Search Results
6/30/2025, 6:11:20 AM
>>509096203
What is your evidence that the majority of medicaid recipients AREN'T on medicaid?
That is the one and only time I've been asked for a source and I provided one immediately, so you're lying again. You've been shown evidence, just because it upsets your worldview doesn't mean it's wrong. Regardless, here's a different source, the brookings institute, but of course you'll just complain about that too so this is a waste of time for both of us:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-proposed-changes-to-medicaid-are-expected-to-impact-near-elderly-americans/
>Among Medicaid recipients not receiving SSI or Medicare, 52% of those ages 50 to 64 were employed, compared to 67% of those ages 19 to 49. Within the age 50 to 64 group, 37% worked full time and 15% worked part time, compared to 46% and 21%, respectively, for 19-49 year-olds. The reasons for non-employment varied as well, with the younger group reporting caregiving and school attendance as the most common reasons for not working, while illness or disability was a more common reason among 50-64 year-olds, accounting for almost one in six enrollees in this group potentially subject to work requirements. This is notably much larger than the 6% of the sample receiving SSDI benefits.
But again, you're a stupid person who doesn't know he's a stupid person so all that will happen is you will cope and mald by calling me a jew or something and not engage with the topic at hand. You are completely lost as to why I brought up that lots of white people have received gov't benefits. I know even if I tell you plainly it still won't register, but for those playing along at home, it was to demonstrate to >>509093250 that cutting healthcare and welfare was a retarded idea that would hurt lots of white people. You busted in thinking I was trying to prove that the majority of whites were on medicaid or something, who knows where you got that idea. Your mother drank while pregnant or there's lead paint in your house o algo
What is your evidence that the majority of medicaid recipients AREN'T on medicaid?
That is the one and only time I've been asked for a source and I provided one immediately, so you're lying again. You've been shown evidence, just because it upsets your worldview doesn't mean it's wrong. Regardless, here's a different source, the brookings institute, but of course you'll just complain about that too so this is a waste of time for both of us:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-proposed-changes-to-medicaid-are-expected-to-impact-near-elderly-americans/
>Among Medicaid recipients not receiving SSI or Medicare, 52% of those ages 50 to 64 were employed, compared to 67% of those ages 19 to 49. Within the age 50 to 64 group, 37% worked full time and 15% worked part time, compared to 46% and 21%, respectively, for 19-49 year-olds. The reasons for non-employment varied as well, with the younger group reporting caregiving and school attendance as the most common reasons for not working, while illness or disability was a more common reason among 50-64 year-olds, accounting for almost one in six enrollees in this group potentially subject to work requirements. This is notably much larger than the 6% of the sample receiving SSDI benefits.
But again, you're a stupid person who doesn't know he's a stupid person so all that will happen is you will cope and mald by calling me a jew or something and not engage with the topic at hand. You are completely lost as to why I brought up that lots of white people have received gov't benefits. I know even if I tell you plainly it still won't register, but for those playing along at home, it was to demonstrate to >>509093250 that cutting healthcare and welfare was a retarded idea that would hurt lots of white people. You busted in thinking I was trying to prove that the majority of whites were on medicaid or something, who knows where you got that idea. Your mother drank while pregnant or there's lead paint in your house o algo
Page 1