Anyone see this? The gov vetoed it but even if it passed wouldn't Trump have to approve it. What roll would the taxpayers have because people would have to buy into it. The people wouldn't be Medicaid it would be a stand-alone option I assume this would be like the public option.
Nevada's Medicaid for All
- Thread starter SamIam
- Start date
The plan was half-finished by any measure, lots of major questions unanswered. The bill was just 4 pages.
Approval would be needed from HHS (public option waiver, medicaid funding re-allotment), no guarantee that would be granted.
Taxpayers would essentially subsidize a portion of the cost, with enrollees paying the remainder (and eligible residents paying nothing, as they do now).
They call it "medicaid for all" because of the branding and because it shares the plan design/network/admin system/funding/etc. In reality it's a "subsidized Medicaid-style public option health plan".
It's sort of painful to watch these politicians run face first into the same wall over and over. Why even introduce an incomplete bill? Why re-introduce the same bill with the same issues? In my state, the same single payer bill from 1992 is introduced, and fails, every year, for the same reason, and they never update it.
Approval would be needed from HHS (public option waiver, medicaid funding re-allotment), no guarantee that would be granted.
Taxpayers would essentially subsidize a portion of the cost, with enrollees paying the remainder (and eligible residents paying nothing, as they do now).
They call it "medicaid for all" because of the branding and because it shares the plan design/network/admin system/funding/etc. In reality it's a "subsidized Medicaid-style public option health plan".
It's sort of painful to watch these politicians run face first into the same wall over and over. Why even introduce an incomplete bill? Why re-introduce the same bill with the same issues? In my state, the same single payer bill from 1992 is introduced, and fails, every year, for the same reason, and they never update it.
One simple reason...the system is broken and we all know it.
Therefore we will always hear about "reform" of one sort of another but the truth is that it is to complex and their is to much money for the politicians to make.
They know that if they try to fix it they will suffer politically, like the Dems did after passage of the ACA and the Republicans are now.
I'm just afraid that it will become a "state" issue and that will make it much more confusing and worse than the health care system is today.
Therefore we will always hear about "reform" of one sort of another but the truth is that it is to complex and their is to much money for the politicians to make.
They know that if they try to fix it they will suffer politically, like the Dems did after passage of the ACA and the Republicans are now.
I'm just afraid that it will become a "state" issue and that will make it much more confusing and worse than the health care system is today.
Insurance has been a state issue since the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.
That was actually one of the major hurdles with HCR, and led to many of the most profound issues with the current implementation (state vs. federally made exchanges, optional medicaid expansion, risk adjustment payments, community rating vs age banding, etc.)
That was actually one of the major hurdles with HCR, and led to many of the most profound issues with the current implementation (state vs. federally made exchanges, optional medicaid expansion, risk adjustment payments, community rating vs age banding, etc.)
Similar threads
