Except that Medicaid has always done all of that. This is merely an 'expansion' of medicaid versus an expansion of medicare.

medicare and medicaid already exist as mandates, with coverage for 'most' people up to 100% of the poverty line or more, depending on the state and age. The only people generally not covered (though many states DO cover them either through medicaid or through other 'assistance' including 'free' clinics.... are non working adults who aren't pregnant and aren't otherwise getting assistance from the government.

Kasich's plan, at least the way you've described it (I'm no expert on his policies) with the feds covering 100% of the cost of the poor is entirely different from the ACA where Medicaid, meaning the states cover 100% of the cost of many of the poor. That is a HUGE difference. The medicad expansion only covers '90%' of the cost of the coverage for those who weren't previously covered by the state. An entirely different subset. 100% of the cost of the poor vs 90% of the 20% or so not already covered by the states.

Please understand, I'm not saying that these policies are as different as I've portrayed them, I'm merely saying that you don't see much difference between those cohorts because of the wording, but if you understand the system, the differences are actually huge. Not one state would turn down the system you've described for kasich. It frees up tons of resources with no obligation.... as opposed to the ACA which gives 'most' of the resources for the required services, but not all... and it comes with a much greater possibility that the fed simply require more in the future, with or without additional resources.

and JAAO, I have to admit that when I first read this thread, I didn't really notice this... and now that I have, I can't stop laughing at it.

'An early dark-horse favorite' is a complete contradiction in multiple terms. First, 'an' means one of a number... so there were multiple... and the terms dark-horse and favorite are essentially antonyms.... especially 'early'.

What the term really seems to imply to me is someone who nobody really seriously expects to win, but is one of a number of candidates who, given an extremely odd and unlikely set of events, is fun to speculate about.

Like if Bernie gave up his socialist stance and changed parties, he'd be an early dark-horse favorite for the republican nomination.

I know that isn't how you meant it... but that's how it reads to me (now)