More in my testimony here:
bsky.app/profile/donm...

More below, from my testimony the other day.

donmoynihan.substack.com/p/how-medica...

The bills suspend work requirements based on high unemployment only when the rate gets extraordinarily high: if the national unemployment rate is 7.5%, and the county rate is 11%, the requirements apply.

Under the bill, the process of getting removed from Medicaid takes about three months. But when unemployment gets above 7 percent, most people need more than three months to find their next job. So if they're just looking for work, they'll lose their Medicaid.

"Work program" is a term of art. Big ones have shrunken for decades, more since January. The bill provides no funding for them. There's no reason to think most people will be able to get into them even if they try. It's not clear why should they need to, if they just want to look for work.

To meet the new law's "community engagement" requirement, a person has to work, do community service, go to school half-time, be in an approved "work program," or do a mix of the above, for 80 hours a month.

If an unemployed worker just wants to look for work, that's not good enough.

I don't think welfare reform in 1996 is a cause of Medicaid cuts today. They want to cut Medicaid and will do it one way or another. And esp now, progressives don't need to win an argument against work requirements in principle. This is work requirements for health care and food, for families.

But compared to the 1996 debate, the argument for Medicaid work requirements is worse on the merits and the evidence since. There is legit space for people to say they supported welfare reform then but don't support what's on offer now, as I said in @delaneyrules.bsky.social's piece.

what a treat to see your name! hope all is well, at least personally.