To Read An L.A. Times “Analysis” - Medicaid Work Requirements Look To Be… Elusive

You would think that adding a modest work requirement for able-bodied persons to qualify to have the rest of us buy their healthcare is clearly a bridge too far.

⏱️ 3.5 minute read

A News Story That Seems Lacking In Balance

The Los Angeles Times’ coverage in a story yesterday, dissing on the impractical Medicaid work requirements in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that was just signed into law, reads like it might have wandered off the editorial page. The article presents the “expert” point of view that verifying 80 hours a month of work, volunteering, or education for able-bodied adults (19–64) as a looming bureaucratic disaster, with no significant counterpoint to suggest these requirements are pretty reasonable, and certainly no voice saying that if you cannot verify work, then the benefits should not be available. I felt like the article was making a quiet case for “healthcare as a human right,” as it seems like they are implying that if you cannot verify the work you should not cut off the free benefits, leaving readers wondering if personal responsibility has any place in the discussion.

And no where in the article was there mention of our nation’s $37 trillion national debt - which frankly should appear in every single story about a federal program and spending. So that readers understand all of this spending in the context of spending money we do not have.

Most Are Already in the Game

The LA Times spends a lot of column inches making the case that verification will overwhelm the system, but the numbers tell a different story. About 92% of Medicaid adults either work or qualify for exemptions—disability, caregivers, or students. Pilot programs in Arkansas and Georgia showed most enrollees already meet these standards or are exempt. The OBBBA streamlines verification by letting states use payroll records, reducing paperwork. So why does the article treat a manageable process like it’s an administrative apocalypse?

California’s Budget Squeeze

In California, where Medi-Cal covers over 15 million people, the LA Times’ concerns amplify local fears. Governor Gavin Newsom calls the OBBBA “reckless, cruel and damaging,” warning that up to 3.4 million Californians could lose coverage and the state could face a $28.4 billion federal funding hit. Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher countered that Newsom’s policies, like Medi-Cal for undocumented immigrants, have “obliterated” the system. With 5 million enrolled via Obamacare’s expansion. Oh wait, Gallagher said that, but it wasn’t in this article. Sorry.

Verification Isn’t the Bad Guy

The LA Times article’s reporting suggests that checking compliance every six months, with a 30-day grace period and fair hearings, ismay be a bridge too far for states or enrollees. But every program has some red tape. The OBBBA’s rules ensure benefits prioritize the truly needy, not those choosing leisure over effort. The article’s framing feels to me like a defense of unchecked entitlements, downplaying that accountability can coexist with compassion.

Savings, Not Suffering

The Congressional Budget Office projects $326 billion in savings over a decade, which will reducing borrowing, since every year this decade we are still projected to have large federal deficits (again, none of the financial back drop is in piece) . The alarming headline of the story, “Millions of Californians may lose health coverage because of new Medicaid work requirements” assumes healthy adults either cannot work, can’t handle basic verification, or that it’s just too complicated to administer the program — yet pilot programs show low noncompliance rates. States have until January 1st, to implement these rules smoothly. The narrative of widespread harm seems more like fearmongering than fact. Unless you want to assume (which may not be a bad assumption) that the Newsom Administration can’t do anything right.

So, Does It Matter?

The LA Times’ article seemed like a one-sided take that casts work verification as a disaster, but the OBBBA’s work requirements are about fairness, not punishment. Asking able-bodied adults to contribute 80 hours a month isn’t unreasonable—it’s a nod to responsibility. California’s fiscal challenges are real, but exaggerating the verification burden fuels a narrative that healthcare should come without effort. States need to streamline processes, not amplify panic. A safety net should catch those who need it, not cushion those who won’t try. There is no doubt that medicaid has balooned to an unaffordable level. And there’s a compelling case to be made that the entire federal medicaid program should be put out to pasture.