Trib editorial: Stop blocking state Medicaid reform |

Trib editorial: Stop blocking state Medicaid reform

Welfare-to-work reforms in Kansas and Maine have led thousands of formerly government-dependent individuals to independence and increased incomes. So why is Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf — mired in a $2.2 billion state deficit and still with no balanced budget — so adamantly opposed to a similar reform advanced by state lawmakers?

Contrary to exclamations from the commonwealth’s disciples of dependency, the Human Services Code approved by lawmakers doesn’t throw anybody off Medicaid. Rather, it instructs Wolf to request a federal waiver to allow Pennsylvania to impose “reasonable employment or job search requirements for non-disabled, non-pregnant, non-elderly Medicaid eligible adults,” according to the legislation.

A similar change for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) recipients in Kansas and Maine made a remarkable improvement in their lives. As the Commonwealth Foundation documents, the addition of a work requirement for able-bodied, non-elderly adults without dependent children helped fully half of former SNAP recipients in both states to more than double their incomes.

In Pennsylvania, which hasn’t yet figured out how to pay for all it owes, the change could move hundreds of thousands of qualifying adults from Medicaid into income-sustaining jobs.

This isn’t about creating more hoops for people to jump through. It’s about providing the motivation for fit adults to break the cycle of state dependency.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.