"The best healthcare is a job"

The toxic evolution of the protestant work ethic, welfare, SNAP, and republican cruelty.

-o-
www.everythingispublichealth.com
Bluesky Social: @everythingisPH
Mastodon: @everythingispublichealth 
Email: EverythingIsPublicHealth@gmail.com  

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Welcome back to Death by Doctrine. I'm MJ.

SPEAKER_01 0:11

I'm Holly.

SPEAKER_00 0:12

This episode was inspired by an event that by the time that this was released will seem very quaint because that's the reality that we live in. Every day is worse than the last. This was over the summer of 2025. It was during the debate over the budget bill that the criminal President Trump wanted to pass.

SPEAKER_01 0:29

The one big beautiful bill.

SPEAKER_00 0:30

Correct. Terrible name, lacks creativity, uh, zero out of ten.

SPEAKER_01 0:34

It's very Trumpian. Um, if it goes to history books for some reason, it will be because it's extremely Trumpian.

SPEAKER_00 0:41

Yeah. It lacks depth to the point where you think this is like a child.

SPEAKER_01 0:46

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 0:46

Like these are the words that a child would use.

SPEAKER_01 0:48

It's that Trump way of marketing things where he's just like uses the simplest, most extreme language possible.

SPEAKER_00 0:56

And that's the reality that we live in, unfortunately. So during the debate over the one big beautiful bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune from South Dakota said the following line: the best healthcare is a job. And this was in response to obviously they are cutting so many things, Medicaid being one of them. They have been trying to repeal ACA for, I want to say almost a decade, if not more, at this point. And this is, of course, a very disgusting statement to make, not to mention very ignorant. It's also incredibly revealing about the conservative ideology. When I heard this, I texted you like almost immediately. For me, the first thing that made me think of when I hear that phrase, the best healthcare is a job, is the infamous phrase, work will set you free, which you recognized immediately. Do you want to explain where that phrase, why that phrase is so infamous?

SPEAKER_01 1:44

Yeah. So work will set you free was not invented by the Nazis per se, but they're the reasons that it's famous. I traced it to a German pastor and writer who wrote a novel in 1873. That's the title of the novel in English, Work Will Set You Free. And the novel, as far as I could tell, probably sucks because there's extremely little material about it online. But the novel is about a fraudster who succeeds in redemption through regular employment. So he's a gambler, he's a drunk, and through regular hard work, he finds his way to redemption for a better life.

SPEAKER_00 2:21

You're telling me this is a novel and not like a propaganda pamphlet.

SPEAKER_01 2:24

Yeah, it's like a morality novel, right? It's like the lesson is clear, fables for adults. And this was part of a growing ideology in Germany at the time, which we'll trace in our episode today. And when the Nazis came to power decades later, they began using the phrase while imprisoning political opponents and Jews, posting the sign with that phrase on their concentration camps as an ethos. In reality, as we now know, and as the prisoners of the time certainly knew, it's a little bit dishonest, right? Where it's not going to set anyone free. A little bit dishonest is quite an understatement I just made. Um, but work is not what would set anyone free from the Holocaust. So in that sense, the phrase is really immortalized, and I think it's just solely thought of with the Holocaust today, right? Like, even Republicans today don't really go out there and say work will set you free, given its connotations.

SPEAKER_00 3:20

Yeah, very famously carved on the entrance of Auschwitz, but also in other concentration camps as well. Auschwitz is just the most famous photo of this phrase. And yeah, like the best healthcare is a job is just the 21st century version of work will set you free.

SPEAKER_01 3:35

Yeah, it's a kind of similar dishonesty, I think, how Republicans are using it now, because they know that it's not going to solve your problem, right? Unless maybe John Thune is just very simple-minded. That could be the case. But they know that people cannot all access great healthcare from their jobs. They're just okay with that.

SPEAKER_00 3:53

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 3:53

So again, it's just kind of like promising you something that they're not helping you deliver at all.

SPEAKER_00 3:57

At various points during our political reality, it's very hard to distinguish genuine ignorance or willful manipulation. As you pointed out, maybe he is that stupid. Who knows? Maybe he is just that simple-minded that he doesn't recognize the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of that phrase, but we'll never know because we're not them.

SPEAKER_01 4:18

Yeah, I can't psychoanalyze Republican senators. I just don't have the energy. Nor do we want to but I can't just tell you what the results of what they believe in is, and I think that should be enough.

SPEAKER_00 4:26

Sure. So today's ideology is essentially the anchor ideology, the anchor doctrine for phrases like work will set you free or the best healthcare is a job. And for a while we struggled to name it, but I think you found the perfect name for this, which is go ahead.

SPEAKER_01 4:42

It is the Protestant work ethic.

SPEAKER_00 4:45

I've definitely heard about it before. And when you brought that up, I'm like, yes, I think that is the articulation of like this vibe, this doctrine that we're about to get into.

SPEAKER_01 4:53

Yeah, specifically in American culture, I think we've really pinpointed what this is, and our listeners will likely be very familiar with this phrase, but I think we can connect in some interesting ways to the doctrine that's behind the one big beautiful bill conversation today.

SPEAKER_00 5:09

All right. Protestant work ethic. Where is the root of this doctrine?

SPEAKER_01 5:13

So the Protestant work ethic or the Puritan work ethic or the Calvinist work ethic is a phrase that's incredibly well-rooted in American society, but of course, it really tracks back to the Reformation in Europe. So, centuries after the Reformation, there is a very famous sociologist, Max Weber, who wrote in 1904 his book, The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. And this is really what rooted what we now think of as the Protestant work ethic, like just as a term that's in our semi-competent high school American history textbooks. Like I learned about this in New York public schools at least. I assume you learned about it in California.

SPEAKER_00 5:54

Yeah, semi-competent is correct.

SPEAKER_01 5:55

Yeah, so it's really famous and it really tracks back to Max Weber's essays and then book. And his argument in his book is that the Calvinist emphasis on the spirit of hard work and progress influenced people of faith to dedicate themselves to secular work and to capitalist endeavors, and therefore is an important basis for modern capitalism in northern Europe.

SPEAKER_00 6:17

This is a relatively recent term, then. This is from 1904.

SPEAKER_01 6:21

Yeah, like the idea of it is a new, obviously, and the like supposed work ethic behind it roots back to the Reformation and beyond. But just like that term itself, it's really interesting to learn where it comes from.

SPEAKER_00 6:33

Yeah, and I hate to do this to you, but I have to, um actually you. He's German, so it's Weber. The W is a V sound.

SPEAKER_01 6:40

Oh. Ah, thank you.

SPEAKER_00 6:42

If there happens to be a sociologist listening, they're probably likes shaking their fist at this guy.

SPEAKER_01 6:47

I'm so sorry. I'm so out of my sociology 101 in class that I probably did piss off a ton of people. But yes, no. Yes. And in his work, the reason that Wieber saw this as important is that religion, while hugely influential, possibly one of the most influential social forces in the history of the world.

SPEAKER_00 7:08

Unfortunately.

SPEAKER_01 7:09

Often encourages followers to seek less worldly enlightenment. In Catholicism, which Reformation was responding to, um, you do need to do good works to help work towards salvation. So like donating and doing good works is seen as part of the pathway to being saved. In Buddhism, going completely differently, you need to do self-work to achieve inner enlightenment. You need to like work on your perspective. You need to uh meditate. Yeah, you need to meditate. It's very non-worldly, right?

SPEAKER_00 7:38

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 7:38

Calvinism is a little bit different because particularly if you adhere to double predestination. And MJ, do you remember what double predestination is?

SPEAKER_00 7:48

Uh, predestination is everything is already laid out. Like the story has already been written, you are just on the journey of this story. However, they ran into the issue of, well, if my story is already written out, then why bother doing anything?

SPEAKER_01 8:03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 8:03

So they had to do a double predestination, which is, well, if you don't do anything, that means you're on the story path of the bad, the evil, the condemned.

SPEAKER_01 8:12

It's kind of like that. It's like predestination is the idea that God has ordained the saved from birth. So God has full intentional design of the universe, and he already has people who he's going to save. Double predestination is extra extreme, and it's the idea that not only does he have the saved, he already has the damned. So people who don't do double predestination might say, well, he has a select saved, but it doesn't mean like there are people who are born condemned to hell. Like that's kind of a complicated persuasive argument to make.

SPEAKER_00 8:44

Right.

SPEAKER_01 8:44

But really intense Calvinists, uh, especially Calvin himself, would say, no, you cowards, double predestination. People are doomed to damnation. So because of this part of the philosophy, you believe that your salvation is determined by God already. As you mentioned, that's a little bit of a morale problem. It's anxiety-inducing.

SPEAKER_00 9:04

Yeah. Why bother do anything if my soul is already marked as saved or damned on day one?

SPEAKER_01 9:10

Yeah. So unlike the Catholics, who, as the Reformationists would criticize, would often be like really showy and be too into buying and doing good works just for the sake of appearances. For Calvinism, you believe that good works does not earn you salvation at all. So what happens is they kind of twist it. Like early Calvinists had to believe that they were among the saved because the strength of their belief would like help prove that they're saved, if that makes sense.

SPEAKER_00 9:38

Theology was a long time ago. None of this made sense then. None of it makes sense now.

SPEAKER_01 9:42

Yeah. So they had to look for signs that they were among the chosen, and to help them maintain that belief in their personal salvation, success, and like providence was just one of those signs. So if you are settled well in the world, if you're successful, if you're stable, that is that could be a sign that you're one of God's chosen ones.

SPEAKER_00 10:01

When I learned about this in high school and then later, somewhat in college, it astounds me the amount of mental effort that you need to do just to exist in this space. The amount of mental gymnastic that you need to tell yourself to justify believing in this, that you could be drawing bugs and trees. You know, you could be writing poetry. All that mental effort you're trying to convince yourself, whatever this is.

SPEAKER_01 10:27

Yeah, and I'm no theology expert. I was actually doing that thing when I do research for this podcast where I was like deep into articles and I was like, I don't feel prepared to talk about Calvinism. And then I sat back and I'm like, that's not really what I need to do here. Right. I'm not a theology expert.

SPEAKER_00 10:41

Neither am I.

SPEAKER_01 10:42

But this really reminded me of like Protestants and evangelicals that I do know or grew up around here in the US, is there's this big like feeling that you always need to have a very solid faith in God's salvation and you need to thank God for everything, and and God takes credit for all your achievements. And I really see that rooted here. I don't feel like it's as big among Catholics. Not that I went to a really like devout Catholic school growing up, but this like need to constantly like cite God's providence that He made all the good things in your life happen is very Protestant, in my opinion.

SPEAKER_00 11:16

Yeah, definitely. Which will mutate over the years as we're about to get into.

SPEAKER_01 11:21

Yeah. So back to Vieber. Vieber is writing about this phenomenon, and his argument is that because of this theological nuance here, Calvinists end up with a little bit of a money conundrum. In Northern Europe, that pretty much demanded capitalist solutions because Calvinists were not to waste hard-earned money. Like that's really constant across Christianity. Like frugal. Don't buy all kinds of luxury stuff. That's wasteful. But they don't really need to like donate to the church that much or specifically do good works. If that's not bad in Calvinism, it's just not like imperative to being saved. Sure. So instead, like investment and business building, Weber argues, become a way to use money to become more secure and successful without necessarily living lavishly in mansions. So working hard and finding success and vocation could be identified as a sign of God's grace. And that is part of what really helped accelerate the dawn of capitalism in Europe.

SPEAKER_00 12:19

Yeah, that makes sense. Obviously, I'm sure there are tons of theology academics, historians that have written multiple books arguing back and forth whether this theory is correct.

SPEAKER_01 12:31

Oh yeah. This is not set in stone. Like Vieber's thesis here is controversial, not in the sense that he did bad work, but in the sense that we know more about the world now. It's like hard to pin this. Like, you can't really argue that capitalism happened because of the Reformation when capitalism was happening in Italy, etc. But a lot of scholars like find really nice value in the idea that there's something about this like ethos that Protestants tell themselves or genuinely believe about hard work and the Protestant work ethic that does jive really well with capitalism. Whether capitalism was already inevitable in Europe or not, those ideas definitely blossomed together.

SPEAKER_00 13:10

Yeah, and I think this is related to intersectionality. Multiple ideas could coexist at once, and maybe capitalism was destined to be the dominant economic force in Europe. The Calvinist theology certainly accelerated. Yeah. Even if they didn't originate it. Yeah, okay. We're about to hit some turbo mutations, I feel like. Oh, yeah. Coming to America.

SPEAKER_01 13:30

Because that's all in Europe, right? But here come the settlers, the pilgrims, the early Puritans, the colonizers, right? The colonizers. They find America. Or say they discover America for themselves.

SPEAKER_00 13:45

Findings doing a lot of work.

SPEAKER_01 13:46

This is really where we get this ideology like supercharged and isolated, because over in Europe, Reformation is quaking the continent. It's a reaction to the long-standing corruption of the Catholic Church. It's a reaction to the Renaissance and the idea that we could learn things about the world and find value in things that are not about God. Yes, but really terrible.

SPEAKER_00 14:08

Yeah, so bad.

SPEAKER_01 14:09

So the most radical Protestants, many of whom were Calvinists, were looking for purity, hence Puritanism, which anyone who took probably kindergarten level American history is going to identify here. Right. So North America starts getting colonized, and Puritans are looking over at this new fresh earth, and they're saying, hey, this is awesome. I feel like God has absolute sovereignty, and conveniently I'm feeling called to move here and forge our own perfect pure community with perfect churches and none of the drama I'm experiencing over here in Europe.

SPEAKER_00 14:40

Yeah, and just ignore the people that's already there. Just pretend they don't exist.

SPEAKER_01 14:44

Oh, yeah, don't worry about them. Uh that shouldn't be a factor at all.

SPEAKER_00 14:47

The number of times history is shaped by God told me so is frankly horrifying. God told me to go over there and ignore the people that are already there.

SPEAKER_01 14:58

Ignore is the best case scenario, to be honest. Oh yeah.

SPEAKER_00 15:01

Terminate and execute, also.

SPEAKER_01 15:02

Yes. A lot of early Puritans sailed to North America believing they were establishing themselves what they would often like directly write as a Calvinist Israel. Oh, no, comparing themselves to Moses during the Exodus. So like they're seeing this truly as a promised land. So the Puritans, as we know, mostly settled in New England. But the ideas would end up in all parts of the American colonies. We will talk a little bit about how this settled in Virginia in the Jamestown colony. But over time, all of these ideas about the Protestant work ethic and what North American colonies meant to Europeans would spread down throughout the 1700s thanks to the Great Awakening, where tons of Protestant like religious brainstorming and revelation was happening, and really solidify these 13 colonies as Protestant dominant communities.

SPEAKER_00 15:56

There's something about the phrase Calvinist Israel that like fully shook me.

SPEAKER_01 16:00

It's uh it's pretty dark right now, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 16:02

Double jeopardy right there. Oh, geez. Okay. So the Puritans uh they made landfall and they made this new, for lack of a better term, their paradise. How did that progress?

SPEAKER_01 16:12

So their idea of a perfect community gets complicated quickly, right? Because settling in America was really hard. And they weren't the only ones to be there. So forging perfect pure communities based in the church would not necessarily last that long given human nature and cultural mixing between different types of European settlers, and of course, interaction with Native Americans. And I think that one really interesting complication comes with the founding of the first colony of Virginia, Jamestown, settled by John Smith of Pocahontas fame, yep. Historically inaccurate Disney Pocahontas movie fame. Uh turns out he was not hot and not just there for adventure. He was a complicated guy, and we don't really know how much of his record we're supposed to believe, but Jamestown really sucked to live in at first if you're a settler. It was a bog. They didn't know how to farm or harvest enough food. And basically, John Smith was trying to whip that colony into shape. So he famously lived by the ethos those who do not work do not eat. You recognize that? It sounds really familiar to some of the other phrases we're talking about.

SPEAKER_00 17:20

Yeah. This is the moment in the sci-fi horror film where the alien tail like flash in the background. All right. Yeah, I see where this is going.

SPEAKER_01 17:28

Yeah. So basically he was like, look, we're dying out here. We don't have enough food. Our rations from England are rotting. So those who do not work, do not eat, was kind of a zethos. If you want to colonize America, you have to live a hard life. You have to work hard. It's the only way we're going to make it. And John Smith is famous for this, but some other explorers would have published these writings back in Europe as well. The American dream can only be achieved by working really hard.

SPEAKER_00 17:54

Now, do you think this is a deflection of his poor leadership and planning?

SPEAKER_01 18:00

From what I read, which I want to warn everyone, was not extremely deep. Like I was not reading all John Smith's travel logs.

SPEAKER_00 18:07

Sure.

SPEAKER_01 18:07

But living in Jamestown was really hard. So to give the man credit, it was tough. And I think it sounded like the society really needed some tough love to even make it.

SPEAKER_00 18:16

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 18:17

At its core, it's kind of true, right? If you're literally forging a new society and you need to grow food, not easy. Then yes, you do kind of need most people who can to pull their weight so that everyone makes enough food to live. That is, I would say, a lot different than how we live today in the United States.

SPEAKER_00 18:34

Sure.

SPEAKER_01 18:34

But that's kind of the kernel of this idea that became a huge part of the American ethos propagated by these Protestants. Over decades to come, centuries to come, these original Puritan and Protestant ideas would transform and they'd adopt new things. This idea of providence would morph into our revolutionary purpose. Like, why are we fighting the revolutionary war? Why are we expanding westward? What is manifest destiny that's linked to this Protestant work ethic, this promised land? And then to start becoming an imperialist nation on the world stage. Like, why should we take action? Why we should be involved with other countries? Well, we are the idea of providence, like we work hard, we make things happen. So this ethos um changes a lot, right? All of its contradictions, all of its evolutions, but we really never let go of it. And it's both a huge part of what our founders tell themselves about America, and that's a huge part of the stories we tell in our history today.

SPEAKER_00 19:34

And throughout all this, to me, in the early stages, they came to Jamestown and it was very difficult. And John Smith needed to make up some BS to get the people working. That was a case of the situation informing his thought. And then over time, we see the reverse. You see the thought fitting to inform the situation.

SPEAKER_01 19:54

Yes, I would argue that we're gonna get into this so much, but I think that is exactly what like modern Republicans, when they evoke this language, are mixing up, right? Yeah. They're looking at the outcome. I am successful, I am wealthy, and they're saying, I must have worked hard to earn that. Whereas, not to give John Smith too much positive credit, but he did have to labor really hard to make Jamestown remotely a success. So at least he can give himself credit for doing all of that. Right. And it's that kind of mismatch, right? Of the cause and effect here. So when we look at phrases like, he who does not work, neither shall he rest, which is the one that is directly from the Bible, he got this phrase from the Bible.

SPEAKER_00 20:36

Oh, he wasn't even original?

SPEAKER_01 20:37

Yeah. The the original Bible verse is from Paul's letter to the Thessalonians. And in the letter, they're basically saying, like, hey, we've been visiting you, the Thessalonians, and you'll notice that we worked hard along with you. We didn't, you know, take all your food, we weren't lazing around, and that's what you need to do, pull your weight in society. And in all its iterations, the very nugget of this idea is not at its core bad. Like a lot of the doctrines we're gonna go through. It's true if you're building a community, if you're building a society, you're going to need people to contribute. Sure. And it's also true that all else being equal, working towards something can often lead to better outcomes for you or your community. And this idea isn't only unique to capitalism. You actually see he who does not work, neither shall he eat, invoked in socialist theory as well. Sure. Which makes sense to each according to his ability.

SPEAKER_00 21:28

Yeah, the famous phrase popularized by Karl Marx, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.

SPEAKER_01 21:36

Yeah. That is not so different from the core idea of he who does not work, neither shall he eat, right? But the important part is whether you're including the second part where it's like, and as a community, as we prosper, we'll take care of you in turn.

SPEAKER_00 21:50

Yeah, which is what makes the Karl Marx phrase so much better than just a John Smith phrase of stopping short at the second part.

SPEAKER_01 21:59

It adds that little. Bit of nuance that you really need to see what makes a whole community. So when we're talking about this doctrine, we're really going to get into what the this American ethos, where that can get really rotten, and why if you ascribe to this purely with none of that complexity, none of that like modern idea of community, you're gonna go wrong. The early Protestant ideas of what it means to make it an America have in many, many iterations become a rotten doctrine that's either taken too far to an extreme or just corrupted entirely. And like famously, there could be no better criticism of this inherent contradiction than Martin Luther King Jr.'s who wrote that the so-called Protestant work ethic is kind of ironic considering how much of America's prosperity should be credited to millions of enslaved black people.

SPEAKER_00 22:49

Yeah, and this is coming from someone who is openly religious. Martin Luther King Jr. was what do you call it, reverend? Is that the term? Yep. Yeah, like he is coming from a theological background as well. Like he is not writing this as an atheist or an agnostic. He is very aware of that Christian context to that phrase. Right. And he was able to actually diagnose the issue with white America, which is you can't say those who do not work shall not eat and not feed the slaves.

SPEAKER_01 23:19

Right. And also give yourself credit when you were not doing the work.

SPEAKER_00 23:23

You weren't the ones building things.

SPEAKER_01 23:24

Exactly. So I I think we always like to take a second and we have all the historical context and we like to say, okay, step back. We have so many phrases happening right here. We have work will set you free. We have the Protestant work ethic. We have he who does not work, neither shall he rest. At the core, what does it mean if you ascribe to this doctrine?

SPEAKER_00 23:45

I think at the core of this, to me at least, and I would love to hear your take on it as well, is the idea that you have to earn everything that is required for your sustenance. You cannot be given something without earning it.

SPEAKER_01 24:01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 24:01

And again, not an inherently bad idea to have. However, it's the way that notion, that doctrine is interpreted that is the problem.

SPEAKER_01 24:10

Right. You believe that hard work is a demonstration of moral virtue or God's grace, depending on if you're personally religious or not. And I think where this gets really toxic is if you, like the Calvinists, believe that success is something earned and you see your success or somebody's success as a sign of their salvation or a sign of their moral virtue, then you do have the flip side of that view, right? The double predestination. If there are saved, so there are damned. Then you might see people who are floundering or people who are not successful as not having those outward signs of virtue or success. They must not have worked hard like you did. And there must be some reason that they are experiencing this. And I think this is what gets to the toxicity of this doctrine, right? Is this inability to understand that some circumstances might be out of a person's control and that there are things of society we can do to help them. But if you fervently believe that outcomes have to be linked to specific causes that are in your personal control, then we are going to go down to a bad place in society.

SPEAKER_00 25:17

Oh, very good demonstration for how toxic this mindset is, if you just take it to its logical extreme, right? So if you believe you have to earn everything, and if you believe that in order for you to survive, eat or rest, depending on which phrase you use, you must work, then just think about someone who, I don't know, maybe they're born with a disability. Or maybe they got into an accident that gave them a disability. What about the people who, through no fault of their own, cannot work? Under this ideology, you might as well kill them, right? Yeah. They can't work. They don't deserve food. Who cares if you're a paraplegic? You don't deserve food. Wonder what John Smith did with the disabled.

SPEAKER_01 25:57

Well, that's the thing. It's like, yeah, if you lived in the Jamestown colony with no food, you might see people who couldn't help grow the food as a hindrance to the success of all. We do not live in that kind of society. Right. Well, we don't have to.

SPEAKER_00 26:12

Oh, that's soul stabbed.

SPEAKER_01 26:13

And I think that's the real difference is like as we've evolved, as labor has changed significantly, as opportunities have changed. We should evolve our view of society past what John Smith was thinking when he colonized Virginia. And I I just feel we're really stuck in some ways.

SPEAKER_00 26:33

Stuck in the past in many ways. Okay, so that was the historical and philosophical context for this doctrine. Let's bring this into the modern time. Let's bring this into the cursed time that is 2025.

SPEAKER_01 26:45

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 26:46

How does this doctrine manifest in our times?

SPEAKER_01 26:48

In every single way. When we decided to do this doctrine, I was like very intimidated because I was like, yeah, sure, I'll just research the entirety of American politics and culture that is based on the idea of work will set you free and felt very overwhelmed. But I think, as you mentioned, to start our episode, you saw some great, terrible news about healthcare innovations that I think are the perfect idea to explore. Because to me, healthcare is where this doctrine and the toxicity it can have is like never more apparent. Because as you mentioned, this idea that things are earned, that your success is earned from hard work, when it comes to person's health, is not often true. And so I think we can see that contradiction like really strongly here in terms of what it means to take care of people in a society.

SPEAKER_00 27:41

All right, let's go back to what is a Senate majority leader. The best healthcare is a job, John Thune. This was discussing Medicaid cuts and specifically work requirements that they included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

SPEAKER_01 27:54

So the new Medicaid propositions in the One Big Beautiful Bill have been that Medicaid recipients would need to demonstrate that they spend 80 hours per month working, volunteering, or being in school.

SPEAKER_00 28:08

And previously, this was up to the states. So some states would enforce very high work requirements or means testing. Some states would be more rational and not have this sort of very stringent means testing or work requirement. The thing about this bill is that it removes the variation across states. This sets a federal requirement that every state must do this uh work requirement means testing. That's the sort of the big difference.

SPEAKER_01 28:35

Right. States' rights only matter if we agree with them.

SPEAKER_00 28:38

Right. Yeah. New work requirements, 80 hours per month. That's per month.

SPEAKER_01 28:42

And you have to report this monthly.

SPEAKER_00 28:44

Hourly, monthly, yes.

SPEAKER_01 28:46

So if you're a Republican, right, and you are looking at the Protestant work ethic and that's how you view your life, you're like, wow, that sounds great. Everyone will be pulling their weight, and volunteering is included. We love volunteering. So even if you volunteer at your local church, Koughcock. You can still get credit. Don't worry. I just think it's funny that they specifically were like, don't worry, community involvement matters. I'm sure they just put in to sound good, but I feel like also has to be like a little bone thrown to people who mostly just volunteer for churches.

SPEAKER_00 29:15

Yeah, definitely. Uh a lot to say here. Where do you want to go next?

SPEAKER_01 29:19

I had a lot of thoughts about this.

SPEAKER_00 29:21

Let's discuss.

SPEAKER_01 29:22

I work in human resources. So I just finished open enrollment for my workplaces healthcare.

SPEAKER_00 29:27

Oh, yes. That was in uh November or October.

SPEAKER_01 29:30

Yes. It is extremely stressful every single year, of course, and it's high stakes. So I had a lot of thoughts about John Thune's statement, the best healthcare is a job. Because as a person who administers workplace-based healthcare, I think it leaves a lot to be desired as a system.

SPEAKER_00 29:48

Yeah, definitely.

SPEAKER_01 29:48

So I kind of wanted to get into just that statement alone. Like, what is the weakness there? Like, why doesn't that statement actually work in practice? So I pulled up some stats.

SPEAKER_00 30:01

Yeah, go for it. I'm pretty sure we have the same stats. Go ahead.

SPEAKER_01 30:04

Yeah. So the thing is, even if you wanted everyone to have healthcare through their job, about 54% of American workplaces offer employer-sponsored health insurance. That's because shockingly low. Yeah. Small businesses, which many Republicans constantly give lip service to, aren't required to, and in many cases, to be fair to them, legitimately cannot afford to offer employer-based health insurance due to thin margins and an inability to negotiate good group rates with private insurers. I don't work for a small business and negotiating with insurance companies is still extremely resource intensive every single year. Like it is extremely expensive if you do not have enough of an edge to negotiate some good deals. And yes, it's crazy that we even have to do that. Having a secure full-time job can increase your chances of accessing health insurance, but for 46% of American workplaces, that's not even a possibility.

SPEAKER_00 31:02

Yeah, and not to mention there are many, many ways. I mean, you're the HR person, you probably know this. There are many ways that a business could find potential loopholes of not providing their workers' health insurance because a lot of cases it's cheaper for them to not provide their worker health insurance. So they could say, you are a contractor. You're not an employee, you're a contractor. So therefore, we don't have to provide the benefits. Or they could say, let's limit you to 19 hours a week. Different states have different cutoff or what consider full-time, I believe 35 in California. There are many ways to play that game so that that number is actually probably lower, right? If you work for a company that provides employee-based health insurance, you might not qualify for that employee-based health insurance depending on the classification of your role that your company decides to do.

SPEAKER_01 31:50

Yeah. And let's say you are offered it and you can access it. It doesn't guarantee that you can afford the health insurance. It is super expensive for both the employer and the employee in many cases. It doesn't mean that that health insurance is going to be super great for your specific medical needs. And it doesn't mean that you're able to secure and perform said job based on your personal health and life circumstances forever. So it's a little bit tenuous, one would say.

SPEAKER_00 32:18

Yeah, and you could be laid off potentially at any time. You could be fired potentially at any time. The company could go under potentially at any time. And by tying healthcare, which is, in my opinion, something that is critical for your health, and therefore I would argue is a necessity and a right, by tying healthcare to employment, you are essentially giving the employer extra leverage on how they can manage their employees and negotiate their working conditions because they know that people don't want to lose their health insurance. In my humble opinion, this is very anti-labor. By tying health insurance to your job instead of having universal healthcare, for example, you are essentially anti-labor. You're not giving the workers enough leverage when uh meeting in the middle with the employers.

SPEAKER_01 33:04

Yeah. And you also give workers fewer opportunities to shift. Like it's harder to find a job. What if your spouse depends on the medical insurance you have for your employer?

SPEAKER_00 33:13

Yeah. Family insurance.

SPEAKER_01 33:15

Well, you know, what if you want to switch job opportunities and you're not sure if you'll be able to keep the same network that you need care on? These are really complicated things that are make it much harder for workers. Yeah. And even on the business end, it's such an inefficient system. The amount of resources that businesses need to dedicate to funding this whole separate economy of hiring health insurance brokers and negotiating and implementing all of this.

SPEAKER_00 33:40

Unnecessary middlemen.

SPEAKER_01 33:42

It's ridiculous. It really should be the job of the government. But it isn't. For many reasons we're talking about, it isn't. So that's like just talking about the people who may be able to access health insurance through their work. As you mentioned, like there's all kinds of people who are also factored into this number, like retirees and children, they need health insurance. By definition, they do not work. So what are their individual options, John Thune?

SPEAKER_00 34:09

Well, a Republican would say, let's loosen child labor laws, which they have done in several states.

SPEAKER_01 34:15

Yeah. Oh, in Idaho, why don't we just their jobs give them insurance? Uh they can work full-time.

SPEAKER_00 34:20

Oh, geez.

SPEAKER_01 34:21

You have people who have disabilities or illnesses that preclude them from maintaining full-time employment, especially given our weak workplace protections toward medical leave. So what are they gonna do for their health coverage? I think that a lot of Republicans either choose to ignore these people or they actively want them to not do well. Yeah, I didn't want to say that too strongly.

SPEAKER_00 34:43

No, we can say it.

SPEAKER_01 34:44

People who have caretaking needs in their household or have duties at home that limit their ability for full-time work, parents, people who are caretaking, these are things that can just, by pure time and resources, impede your ability to hold full-time work.

SPEAKER_00 34:58

Yeah, and Republicans notoriously terrible when it comes to maternal health and paid family leave.

SPEAKER_01 35:04

They're like, Yeah, yeah, yeah. We want you to be home and have babies. And no, we don't want you to have health insurance. And don't worry, your husband can definitely completely hold a full-time job at all times. It will take care of your entire family. In 2025 in this economy.

SPEAKER_00 35:19

Okay, anyway, and continue.

SPEAKER_01 35:21

And then we have seasonal, temporary and part-time workers who may be regularly working at all times throughout the year, but they do not qualify for health insurance, even if their employers offer it because of their employment status.

SPEAKER_00 35:34

Loopholes, loopholes.

SPEAKER_01 35:35

So this is a lot of holes in John Thune's argument, right?

SPEAKER_00 35:40

Yeah, so many.

SPEAKER_01 35:41

It's like, yeah, having a full-time job often increases your access to health insurance, but it by no means guarantees it. And the reason we have Medicaid in the first place is to help cover some of these holes, patch them up to take care of people who may have, you know, personal and health and medical and just like industry roles that don't support this kind of structure.

SPEAKER_00 36:06

And the word patch is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The original Medicaid was inadequate in so many ways, which is what made the ACA, the Medicaid expansion so important because prior to the ACA, there were holes everywhere. And the ACA tried to patch those holes to the best of its abilities. There's a lot of criticism about the ACA that I have to recognize, but it tried, right? The important thing is that it tried.

SPEAKER_01 36:28

Yeah. And some of the lasting effects we have from the ACA, I think people, if you don't remember what it was like before, uh can take for granted the idea that if you ever got diagnosed with something, you would be able to be rejected for coverage ever again. Yes. That used to be a thing. Absolutely diabolical. And removing that at least is I can't even express how big of a relief that is.

SPEAKER_00 36:51

Yeah. We can't get sidetracked into like how health insurance works because boy, do I have knowledge about how health insurance works that really just put this statement to the test.

SPEAKER_01 37:02

Oh, yeah. We kind of got off track. Okay. So what have we done? We debunked John Soon check.

SPEAKER_00 37:07

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 37:07

We've talked about what the Medicaid changes are, the work requirements. MJ, do you want to tell us a little bit about why these work requirements are not good health policy?

SPEAKER_00 37:17

Yeah. Uh where do I even start? You know? Um, okay, so let's start at the basics. What do you think is the rationale behind means testing, which is an umbrella term for anything that requires the applicant for this welfare, I'm including Medicaid and other stuff in the welfare bucket, is requiring the applicants to prove that they need it. What do you think is the original rationale for it?

SPEAKER_01 37:44

I would guess it's something to do with what they always say, right? Is that people are wasting money because they are choosing to accept welfare instead of working and becoming a drain in the state without contributing to the economy.

SPEAKER_00 37:57

Yeah, that's definitely one of the two arguments. The first argument is the fraud and abuse argument, is like, oh, we want to make sure that uh people aren't taking advantage of this thing. That's why we have means testing and work requirements. Um, work requirements is actually even more specific because it's saying that you can have this only if you work or seek work, which is already paradoxical because they're seeking this because they couldn't find work. So I don't want to get into that just yet. The second argument, the argument that they love to hide behind that is more disguised, is the argument that means testing makes the welfare program more effective. We can spend less money to actually help the people who need it the most. And on the surface, you could kind of see where this is going. It's like, oh, by means testing, we can identify, I'm using scare quotes, identify which applicant is the most needy. And therefore, we are prioritizing giving them resources first over other applicants. That's the theory that they're hiding behind.

SPEAKER_01 38:52

Right. And they accomplish this in ways like in the One Big Beautiful bill, the Medicaid work requirements, they do carve out exceptions for caretakers and for so-called able-bodied people. So they are trying to say, like, hey, these people, they need it the most. Those lazy people who aren't applying for jobs enough, like, they'll get it less.

SPEAKER_00 39:11

So that's their argument. However, there is one thing that's wrong about this argument, and that it's just categorically false. Means testing does not save welfare money. In fact, it neither breaks even or costs more money because means testing takes money. Someone needs to run the background check, someone needs to like receive the application, someone needs to read all the different forms that the what is I always like, a 27-page form. There's administrative costs associated with means testing that if you do the math, that administrative cost washes out whatever cost saving means testing supposedly save. It doesn't actually save money, it just makes it more bureaucratic and it creates hurdles that deter people who actually need assistance. So when they say, Oh, look at how much money means testing saved, you're saving money by not giving out the welfare, which defeats the purpose of welfare.

SPEAKER_01 40:04

By not achieving the goal of the program. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 40:06

You're setting up so many barriers, and therefore less people are able to access it, and you're turning around and calling that a victory. It's fundamentally backwards. The purpose of welfare is to give the funds out. The purpose of welfare is not to gatekeep the funds. Hello, editing MJ here. I just realized I never debunked the fraud and abuse claim that conservatives love to throw around when it comes to welfare. You know, the welfare queen stereotype, the people won't work myth. This is disingenuous. Most people on Medicaid work, most people on Snap work. There is demonstrably very little fraud in welfare because people in need are probably too busy trying to survive than finding an elaborate way to defraud welfare. There's also very little abuse. Multiple studies have shown that when given cash assistance with no strings attached, the vast majority of people in need spend that money on necessities. Surprise. Also, just think about it. Welfare, be that Medicaid, cash assistance, snap, also known as food stamps, housing assistance, all those things under the welfare umbrella, they are not that generous. They barely cover survival. If that, how do you get back on your feet if the safety net that was supposed to catch you leaves you hanging? If the conservatives are truly interested in getting people back to work and not having people, quote, depend, end quote, on welfare, then what they should be doing is to fund welfare programs way more generously so that people can actually steady themselves and leave the program. Their slashing of welfare is what creates dependency in the first place, because it actually doesn't lift people out of poverty. More importantly, these myths are a fundamental malicious misunderstanding of what welfare is. If a person is in need, then they, by definition, cannot defraud welfare. Welfare is for people in need. If you need it, it is not abuse. It doesn't matter if you meet the means testing criteria or if you are working or not. It's just a matter of if you need it versus if you don't need it. The only way to commit fraud against welfare is if you don't need it. Meaning the only group of people who can defraud welfare is people with money. Like Brett Favre, who defrauded Mississippi welfare. Anyway, tax the rich.

SPEAKER_01 42:14

And what Republicans are trying to do, I think, as a corollary of that, of what you're saying, is that they know that by adding these work requirements, they will drop people not just because they're getting denied, but because they will not fill out monthly forms reporting 80 hours of quote unquote community involvement a month.

SPEAKER_00 42:31

So much paperwork.

SPEAKER_01 42:32

I don't think our listeners are thinking this, but somebody might think, see, hear me say that and say, well, they should just not be lazy. Filling out a form once a month isn't a big deal.

SPEAKER_00 42:39

Have you filled out forms before?

SPEAKER_01 42:41

Yeah. Think about it, you guys. What if you're dealing with a medical emergency and you're incapacitated for a few weeks? What if you have a natural disaster like so many people in states like North Carolina and Texas and Florida have experienced in the past few years? What if among working and job searching and being a caretaker and countless other things, you're just human and you forget? Are you completely screwed of health insurance because of a lapse for something you have to do every four weeks for little to no reason? Republicans know that this friction exists and they're they want it. They want people to drop out of the program because they struggle or remember or forget or like cannot access the forms to even apply.

SPEAKER_00 43:25

Yeah, that is definitely their intention. Like to them, this is a way of saving money, which again, if you're not releasing the welfare funds, you are not accomplishing the goal of welfare. That's the whole point of welfare, is you give people help. I don't know if there's like more to say about this besides, I don't know, man, have you filled out a form before? Like, come on, they're so annoying.

SPEAKER_01 43:46

Yeah. I have a full-time job and I consider myself a responsible person, and I forget to pay my water bill on a monthly basis all the time.

SPEAKER_00 43:54

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 43:54

Things just happen, and making people jump through hoops is about making them jump through hoops, and that's very intentional. Here with how this bill is being designed.

SPEAKER_00 44:02

You can tell that the way that they set up these forms, it's not meant to be graceful. There's no like, oh, you know, whenever you like, there's no grace period. The moment you miss one form, your welfare is gone. And you can see it in its execution of these programs, oftentimes depending on what state. But typically, in like, for example, red states, Republican states, these programs are very strict about what constitutes as like work requirements and means testing.

SPEAKER_01 44:25

Yes. And I was also reading that this has really significant geographical disparities.

SPEAKER_00 44:30

Oh, yeah, definitely.

SPEAKER_01 44:32

Because a lot, a disproportionate amount of Medicaid recipients live in rural areas. You are living in an area that already has fewer schools, fewer employment opportunities, right? Like job searching if you live in New York City is going to be a lot different than job searching in Biloxi and even volunteer opportunities.

SPEAKER_00 44:50

Where? What did you say?

SPEAKER_01 44:51

Uh Biloxi, Mississippi. We don't know that city by name.

SPEAKER_00 44:54

No. Where did you get that name from?

SPEAKER_01 44:56

This is so off topic. You should cut this out. But I once interviewed a veteran for a college project, and he spent time abroad, and then he had to be stationed in Biloxi, Mississippi, and he said it was worse than any place he'd ever been during wartime. So I never forgot it. He was like, it was so racist, it was crazy.

SPEAKER_00 45:13

All right. That's definitely staying in. Wow. Okay, well, yeah, there's a lot of uh geographic uh differences in these areas. Like Medicaid is meant to be a safety net healthcare. And you're looking at people who are already more likely than not living in these areas with poor resources and poor funding to further require them to jump through hoops to access healthcare, which is a basic necessity for a lot of people, is cruel.

SPEAKER_01 45:40

Right.

SPEAKER_00 45:40

I don't think there's a another word for it. And this idea that it's gonna serve the needy more effectively is absolutely BS.

SPEAKER_01 45:48

Yeah. It's not about helping people get jobs, it's not about them getting healthcare, that's for sure. It's going back to this Calvinist ideology, right? Of you need to demonstrate through hard work your commitment.

SPEAKER_00 46:02

You need to prove to us that you deserve this.

SPEAKER_01 46:04

Yes. And that is what it's about. It's not about giving people what they need to survive. It's not really about helping them find the job. It's really just about demonstrating whether or not they deserve the things that they have.

SPEAKER_00 46:18

I highly recommend the podcast Uncertain Hour. To me, it may be the single most effective podcast done on these complex government policies that I have encountered and I listen to a lot of podcasts. They did multiple series on welfare. Like they did a series about TANF, which is the temporary assistance for needy family, also known as cash assistance. And they covered a lot of these policies and they did a really good job like highlighting just how absurd the work requirement for these programs are. Uncertain hour, fantastic podcast about like obscure government policies. If you want like an actual narrative example of how absurd means testing is, I would recommend that podcast. But obviously, we can't get into the details. There's so much to say. Okay, uh, anything else?

SPEAKER_01 47:02

No, I think I say like that's the crux of it. Like we didn't just talk for 40 minutes. But I mean, that is what I'm seeing is the Protestant work ethic brought to light here. And as I mentioned earlier, the issue with this and the issue of this doctrine is that they flatten these nuances because if you acknowledged any of this, right? Any of the complications of why it's problematic to say anyone deserves anything when it comes to things like healthcare and living wages and all of that, is that it challenges this doctrine to its core. And healthcare is the place where we see the biggest, most blaring contradiction to the Protestant work ethic, because poor health can come to any of us, regardless of what our jobs are, how hard we work, how morally virtuous we are, a life-changing accident, a chronic disease. All these things that are not down to our individual goodness and worthiness are possible. And I think, sure, of course, a lot of wealthier people in this country will be more fine than others in those scenarios, but you can't control that factor. And I think that is really what spooks people who hold this doctrine really dear, because they cannot handle the cognitive dissonance of considering whether everything that they have is not something that they earned. And I think that's where this doctrine really goes down a dark path, because by refusing to engage with that, you're going to refuse to engage with a society that could lift people up when they need it, that could be there when you yourself may need it, and that makes us weaker overall.

SPEAKER_00 48:31

Yeah, and that's a very beautiful conclusion and sentiment. And I would echo the same thing. And now we'll move on to the obligatory question that this series hinges on like how does this affect our public health and individual health? I think it doesn't take a leap to see why things like healthcare, cash assistance, SNAP is so important to our health. If you don't have healthcare, your health will suffer. If you don't have snap, if you don't have food when you need food, your health will suffer. If you're in poverty, your health will suffer. If you need housing but you cannot get housing assistance, your health will suffer, right? That's not the part that I want to get into because that's pretty obvious. Or at least it should be obvious. And if you don't think that's obvious, I'm surprised you're listening to this podcast. If you don't think that's obvious. But welcome. Yeah, you're welcomed, of course. I want to echo on that a little bit. It might not be you. You may be fortunate enough to never lose your job, to always have enough money to pay for healthcare, to always have food on the table. It might not be you. However, on average, everyone's life gets a little bit shorter when we live in a world where healthcare and basic necessities is not guaranteed. It's a little abstract to think of average lifespan, but it's true. The average lifespan of a society is lower when these necessities are not guaranteed, and you are part of that average. Whether it affects you directly, whether you feel it or not, you are part of that average. A wide swath of Americans, the estimates vary, but around a third do not have emergency cash to fund sudden unexpected expenses. Depending on the survey, this amount might be $400. There is a survey that says a third of Americans do not have $400 in cash. They would need to either use a credit card or borrow money or sell something. Other surveys said $1,000 or $2,000. Doesn't matter. Every survey has their own number. But the point is there is a wide section of America who are unable to cover sudden cash expenses, which means you are more likely than not one disaster or one medical emergency or one mass layoff away from being in a position of need. And wouldn't it be nice if being in that position of need doesn't mean sudden death, which is kind of what our current system is trying to go for.

SPEAKER_01 50:35

And on top of all this individual circumstance, right? This idea that no emergency could happen to you that would put you in a financially precarious position. I don't know how many people that's truly true for. There's all this, you know, social system-wide public health stuff that people don't always internalize as like a material outcome they could experience, but is very real impact on the state of our healthcare system and how prepared we are to live in a world where everyone has fast, easy, good access to healthcare institutions or access to switching jobs when we want to. So it's like you'd really not always see the tangible impacts, but it very much is all there.

SPEAKER_00 51:14

I'm glad you brought it up. I'm gonna go on like a hypothetical. I'm gonna need you to walk with me.

SPEAKER_01 51:19

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 51:19

This is all conjecture, but I think I have a good basis for this. Another way that this doctrine, the Protestant work ethic doctrine, is harmful to public health and well-being is that it organizes our society in a very precarious way. There's a reason why welfare is called the social safety net. We love safety nets because it saves people, right? If you're walking, I don't know why you would be in a position where there are safety nets. I'm trying to think of a realistic position.

SPEAKER_01 51:44

Walking in a pier scaffolding, I guess. Yeah, scaffolding is perfect.

SPEAKER_00 51:47

Yeah, scaffolding. We love safety nets. Safety nets are good. We would love to have safety nets.

SPEAKER_01 51:52

Yeah, they're not called buzzkill nets.

SPEAKER_00 51:53

Yeah, exactly. In a society that does not have good social safety nets, the people's mentality and behavior is different than those people living in a society with a good social safety net. For example, if we have good welfare, their first manifestation of this is the transformation of labor. Anti-welfare is anti-labor. Because hypothetically, if you know there's a good social safety net and that's going to catch you, if you hate your job, but if your job doesn't treat you right, wouldn't you be more comfortable quitting said job if you know that you have welfare to fall back on? Compared to what we have now. I don't have the numbers, but I know for a fact that many people are working terrible jobs just to make ends meet. I know two people personally that are in jobs that they wish that they could quit, but cannot because of how the market is right now. And this affects employers too. Employers are more likely to make working conditions better if they know that workers can just leave and not immediately threaten with poverty when they do choose to leave a job. This is one of the ways that having a good welfare system is benefit for everyone, even if it doesn't personally affect you. A good welfare system lifts everyone. Working condition overall will improve.

SPEAKER_01 52:59

This is a really interesting point, MJ, because it just reminded me of this element of the Protestant work ethic I don't think we touched on, which is not only that hard work is instrumental to your success, but also that there is like a pride and a morality in doing gruling hard work. And I think we see that here too, where I don't know that everyone who believes this would be willing to do grueling hard work, but they love the idea of like, oh, we didn't have this benefit when I started in the workforce. We grinded it out.

SPEAKER_00 53:28

Obsession with suffering. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 53:29

Yeah. And I think that pride and suffering, again, very rooted to like our colonialist ethos and this idea of founding America has never really died. So I think that is a huge aspect of socially why we have not managed to make as much progress as other countries in workplace protections, because a lot of people think it's like weak or too cush to argue for things like this.

SPEAKER_00 53:53

Yeah. They see virtue in suffering. Yeah. They see virtue in grueling work, and they don't see improvements in the working condition as like, oh, my life is better. They see it as, oh, you young kids, you didn't get to work 80 hours a week.

SPEAKER_01 54:08

You didn't put in your dues to get where I am. Yeah, exactly. Like I did. And it's again just this idea of like, I am in this managerial role because I spent 20 years grinding it out in a terrible work environment, and someone comes in in their 20s is like, yeah, I don't want to do that. I don't actually think that's necessary to be in your role. And it's very hard for people to accept.

SPEAKER_00 54:30

Another way that this has public health implication is that a robust welfare system will dramatically reduce crimes. So much crime is crimes of poverty. And um, of course, there are always people that will commit crime no matter what, barring those people aside.

SPEAKER_01 54:43

Right. But the controllables we have with all of the data we have indicates that yes, if we have more prosperous welfare systems, then we have lower crime.

SPEAKER_00 54:53

Yeah, so lower crime, better health for everyone, less money you have to spend on law enforcement, less stress, and we know that stress is a silent killer. This one is more tendential. I wanted to get your take on this. If you have a good, solid social safety net system, it probably means less risk-taking behaviors in terms of personal finance. If you want people to find a job and work their way up, you have to give them a sense of security. If I'm desperate and I know there's no safety net to fall back on, I am less likely to be like, or you know what? I'm just gonna take this $20 per hour job and like work my way out because I could lose that job at any point. There's no security to me. So by having a sense of security, you are actually more likely to do the hard work.

SPEAKER_01 55:36

Yes, you might be like, hey, maybe I'll pursue this technical certificate or all of these other things that require time and require a little bit of risk for you to secure a different future. And if you're struggling, you just don't have the ability to make those kinds of leaps.

SPEAKER_00 55:50

You're gonna take bigger swings because you're desperate. I'll end on this. I want to hammer this point home for the end. Welfare programs should not be viewed as a cost, it should be viewed as an investment. Welfare is self-adjusting. If you have good welfare, over time, fewer people will need welfare. Because when you lift everyone up, the people that actually are in that position move up and they don't need it anymore. And you create a society that's more thriving and welcoming so that people are less likely to fall on the safety nets, it self-corrects. Anyone who views welfare as a cost, I think is thinking way too short term. You gotta play the long game, which is the thing in public health. You gotta play the long game. And if you play the long game, you would invest so much in these safety nets because you know that it lifts everyone and over time it will self-correct. Welfare is an investment, welfare is not a cost.

SPEAKER_01 56:39

Yeah. And I think structurally, especially when we're talking about Medicaid and work requirements for health insurance and all of that, it's a huge investment. I mean, we we mentioned rural disparities in healthcare earlier. It's like if hospitals can even exist in all the communities in the US, they need Medicaid. So we all prosper in very concrete ways sometimes by offering these things that we can all collectively benefit from.

SPEAKER_00 57:04

So there you have it. If you believe in the Protestant work ethic, you on average will probably have a shorter life.

SPEAKER_01 57:10

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 57:11

So don't believe in the Protestant work ethic.

SPEAKER_01 57:14

That is such an interesting thing. When I was reading about the Protestant work ethic, there were so many articles. And to be fair, I think this is just headline writing that was like, is the Protestant work ethic dead? Or like, was it ever true? And I was like, I mean, the Protestant work ethic, I don't think the argument should be that we're like this because of how hard the Protestants work. It's like this is the ethos we've always had for ourselves. And I think that's the way to look at it and why as an ideology it can be so broken, because in so many practices it doesn't deliver. It's like we can believe this about ourselves. I don't think it's inherently bad to hold a little bit of that view, but you have to acknowledge the ways in which it wasn't part of the founding of our country, who were the people with the work ethic that built this place in all the ways that it doesn't deliver today. And maybe the Protestants weren't right about everything, and we've evolved our communities in many ways. It's a doctrine that is really interesting because it has nuggets of ideas that you find in like really fundamental texts, like the Bible, right? But the way that people like John Thuon are using it today is so incredibly broken and so incredibly extreme that if you narrow everything down into this view and flatten it into he who does not work will not eat, then yeah, it's not gonna be good.

SPEAKER_00 58:34

On average, we'll all have shorter lives. If you really want to take this ideology with you, may I propose the Marx version of this ideology from each according to his ability, and most importantly, to each according to his needs.

SPEAKER_01 58:48

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 58:54

Thank you for listening to Death by Doctrine. If you like the show, please tell everyone you know about the show. That is the best thing that you can do to help us. Also, leave us a review, that helps us a bunch as well. I have other podcasts, including Everything is Public Health, and Public Health is for everyone. For more information, check out the website, everything is public health.com. Thank you so much for listening.