‘Medicaid for All’ is NOT a Substitute for Medicare for All 1

'Medicaid for All' is NOT a Substitute for Medicare for All

By Lee Stanfield for the HOPE Steering committee.

Unfortunately Nevada’s “Medicaid For All” is definitely not a substitute for “Medicare For All”, nor will it bring the savings, the comprehensive coverage, and sustainable universality that Medicare For All will bring.

It is certainly understandable that people are struggling to find temporary solutions to increase access to coverage for everyone, esp. those with low incomes and those with pre-existing conditions. However, Nevada’s “Medicaid For All” plan, which is awaiting the Governor’s signature, is not likely to even be a “public option”.

In fact, it is not a single-payer plan at all. Nevada currently has four Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) to choose from:  Aetna, United Health, Centene, and Amerigroup (owned by Wellpoint), which are all privately… not publicly owned.

In addition, enrollees who would otherwise not qualify for Medicaid will have to pay premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The amounts of each of these have yet to be determined, as do the applications of any tax credits/subsidies for which the enrollee may be eligible. These kinds of complex administrative tasks will likely require significant bureaucracy and could become very costly, and even unsustainable in the long run.

So we need to make sure that this desperate effort to help all those who are being thrown under the for-profit bus, is not mistakenly seen by the public as being a state-based “Medicare For All”.

Medicare For All” is a truly universal comprehensive single-payer health insurance that will cover everyone for every medical necessity throughout their lifetime, while saving the average American taxpayer roughly $1,500 – 1,700 per year, and saving our national overall cost of healthcare $600 BILLION per year in administrative savings and reduced pharmaceutical costs.

Our hearts go out to Nevadans and all those in our nation who are being ignored by our current administration and Congress. However, instead of letting fear divide us and divert attention to any substitute system that is contaminated by the same profit motive that doomed the ACA, we invite Nevadans to join the 60% of voters who advocate for National Improved Medicare For All. Sixty percent is a potentially enormous voting block that could persuade our members of Congress to pass it, or be voted out in the next election.

We invite Nevadans to stand with us in demanding the ultimate cure for our ailing healthcare system… National Improved Medicare for All (HR 676).

One comment on “‘Medicaid for All’ is NOT a Substitute for Medicare for All

  1. Reply Eric Naumburg, M.D. Jun 16,2017 9:51 pm

    Medicaid was created as a program for the poor. Reimbursements to doctors and other providers are low and as a result fewer doctors participate in Medicaid than in Medicare, especially specialists.

    In Maryland (my home state) and I presume in Nevada oversight of the private, for profit HMO insurers in Medicaid is almost non-existent and certainly not transparent. There’s no way to tell where the money goes or how good the provider networks are. You would need transparent outside audits and secret shopper surveys to know the answer to these questions.

    Some people have found good care using Medicaid because the benefits tend to be more comprehensive and can include pharmacy and dental care for children in some states. Also, in some states there are no co-pays or deductibles. But to add more members without increasing the number of providers could easily overwhelm a new Nevada Medicaid for All system.

Leave a Reply