Republicans make Medicaid cuts even worse, lies more egregious

Do not call them "work requirements"

Welcome to a Monday morning edition of Progress Report.

Tonight we’re going to look at the GOP’s attacks on working people and the social safety net. But first, reporting on hate and corruption in America obligates us to track the ongoing meltdown over Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani’s stunning victory over Andrew Cuomo in the NYC mayoral primary last week.

Heads up: I was sick yesterday, so tonight we’ll be holding our live stream conversation with ace legal reporter Chris Geidner about the Supreme Court’s past few months of decisions and what they mean for the survival of freedom and democracy. Tune in tonight at 9:30 pm — you’ll receive an email with an invite soon!

Note: Your subscription support means that I can publish scoops on national security failures and host live streams with Senate candidates, journalists, and public leaders. It’s why I can highlight grassroots activists doing work that few are covering. And how I can speak truth to power.

You can help keep Progress Report afloat for just $5 a month — Substack has become so saturated with celebrities and politicians engaged in one-way conversations that it crowds out real journalists, so that subscription really, really helps both finance this work and keep us in its algorithm.

---

---

Some Democrats just can’t help themselves. Long Island Rep. Laura Gillen has been particularly shameless. After issuing a bile-filled statement denouncing Mamdani (as if a Long Islander has ever said anything good about the city), she made a half-hearted attempt to backtrack a little bit when Rep. Andy Ogles took her blueprint to its logical conclusion, calling for Mamdani’s denaturalization and deportation. But less than 24 hours later, she was back at it, going on TV to trash Mamdani for wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy (a popular policy) even as Republicans worked to push through massive tax cuts for them (an unpopular policy).

It’s clear that this is coming from the top levels of the party: Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, continued to refuse to endorse Mamdani — who won 68% of the vote in Jeffries’ district! — while making false claims about what he has said about Israel and Palestine. This, even as more Republicans and right-wing commentators pile on with blatant racism against Mamdani.

To his immense credit, Sen. Chris Van Hollen — no radical — distilled the shamefulness of the situation with a post this afternoon that was no doubt directed in part at some of his Democratic colleagues:

It’s really not that difficult. This story is being driven almost entirely by Democrats panicking over losing their influence over the party and/or what they imagine GOP attack ads will look like in next head’s midterm elections. But it’s their own meltdowns that are providing the content, public awareness, and impetus for those theoretical ads; instead of fueling the fire, Democrats should be taking notes on how Mamdani drove youth turnout to just about half the NYC electorate and aligning with him in ways that make them more attractive to the young voters who have otherwise abandoned the party.

More importantly, Democrats ought to be using these TV appearances not to savage one of their own, but to single-mindedly smash Republicans for pushing through an already deeply unpopular tax cut bill. The Big, Beautiful Bill continues to get more and more draconian, and this weekend added even more cuts to Medicaid to satisfy some of the most blood-hungry Republicans; it would now cut $930 billion from the program, up from $715 billion initially proposed by the House. And on that note, I’m running an updated version f our big story on so-called Medicaid “work requirements” in hopes that Democrats might finally get the message on how to talk about this horrible bill.

---

Republicans plan to purge Medicaid, not implement “work requirements”

After months of negotiations and in-fighting over how exactly they would slash Medicaid to pay for their enormous tax cuts, Republicans this week settled on what has become colloquially known as “work requirements.”

But the phrase “work requirements” is both deeply misleading — and unfortunately almost universally used by the political media. Whether out of ignorance, laziness, or false balance, the media’s use of the term ignores the actual structure of the proposal and the reams of data that indicate its fallacy. The ongoing acceptance of the conservative frame is a boon to Republicans, whose political fortunes are tied to the misinformed public backlash against critical services.

Most people on Medicaid who can work, do

Conservatives have long claimed that adding preconditions to public benefits for the poorest Americans would encourage them to become self-sufficient.

It’s a subtly — or often overtly — racist argument that is built on several fundamentally faulty pretenses, starting with the idea that recipients are lazy and don’t want to work.

“We don’t pay people in this country to be lazy,” Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin told Meet the Press on Sunday. “We want to give them an opportunity. And when they’re going through a hard time, we want to give them a helping hand. That’s what Medicaid was designed for.”

But what Republicans are proposing would cut off the hands of about 12 million people who need help: Medicaid benefits the poorest Americans, a significant number of whom are elderly and/or disabled, which means that they are simply unable to work. But among those who can work, Medicaid is hardly some free ride.

In 2023, there were 26 million Medicaid recipients ages 19-64 who did not also receive Social Security disability benefits. Of those 26 million beneficiaries, 16.6 million of them — or 64% — worked full- or part-time jobs.

Not working is usually not a choice

Of the remaining 32% of these Medicaid recipients who didn’t work, nearly all of them had extenuating circumstances:

Here’s how that 32% breaks down:

• 33% were engaged in full-time caregiving for parents, children, or other family members

• 11% suffered from chronic illness, mental illness, or disability, though were not officially classified as disabled by the government

• 11% said they were searching for work but were unable to find anything (often due to lower educational attainment or age)

• 8% did not work because they were attending school

• 7% were either unable to find a job or forced into early retirement

• 30% offered other reasons, including lack of transportation, unstable housing, prior convictions, and providing caring for non-relatives

Here’s another way to look at it: the younger, healthier, and more educated the Medicaid recipient, the more likely it is that they were working.

Here’s how those aforementioned 26 million Medicaid recipients broke down by demographic:

Think about it: desk jobs tend to go to people with higher levels of education, which turns chronic health issues into especially steep barriers to employment for people without college degrees.

The “unemployed” Medicaid recipient is hard to employ

Another study of government data from 2023, this one produced by the Milbank Memorial Fund, zeroed in further on those recipients who do not work. Its breakdown of age underscored just how determinative those factors are when it comes to whether or not a Medicaid recipient is an active member of the workforce.

• Nearly 40% of non-working Medicaid beneficiaries ages 18-64 are at least 50 years old

• Another 16% of non-working Medicaid beneficiaries ages 18-64 are under the age of 25, meaning that they’re most likely students

The Milbank study also looked at a more narrow definition of “able-bodied,” which excludes Medicaid recipients who have dependent children under the age of 18 as well as those who report chronic illness but do not get disability benefits.

Surely, that very specific definition would match the population that is overwhelmingly young, healthy, and keyed up to work, right?

Yeah, not so much.

Instead, the study found that the people who would ostensibly be most likely to lose their health insurance under the new GOP policy are desperately poor middle-aged women with little education who live in multi-generational households and are forced to work as unpaid caregivers.

And that’s the good faith, low-impact interpretation of the conservative plan!

Right now, 12 million people are likely to lose Medicaid, with far more poor — and many not-so-poor — people in danger of losing their access to healthcare in rural parts of the country.

Republicans also want to make people enrolled in Medicaid expansion pay for things like labs and tests, and give states discretion on how much they’d charge. That will no doubt lead to people on Medicaid still not getting the help they need.

If most people on Medicaid already work or qualify for an age or disability exemption, is it really possible to save three quarters of a trillion dollars by chasing a few million older, sicker, and otherwise highly burdened individuals off their health insurance?

No, of course not. But that’s not actually the plan. Because again, working isn’t the real hurdle here.

Instead, Republicans want to kick upwards of nine million poor Americans off of Medicaid by forcing them through a bureaucratic nightmare that has little to do with employment, work ethic, or income.

“Work requirements” don’t work

During Trump’s first term, when he employed more technocratic ways of immiserating people, his HHS began granting waivers to states that wanted to implement their own “work requirements.”

Only Arkansas was able to get its program off the ground and into legal effect before Covid struck — Joe Biden rescinded the waivers in 2021 — but what transpired in the state clearly indicated the actual intent of the conservative means test.

Arkansas required Medicaid recipients to work at jobs or be able to prove that they were actively looking for jobs for at least 20 hours per week. In just nine months, more than 18,000 people — or a quarter of all people subject to the prerequisite — were thrown off the Medicaid rolls, with little correlation to employment.

In fact, most were officially removed not because they weren’t working, but instead because they did not navigate the thicket of regular paperwork required to keep their benefits every month.

In many cases, they were not even aware of the specifics of the mandate, because again, the average beneficiary at risk of losing benefits is older and deeply poor, and often occupied by onerous caretaking responsibilities and/or their own infirmity. And accordingly, losing their health care did not suddenly inspire people to go out and get good-paying jobs: Arkansas saw no increase in employment connected to the disenrollment.

It’s also worth noting that Arkansas was not an aberration. The program there only ended because a court order paused its authorization, whereas the programs in Michigan and New Hampshire were preempted by court orders. Had judges not intervened in those two states, around 10,000 Medicaid beneficiaries would have lost their health care in New Hampshire and 80,000 poor people would have been shit out of luck in the Upper Midwest.

Then came the national purge.

The Great Abandonment continues

During the pandemic, when the federal government was actively trying to provide people with direct assistance and prevent total economic collapse, state Medicaid officials were forbidden from conducting “redeterminations,” or checking to see who was no longer eligible and removing them from the program. President Biden inexplicably agreed to end that pause on redeterminations in 2023, which opened the door to conservative states to unleash years of pent up fury on their poorest residents.

They called this the Medicaid Unwinding, but that suggests something far more orderly than what actually transpired. It was more like pure chaos and cruelty than anything else. As I documented extensively at the time, many states rushed to remove as many people as possible from the Medicaid rolls, cutting corners, breaking regulations, and ignoring feckless warnings from the Biden administration to maximize the pain.

Medicaid recipients are far less likely to have long-term stable housing, so they tend to more frequently change their addresses. That trend skyrocketed during the pandemic, when low-income Americans were hit disproportionately by mass layoffs and illegal evictions. Many more moved in with family to serve as caregivers. All told, millions of recipients changed their addresses, and because they were not required to at the time, did not inform their state health care agency.

Whereas they were supposed to give Medicaid recipients every opportunity to respond to official inquiries, and were even provided the tools to use internal tax data to determine eligibility without even needing to check in with them, GOP-led states purged people before they even knew that they had to respond.

All told, 25 million people were kicked off of Medicaid, including 5.1 million children. Of those 25 million, 69% of them lost their insurance due to procedural errors, not because they were no longer eligible. Those “errors” largely involved paperwork that did not get done — or even get to them.

The private market could not compensate for this mass exodus, for the same reasons why people were on Medicaid in the first place: they were too poor to afford to buy insurance and too sick or otherwise burdened to get a job that would provide it. All told, 12.5 million people who lost Medicaid could not get private insurance, swelling the ranks of the uninsured.

Republicans can talk about personal responsibility and rooting out fraud and waste, but in reality, this kind of cruel and capricious purge is what Republicans want to do to Medicaid and the US health care system. They’re itching to give states carte blanche to kick the poorest Americans off of a meager public benefit, irregardless of whether they work.

---

Wait, Before You Leave!

Progress Report has raised over $7 million dollars for progressive candidates and causes, breaks national stories about corrupt politicians, and delivers incisive analysis, and goes deep into the grassroots.

None of the money we’ve raised for candidates and causes goes to producing this newsletter or all of the related projects we put out. In fact, it costs me money to do this. So, I need your help.

For just $5 a month, you can buy a premium subscription that includes:

• Premium member-only newsletters with original reporting

• Financing new projects and paying new reporters

• Access to upcoming chats and live notes

You can also make a one-time donation to Progress Report’s GoFundMe campaign — doing so will earn you a shout-out in the next weekend edition of the newsletter!