and many would risk losing coverage because of the burden of proving eligibility through paperwork.' Kemp's team initially expected fewer than 100,000 people to be enrolled in the program. As of earlier this year, there were about 6,500. Heather Payne is one of the patients struggling to get care. After she began having strokes a few years ago, she was no longer able to work her nursing job and has been waiting to get her disability application to be approved. She can't get Medicaid while her disability application is active, and she can't get Medicare without a disability status. Payne, 53, who lives in Dalton, recently decided to go back to school. Attending a public or private university of technical college is considered a qualifying activity for Pathways.
But in addition to working clinical rotations, she's only taking nine credit hours right now, short of the 11.5 credit hours needed to be eligible for Pathways. 'I would have to take a full-time program at my school and work my clinical rotations to get the clinical experience I needed, to qualify to get Pathways,' she said. Other Georgians have said the portal to report work is a 'nightmare,' administrative support is lacking, and applicants are not given clear reasons why they are denied benefits.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
From Italy to Japan, most people have negative views of Israel, poll finds
The majority of people across the world have a negative view of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to a Pew poll released on Tuesday. Views on Israel were mostly negative in 20 out of 24 countries surveyed by Pew between January and April 2025. Most people in Arab and Muslim countries have had a negative view of Israel for decades, but the Pew poll showed widespread negative attitudes across Europe and East Asia. It also showed that positive views of Israel are decreasing in Western Europe and among young people. In Italy, 66 percent of people had a negative view of Israel, measured by 'somewhat or very unfavorable' opinions. In Greece, Sweden and Spain, the negative sentiment towards Israel was all above 70 percent. In the Netherlands, the number reached 78 percent. Even in Poland, whose government is traditionally supportive of Israel, public sentiment was 62 percent negative. Likewise, in Hungary, 53 percent of respondents had a negative opinion of Israel. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The Pew poll also showed widespread negative sentiment towards Israel in Indonesia, the largest Muslim-majority country in the world, where 80 percent of respondents viewed Israel either somewhat or very unfavourably. Elsewhere in Asia, the views were negative, including 80 percent of respondents in Japan and 60 percent in South Korea. Increasing dislike across the globe US sentiment towards Israel was also included, referencing a poll Pew published in April. According to that survey, a majority of Americans, 53 percent, have a negative view of Israel. That number was up from 42 percent in March 2022, before the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on southern Israel and Israel's subsequent war on the Gaza Strip. In the US, Democrats are still more likely than Republicans to express a negative opinion of Israel by 69 percent to 37 percent, respectively. But the Pew poll said that the number of Republicans who hold negative opinions on Israel has increased 10 percentage points since 2022. Majority of Americans hold unfavourable view of Israel, Pew poll finds Read More » Young Republicans, those under the age of 50, especially, are now more likely to have an unfavourable view of Israel, with 50 percent polling in that direction. That gap comes as more popular conservative voices, like Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson, have become more open to challenging US military support for Israel and the treatment of Christians inside the occupied Palestine. Pew said that the last time it asked respondents in the UK about their view on Israel, in 2013, 44 percent had an unfavourable view. Today, that number is 61 percent, and that trend has held across the globe. 'In 10 other countries, we last asked this question in 2013. In seven of these countries, the share of adults with a negative view of Israel has increased significantly,' the report said. Views of Israel also differ by age group. 'In some countries, younger people are more likely than older people to have an unfavourable view of Israel. This is particularly the case in the high-income countries surveyed: Australia, Canada, France, Poland and South Korea and the US,' the report said. The US has one of the most significant age gaps. Confidence in Netanyahu was also low across the 24 countries surveyed. In Australia, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey, around three-quarters of adults or more have little or no confidence in Netanyahu.


Gulf Today
5 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Putin is doing to Trump what Trump does to everyone else
John M. Crisp, Tribune News Service Russian President Vladimir Putin did something odd on May 24: He launched 367 drones and missiles against a number of Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv. At least 12 people were killed, including children, and dozens were injured. I'm calling this odd—hold that thought for a moment—but there's nothing unusual about it. The only person who appears to be surprised by another Russian attack on Ukrainian civilians was President Donald Trump, who said, 'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Trump added that Putin is 'needlessly killing a lot of and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.' Trump gets the 'needlessly killing a lot of people' part right. He seems to be discovering what everyone already knows: Putin is a killer. He's not just an indifferent perpetrator of collateral damage in an unjust war, he's a murderer who doesn't hesitate to use violence to eliminate political enemies. This is the man that Trump calls 'a strong leader.' But Trump also seems to recognize the odd part of Putin's attacks on Ukrainian civilians, calling them 'Not necessary, and very bad timing.' Putin is winning the war in Ukraine. His most decisive victory occurred on Nov. 5, 2024, when Trump was elected president. The coalition organized by former President Joe Biden to resist Putin's unprovoked attack on Ukraine was seriously undermined by the election. Trump has not only threatened to cut off American aid to Ukraine and alienated Europeans who support Ukraine, but he has suggested a false, sickening equivalence of blame for this war. Putin is still a long way from his goal, which is complete control of Ukraine and, at least, some of the Baltic states. But the 'peace' plan that would be acceptable to Trump and Putin—Ukraine is a different matter—would provide the pause in the war that would allow Putin to consolidate his gains, reconstitute and rearm his military and plan his much-desired reestablishment of some version of the sphere of influence that the Soviet Union enjoyed. So why, with this tactical victory within reach, would Putin commit war crimes against Ukrainian civilians, risking a reawakening of American resistance to his war on Ukraine or, more likely, strengthening European resolve, in lieu of help from the United States, to preserve the liberal world order established after World War II? Here's my theory: Interactions among nations are often driven by rational motivations that emerge from competing economic interests. Nations tend to fight over resources. Sometimes conflicts develop over rival ideologies, but even they often have economic foundations. But sometimes wars are initiated and prolonged by the personalities and temperaments of national leaders, which helps explain why we fought so long in Vietnam or invaded Iraq, at all. Putin is a cruel criminal. But he's also a bully, a warped alpha male. He knows he's got the upper hand in Ukraine, but it's not enough just to win, he has to humiliate and dominate. To rub his opponents' noses in their defeats. Killing a few civilians without any useful military purpose is a small price for Putin to pay in order to demonstrate his dominance. And nothing gratifies an alpha male more than humiliating another alpha male. Compared to Putin, Trump is an amateur. Still, Trump is in a position to have an appreciation for some of Putin's motivations: Just winning is never enough for Trump, either. Civilization faces two daunting crises, compared with which all others—immigration, the global economy, the commercialization of the presidency—are insignificant. Climate change is a genuine threat to civilization or, at least, to the sort of life that we've grown to enjoy. The other great crisis is the ideological battle between the values that the US cultivated and nurtured after World War II—democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law, tolerance, legitimate elections—and the opposite values largely embraced by our adversaries. That conflict is being played out in Ukraine. Unfortunately, the outcomes of both crises are in considerable doubt.


Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
GOP states embrace paid parental leave for teachers
Anna Claire Vollers, Tribune News Service More Republican-led states are giving paid parental leave to public school teachers and other state employees, signaling a broader acceptance of family-friendly workplace policies once championed primarily by Democrats. 'All of these red states, I think we're late to the party,' said South Carolina state Rep. Beth Bernstein, a Democrat who sponsored a bill this year to increase state employees' paid parental leave from six to 12 weeks. It passed the majority-Republican South Carolina House in April with strong bipartisan support. This year, Alabama, Iowa and Mississippi joined 37 other states in granting paid parental leave to thousands of state workers. The trend has gathered steam in recent years. Some experts link it to the cascade of state abortion bans that followed the US Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision, which dismantled the federal right to abortion. Under fire from critics to do more to care for babies once they're born, at least a dozen conservative-led states with abortion bans have since granted or expanded paid parental leave for their state employees. But others say the increasing bipartisan support for measures that help working parents is also a reaction to economic realities. 'What we've seen, especially in more conservative states, is the public sector has experienced a lot of turnover,' said Kameron Dawson, legal director of the Southern Office of A Better Balance, a legal organization focused on workplace rights. 'They're looking for tools to recruit younger employees.' Paid parental leave is the time off granted to workers for the birth or adoption of a baby, to care for a child, or to recover from a stillbirth or miscarriage. Without it, employees are left to cobble together their sick leave and vacation leave — or go unpaid — to stay home with a child and heal. Alabama Republican state Rep. Ginny Shaver watched her daughter, a public school teacher, struggle to get the leave she needed after the births of her children in recent years. 'With her second, she had complications in her pregnancy and used up her [paid vacation and sick] leave before she even had the baby,' Shaver told Stateline. Her daughter contracted COVID-19, and the baby had to spend time in neonatal intensive care. 'It was a very difficult time, and she had to take unpaid leave.' Last year, Shaver and Democratic state Sen. Vivian Figures worked to win approval of a paid parental leave bill for state employees. It failed. But they tried again this year. With the support of Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, the state legislature — which has a Republican supermajority — passed it nearly unanimously. The new law gives female state employees, including teachers, eight weeks of paid parental leave in connection with birth, stillbirth or miscarriage, and gives male employees two weeks. Adoptive parents get eight weeks for one parent and two for the other. Shaver said she thinks the law passed thanks to vocal support from the governor and increased awareness of the issue due to the work she and Figures did in previous sessions. 'And the fact that all of the southeast states around us offered it,' Shaver said. 'We're trying to attract and retain state employees and teachers, and we're in competition with everyone around us, and the private sector as well.' For many Republicans, the workforce development argument for paid leave is a persuasive one. For states such as Alabama and South Carolina that have some of the lowest workforce participation rates in the nation, paid leave can be a tool to keep more people — particularly women — working. And it can be a way to retain educators as many states struggle with teacher shortages in K-12 schools. 'For several years we've seen state legislatures acknowledging the importance of child care to businesses and the economy,' said Feroza Freeland, policy director at the Southern Office of A Better Balance. 'But in the last few years, we've seen a growing recognition that paid leave is another piece of that puzzle.' States have taken up the issue because the federal government has not. The United States is a global outlier; among 38 peer nations, it's the only one that doesn't mandate paid parental leave, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. The group comprises 38 democracies with market-based economies. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act, passed in 1993 and extended in 2020, only requires public agencies and companies with at least 50 employees to give up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for parents of newborns or newly adopted children, or caregivers of sick family members. During his first term, President Donald Trump publicly supported some forms of paid family leave and signed a defense bill that gives 12 weeks of paid parental leave to most federal employees. Paid family leave was a signature issue for his daughter Ivanka Trump, at the time a senior adviser to the president. She even held a paid leave and child care summit at the White House in late 2019. That set the stage for other Republicans to take up the issue more publicly. And after the Dobbs decision, family-friendly policies have increasingly become conservative talking points in states with restrictive abortion laws. After the Mississippi House unanimously passed a paid parental leave bill earlier this year, Republican House Speaker Jason White celebrated the bill as a reflection of Mississippi's status as a ' pro-life state.' In a recent post on X announcing her signing of a new paid parental leave law, Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds called Iowa 'a pro-family state.' North Carolina was one of the first Southern states to grant paid parental leave to state workers in 2019 when then-Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, signed an executive order. In 2023, several months after the Dobbs decision, the state's majority-Republican legislature extended paid parental leave to public school employees by tacking it onto a law banning most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy. Meanwhile, Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun signed an executive order in March to add up to eight additional weeks of paid leave for 'childbirth recovery' to the state's existing four weeks of paid parental leave. The new laws won't apply to most residents, because they only cover state employees. But they could have a downstream effect. Shaver, the Alabama lawmaker, said she hopes her state's new law will not only help the state be competitive with the private sector, but also set a precedent for other employers to follow. 'I hope they will see it's in their benefit to offer what they can,' she said. 'It may not be eight or 12 weeks, but even offering a reduced or flexible work schedule can help families.' Just over a quarter of private-sector workers have access to paid family leave through their employer as of March 2023, according the most recent data from the US Department of Labor. Among the lowest-wage earners, that share drops to 6%. State paid leave programs run the gamut in terms of what they offer. While Alabama's new law offers up to eight weeks of leave for all state employees, including teachers, Mississippi's offers six and does not require public schools to offer paid parental leave to their employees.