Keith Negley

A few days before the passage of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, the White House released a “Myth vs. Fact” document to counter criticism of the inclusion of work requirements for Medicaid eligibility. The proposed new rules need not cause worry among Americans, the document implied, because only “able-­bodied adults” would have to show proof of employment. In return, the administration claimed, the needy would gain something beyond mere federal health coverage: dignity.

For decades, Republicans (and austere liberals) have deployed the “able-bodied” trope to sell the public on employment as a condition of government assistance. In this context, the expression brings to mind capable workers glued to their sofas—“couch potatoes,” as former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz once put it—eating junk food and playing video games while living on the government dole.

Putting aside the fact that nobody gets rich from the ability to see a doctor, the rhetoric is confounding. What does “able-bodied” mean?

It isn’t a term typically used by medical professionals. And the phrase is not, in fact, indicative of a vast slouching class—lots of disabled people have jobs. The vast majority of adult Medicaid recipients who can work already do; KFF reports that nearly two-thirds of those not enrolled in the Social Security disability programs are working full or part time. Most nonworking recipients have legitimate ­excuses, including retirement, caregiving, school, or an illness.

“Able-bodied” may sound like a medical determination, but, as disability activist Imani Barbarin told me, it’s really just a vague way........

© Mother Jones