I was somewhat confused by this editorial in the New York Times against changing Medicaid to require employment or voluntarism. Does the Times support or oppose compulsory public service? Do they support compulsory public service for high school students but oppose it for the poor?
I have no strong feelings on the subject one way or another. I’d rather see more attention devoted to creating jobs. It seems excessive to me to expect Medicaid recipients to move to another party of the country to find work. Just because there are jobs on offer in North Dakota doesn’t mean there are jobs on offer in Chicago.