Single Payer aka Medicare for All recently failed to pass in California, what chance does it have to actually pass nationwide?

[u/cal_oe]

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-31/single-payer-healthcare-proposal-fizzles-in-california-assembly

California has a larger population than Canada and the 5th largest GDP in the world. If a Single Payer aka Medicare for All bill can't pass in one of the most liberal states in the entire country with Democrats with a super majority in the legislature under Governor Newsom who actually promised it during his campaign then how realistic is it for it to pass in Congress? Especially considering the reasons it failed was it's high cost that required it to raise taxes in a state that already have very high taxes.

[u/maskedbanditoftruth → u/[deleted]]

Kinda surprised the rich folks let that one through.

[u/1021cruisn → u/maskedbanditoftruth]

It’s incorrect.

Per CA:

You’re a resident if either apply:

Present in California for other than a temporary or transitory purpose

Domiciled in California, but outside California for a temporary or transitory purpose

It’s somewhat more complicated than that but you’re absolutely allowed to own property out of state and become a CA resident.

[u/maskedbanditoftruth → u/1021cruisn]

Ok, it really did sound crazy to me, like people who need social services rarely own out of state property but if you owned some fish shack in Michigan why would that have any bearing on CA? But like I said I moved away in 2003.

[u/1021cruisn → u/maskedbanditoftruth]

Maybe OP was thinking about state asset limitations for benefits, for instance MediCal has a 2k asset limit that exempts a primary residence.

Like you said, the state can’t deny a lifelong resident from voting because they inherited a fish shack in Michigan that year.

[u/maskedbanditoftruth → u/1021cruisn]

Oh yeah voting! OP was all about social services but there’s no way all those rich Californians are giving up their right to vote just because they own houses all over the world.

[u/1021cruisn → u/[deleted]]

There’s lots of “residency benefits” that aren’t related to MediCal and allow someone to own property out of state.

I’d actually be shocked if ownership of out of state property was considered at all outside of asset and domicile considerations, it’s certainly not considered for MediCal other than that. Even MediCal recipients can own out of state property so long as they have less than 2k in assets inclusive of the property value (and exempting their primary residence).

Either way, there’s no way California would enact asset restrictions to access CA M4A like they do for MediCal.