The Democrats in the NH House and the Democrats in the NH Senate have arrived a compromise. They’ve arrived at a way to make sure you pay abled bodied Medicaid recipients not to work. The reasoning, care of Democrat Cindy Rosenwald: they don’t understand the rules.
The rules require most recipients to spend at least 100 hours a month working, going to school or participating in community service.
The House and Senate approved a compromise bill Thursday that would suspend, but not eliminate, coverage for noncompliance.
Yes, the Democrat’s original plan was to try and repeal the work requirement altogether. Why should capable adults work in exchange for a hand up? Because Democrats would instead trap them in dependency with a handout. It’s an electoral strategy.
Encouraging people to work to free themselves from the bondage of the bureaucracy is cruel and bigoted, or something. Better to make them serfs to the State, so they are more likely to vote for Cindy Rosenwald.
Besides, super-smart Democrats are convinced that Medicaid recipients are too daft to grasp the deal.
Sen. Cindy Rosenwald, a Democrat from Nashua, says without the bill, up to 20,000 people could get letters in July saying they’re in danger of losing coverage when many of them may not even understand the rules.
New Hampshire has a worker shortage. We have more jobs than bodies. Starting wages, even for part-time jobs, are great. On the job training opportunities are probably at an all-time high. Almost anyone can get a foot in, acquire some skills, and use that to advance. Get their own benefits. Get off the dole.
Sen. Rosenwald. Are these 20,000 Granite State’s too stupid to do that? If they are, in fact, able-bodied (meaning they need to do something other than sit around and let you lower their self-esteem) would it not make more sense (especially for a Let’s tax all productivity Democrat like yourself) to encourage them to work?
More work, more tax revenue.
No? Are they better off being unemployed or under skilled? Do you have a taxpayer-funded job training program for them you’d like to sell us rather than let employers pay for that for us?
How will they know whether they’ve been suspended? Do they get a warning first? Is there a process? Hey, you need to work more of you’ll lose your benefits. How does adding a layer of not getting benefits make it easier to understand? And how have these 20,000 people managed to not lose their benefits up until now if they may not understand the rules?
Cindy doesn’t care. Her goal is to remove the work requirement because Democrats are not interested in self-responsible working Americans. They want government dependents. And she’s counting on them not understanding that.