I would be suprised if a state doesn't take it on, as suggested by members here. That's how it started in Canada in Saskatchewan. AMA saw it as clear poison, the CMA as pure Moscow and Pravda, and they poured everything into the province to stop it. The Saskatchewan premier who started it, a Baptist clergyman born in Scotland, was last year voted Canadian of the 20th Century.

A factor militating against US universal coverage may be a cultural difference between here and there. Our West was settled by hardy and independent old European immigrants, as yours, who wouldn't go to a doctor unless the Reaper was at the farm gate. But they came here for something better and, with inspirational leadership, recognized cooperative responsibility could work for health as well as other endeavours.

Canada's pioneer ethic evolved into a legislated system of, in effect, each one being responsible to every one for the important things that bind a society together---health, social welfare, education etc. Under a national equalization program which is a work in progress the richer provinces assist financially the weaker provinces so they may provide services to a national standard.

I won't put too fine a point on it here, but I think of it not so much as socialist, as so often implied here, but what a young country of fabulous wealth chose democratically as how they wanted their society to work, following Jesus's gospel of service and love. Every government, conservative and liberal, has strived to improve it---as the US evidences in the current debates.