Tx. repugs: if you don't keep kids in school you can't have Medicaid

[donsu]

or if you do drugs and alcohol you can't have Medicaid
or if you don't get your kids immunized you can't have Medicaid

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/sunday/metro_state_f388cf37f40a900700b7.html;COXnetJSessionID=1J2QGfFtPHfjdjy6ARjcPtS712MicppIKn0epGT9X99EcTtZE22u!-1799484501?urac=n&urvf=10660060325380.2851933871408828

State agency might redefine `work'
Workforce Commission proposal would tie Medicaid benefits to personal behavior

The Texas Workforce Commission is attempting to redefine the word "work" in a way that could cut off Medicaid benefits to thousands of Texans who don't follow a list of state behavioral rules.

-snip-

The proposed rule would affect more than 350,000 adults who receive both Medicaid and cash assistance through Temporary Aid for Needy Families.

The rule would expand the definition of "work" to include such things as maintaining children's immunizations, avoiding drug and alcohol abuse, and making sure children attend school.

Adults who fail to live up to any of the items on the list would lose Medicaid coverage. Their children would not be affected.

-snip-

"You're giving them an opportunity to improve their lives," Wohlgemuth said.
-snip-
------------------------

oh, throw up.

Texas repugs are MEAN minded, small minded pseudo humans.

[Xithras]

1. I'd agree with this IF....

If the Republicans want to tie drug and alcohol use to Medicaid eligibility, then we need to make sure that Medicaid covers rehab so that people with these addicitions can get help cleaning up.

Other than that...Making sure kids are immunized? Keeping kids in school? I thought these were progressive concepts that we should be supporting. This may not be an overwhelmingly popular way to do it, but if it's effective...?

[donsu]

4. perhaps a bit more study of the subject would change your view

yes kids need to go to school
yes abusers need help


but none of this should be tied to Medicaid eligibility.

eligibility is the key word here

[Mairead]

5. I'm not sure 'effective' should be the standard

I mean, it would be 'effective' to say 'if you don't, then we'll take you downtown and shoot you dead in front of the county courthouse' too.

[eileen_d]

7. I'm with you, except -

if these positive things (keeping kids in school, immunizations, etc.) are being promoted by law, why single out Medicaid recipients? Why not require the same behaviors of all parents? Otherwise, it looks a bit like a single group of poor people is being targeted.

[damnraddem]

20. Oh, Medicaid recipients are used to that.

As are the poor who can't get Medicaid.

[Evanstondem]

11. How are kids helped by cutting off parents' medical coverage?

The "cure" may be worse than the "disease" in this case.

The goals are worthy, but there are better ways to enforce them.

[jiacinto]

2. I don't see a problem with this

I don't see anything wrong with making sure children attend school and get their shots. I don't see this as being "mean".

[Mairead]

6. Of course *you* don't, Carlos. Were you afraid we would think you do?

We don't think it's 'mean' either. Unethical as hell, yes, 'mean', no. 'Mean' doesn't cover it.

[jiacinto]

37. What is wrong with requiring children to be in school?

I don't see a problem with that.

[Mairead]

38. It's the connection, Carlos

It's the binding of 'keep kids in school' with 'get healthcare'. That's as unethical as hell because it only applies to poor people. What happens to a non-recipient of Medicaid who doesn't keep their kids in school?

[rucky]

27. Controversy about Immunizations

There's alot of it. There are documented health risks - including links to autism. There are many legitimate questions from the medical community about their effectiveness. There are also well-accepted homeopathic alternatives. Plus, big pharma benefits from the current mandate.

My wife is against immunizing our children, and I am on the fence about it - mostly because of the bureaucracy we'd be up against. For me it's an issue of choice, and it's already hard enough for parents who choose not to immunize to get an exemption. There is no correlation between immunization and drain on healthcare resources, so why the strings?

[Ilsa]

30. I'm with you Rucky.

Immunization should not be forced upon parents who have conscientious objections to them, whether they are medical or religious or other. The state should not be in the business of making these decisions.

[NicoleM]

33. Define "documented."

AFAIK, no link between autism and vaccination has been scientifically proven. If I'm wrong, please show me some evidence.

Also, please keep in mind that if you choose not to vaccinate your children, you are not only putting your children at risk, you're putting other children at risk, too. Your child could contract a disease and pass it to a child who isn't old enough to have been vaccinated yet.

As far as tying vaccination to Medicaid coverage, I haven't made up my mind about that yet. On the one hand, the decision should belong to the parents. OTOH, if Medicaid will have to pay for the treatment if a child contracts a disease that s/he could have been immunized against, maybe immunization should be required.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

3. What happens if a person is too sick to make sure their kid does not

play hooky? Do they say, that's just too bad?

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. For a party that doesn't like to be dictated to by government, they sure

do know how to use the government to dictate to others.

[eileen_d]

9. Exactly.

Here's a quote from the article, from a Republican who is defending this:

"Every element of that is designed to help the child," said Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth, R-Burleson, who sponsored a new state law that sparked the proposed rule. "Are we saying that we don't care if poor children are not immunized?"

If you want all children to be immunized, legislate it for all Texans. Don't use what amounts to extortion tactics.

[AndyTiedye]

10. What if the Kid is Too Disabled for School?

[alwynsw]

16. Assumptions are dangerous...

but I assume that there are exemptions granted for those with medical or psychological conditions that necessitate them being either institutionalized or homebound. The ADA covers that topic quite well, and no state can pass a law that circumvents Federal law.

[damnraddem]

21. Actually, IDEA covers that.

It puts the onus on the state to make sure that the disabled child has educational opportunities, whether or not that child can go to a mainstream school.

[newyawker99]

36. Hi alwynsw!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Ilsa]

31. I have a disabled child. He's in school.

Schools are required to provide a free and appropriate public education to disabled students, including appropriate transportation. If they are bedridden, that is another situation.

[alwynsw]

12. Not all bad

Immunizations are required for all pre-, primary, and secondary school students. This seems mean-spirited, but then, don't most laws that tend to force us to do things we'd rather not do? In Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky, the County Attorney is having ALL parents of truant kids cited or arrested, regardless of status.

I guess I'm more a blue dog than I like to admit, but I get up in arms (pun intended) when new firearms legislation is discussed or passed. (If you don't see the similarities, email me.)

It boils down to a simple idea: enforce the laws on the books before passing additional legislation to enforce those laws. I'll wager that a few days in the pokey because your kid(s) are not in school either because of truancy or suspension because of lack of proper immunizations would fix most of this without the proposed Medicaid block. Those laws are already on the books. How about charging those who refuse to immunize their kids, barring religious prohibition or medical contraindication, with neglect or abuse?

It's a fine line for any governing body to walk when passing ANY law or ordinance. Being humans both in and out of office, legislators will ALWAYS annoy some on BOTH sides of the aisle with ANY legislation.

Should grants and entitlements be tied to obeying the laws that are currently on the books? I have no problem with that.

Now argue with this incoherent rambling if you like.

[donsu]

13. how can one reply to "incoherent rambling"?

why even try?

[alwynsw]

15. C'mon try!

Let's discuss this. ...or is this just a hit-and-run? :boring:

[donsu]

18. you want to discuss your incoherent ramblings?

Ok

why do you call your thoughts "incoherent ramblings"?

[damnraddem]

24. Why do you object -- do you only want to discuss

coherent ramblings?

[damnraddem]

23. But if your state allows a philosophical or religious objection ...

to immunization, then your kids can be admitted to public school without immunization. Further, one may send one's kids to private schools (subject to their rules) or homeschool them. So, not all kids would be covered by rules requiring vaccination in most states. Whatever Texas' rules on such things, Medicaid eligibles would still be held to a different standard -- no philosophical, religious, or homeschooling exemptions for them. And there are no rules for pre-school kids other than those imposed by pre-school programs. So, it's still a double standard.

And most people, most kids, are not on Medicaid -- so the law would not comprehensively address issues such as vaccination, anyway.

[Ilsa]

32. In texas we have exemptions and

you can choose some vax while declining others (and for good reason). Most people don't know that exemptions are available if they are willing to do the paperwork.

There shouldn't be a double standard penalizing the poor.

[alwynsw]

14. OOPS!

I forgot the drug and alcohol part.

The article you refer to states "drug and alcohol abuse". (I must state the obvious. The writer needs a remedial writing course. As written, his words imply that one must abuse BOTH in order to to become inelegible.)

Once again, forget the Medicaid tie-in. Enforce current laws concerning the actions.

BUT! I still have no problem with requiring recipients of state or Federal aid, grants, loans, or any other sort of governmental assistance to obey the laws of that state, commonwealth, or nation.

[damnraddem]

25. But those who abuse drugs and alcohol need rehab.

And for the poor, the only source of coverage of rehab is likely to be ... Medicaid.

[Tatiana]

17. What if kids are home-schooled?

One of the I/T professionals at my job was homeschooled and grew up in a poor environment. Damn if he isn't the smartest kid I have ever worked with. For some reason he popped in my head. Would his mom not be eligible for Medicaid if she didn't send his younger brother to public school?

[damnraddem]

26. Right. Texas wants homeschooling for only ...

the rich and middle class.

[damnraddem]

19. So if someone doesn't have their kids vaccinated ...

the state will deny the parents medical coverage when the kids get sick and give the illness to the parents. Sound OK? Think about this -- the vaccinations are for infectious diseases. Vaccination is primary prevention. Secondary prevention? That's catching the disease after it strikes and taking action to prevent its spread, while trying to cure it -- and that could be thwarted by this rule.

Then, there's drug abuse. When someone is on drugs, what do they need? That's right, rehab. And Medicaid funds some rehab for poor people. So, this rule would tell those who need rehab that the condition necessitating that rehab makes them ineligible for a government program that covers the rehab. Something seems wrong there.

Wait: drug and alcohol abuse! Hey, the law will do no good. He was always too rich to get Medicaid, anyway; and besides, now he has federal coverage. And he doesn't even live in Texas anymore, just has a ranch there. ;-)

[tlcandie]

22. What about the CHOICE of how you want to raise your child?

Sorry, but if smallpox vaccine was mandated .. not sure I would MAKE my child subject of this UNKNOWN!

If you could TRUST your government and such that they truly have your best interest at heart ...that would be one thing, but nahhh thanks! Just because you are poor doesn't mean they should run rough shod over you!

What about IF you CHOOSE to do these things then you will get this, this, and this INSTEAD of you MUST or ELSE!!!

I like it when I'm led nicely by asking and showing me the rewards rather than FORCED to do any damned thing!

[damnraddem]

28. That's not for the poor, just for others.

Don't you realize that this is Dubya's America?

However, with regard to vaccination: many states allow exemptions to the vaccinate-to-go-to-public-school rules: philosophical or religious objections. But this is a LUXURY. It can be allowed because of herd immunity -- if almost all kids are vaccinated, those who are not are protected because the diseases cannot spread. In effect, a philosophical or religious minority can be allowed to be free riders on the vaccinations of the great majority. But if vaccination levels fall too low, if too many are free riders, the luxury disappears: mandatory vaccination will be necessary. The health of the community overrides individual objections to vaccination, or to being forced to vaccinate.

Were smallpox to be released back into the human population, not all should be vaccinated -- the vaccine is too dangerous to some. But those who did not fit the profile of those to not vaccinate should then be vaccinated, whether they wanted to or not. This, by the way, was fought out at the end of the Nineteenth and in the early Twentieth Centuries. Likewise, those who showed signs of the disease should be quarantined until they were no longer a danger to the community. Those who shrug such obligations should be labeled and treated as what they are: criminal pariahs willing to endanger the entire community. And public health officers already have the legal powers to quarantine and vaccinate in such cases -- but don't worry, if you get smallpox, the quarantine won't be endless: 20 days will be enough to make sure that you are either no longer a danger to the public ... or dead.

[Ilsa]

34. Sorry, but they are requiring too many vaxes

for stuff they are extremely unlikely to get unless they travel internationally. My children have never been at risk for Hep B (sexually transmitted and bloodborne), yet some states mandate the three vaxes. Our children are being used for profiteering by Pharm co, and guinea pigs.

[patdem]

29. Is not this the SAME school system that ENCOURAGES underachievers

to DROP out of school so the 'Texam Miracle' can continue? So on the one hand a child is booted out of school because of bad test scores, then the parent is punished because the child is booted out of school? Is there a disconnect here? :grr:

[Noordam]

35. This is LIST A

I have seen this before, if you get your easy list going, then come out is LIST B AND LIST C

Let's see:

Get a speeding ticket - No Medicaid

40 hours per month community service or No Medicaid

Mmmmmmm

you get the idea