The problem with this line of thought is that the US is orders of magnitude larger, more diverse, and more complex than most European nations. For any single European nation I'd wager at least two of those are the case.

But we have a way to do this already without massive Federal overhauls - allow individual states to do what they want. This means the decisions are made closer to the people, so California can do what California wants while Mississippi can do what Mississippi wants. It also has the side benefit of California not paying for services in Mississippi.

Personally if one of the US states offered non-employer-based, single-payer healthcare I would move there in a heartbeat. If it's as successful as proposed, it would not take very long to most states to offer something similar. At that point, depending on individual implementations, it would be much easier to extend it to the Federal level.

I can't even figure out how diversity would factor into it. Medical treatment depends very little on people's race or culture. I don't get it at all.

That said, I do think we're moving in an encouraging direction. The percentage of the developed world that's willing to recognize others from different cultures and backgrounds as part of their own society seems to be growing, ever so slowly and fitfully. There will be years and perhaps even decades feel like regressions, but on average it feels like things are getting better.

IMO this isn't clearly true. Lots of states (especially those that currently have the worst health care outcomes) seem far more driven by the ideology that has caused their problems than by this kind of pragmatism. Example 1: the ACA's Medicare expansion.

Hell, it might even work the opposite way: proof that something worked in California could end up as an argument against it. "Candidate x wants to implement the same sort of government health care system that's taken over California. This November, send him a message that we don't do things that way here."

[0] http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/26/growing-gap-in-favora...

EDIT: also, I think this framing can badly mislead us: "If the people Mississippi don't want single-payer health care, and the people in California do, …". We get a picture in our head of Mississippi residents monolithically not wanting it while Californians monolithically do. In actuality it may be that 49% of Mississippi residents want it and 51% of Californians do. This is of course a broader topic (the benefits and failings of democracy and of various electoral systems) but I do think it's worth being aware when certain ways of phrasing might distort.

EDIT2: I don't at all mean to imply that your framing was intended to mislead; I don't think that at all.

But this is likely what will happen and we will get there eventually. If you are poor in a lower income red state you will be screwed for 20 years unless you move.

When you put this word here, they succeeded. Socilized has a special meaning here, and it's installed through near 5 decades of propaganda (number could be wrong, you get the idea).

WHY pooling the society's resource for health care is "socialized"?!

WHY WHY WHY WHY...

When anyone examine this idea, everything falls apart. WHY? I don't know, and I will surprised anyone knows.

Because it is pooling some of societies wealth into the government to distribute as a good.

The only difference between this and full socialism is that this does not extend to the entire economy.

Also, keep in mind that a self proclaimed socialist is currently the most popular politician in the US.

Because that's what the word means.

...there were 40 other senators who were not voting for the ACA. The bill didn't, and still doesn't, have enough popular support. You can't blame one play on a lost game and you can't blame one voter for a lost ballot.

Doubling down on employer provided healthcare with additional mandates didn't help their case.

You can't do this in popular elections but you can absolutely do it in the legislature where everyone has a different constituency, policy portfolio, campaign contribution history, etc. Lieberman wouldn't vote for a bill with a public option, full stop. The math worked out such that Lieberman was necessary. Ergo, Lieberman killed the public option if there was no other Senator for whom the existence of a public option would have changed their Nay to a Yea. There was not, so you can absolutely lay the lack of a present day public option for health care in the US at his feet.

Assumes facts not in evidence, notably that there is any bill oriented to the policy objectives the ACA sought to acheive that Republican Senators would have supported at that time, and (for relevance regarding the responsibility for the absence of a public option in the ACA) that such a bill would include a public option of the type Lieberman opposed.

Republicans were going to vote against the ACA no matter what it contained. That means they had no power over the content of what got passed. Lieberman had huge power over the content.

This is one of the reasons why the Constitution and amendment process exist. The Supreme Court ruled that the passage of the ACA was technically OK (I disagree, but that's moot I guess) but they didn't rule whether it was wise.

I'm saying given the political and practical mess on this issue, it was unwise. I think partisan finger pointing is likewise a bad idea.

I don't see how it's "partisan finger pointing" to explain why the lack of a public option is the responsibility of a single independent senator. It vaguely fits for stating that the 40 Republicans were never going to vote for any form of the ACA, but that's really just a statement of fact.