Vermont tried it first, and it is tiny, and stopped it because it was unaffordable. I would say the correlation is with how Democrat a state is, not how populous it is. And while it is good for political campaign slogans, I highly doubt CA/NY/MA legislators actually vote it into law.

>Massachusetts may try it as well: https://masscare.org/

Massachusetts has had 98% health care coverage for more than 15 years. (The only countries in the world with more than that are those, such as the UK, in which no membership card is needed for receiving care.)

Health care coverage with a deductible and copays is not at all similar to taxpayer funded healthcare such as that in the UK.

That has nothing to do with my point, which is that Massachusetts has 98% coverage.

Neither the UK's monolithic NHS that combines single-payer insurance and (more or less) 100% free on delivery with no membership card, nor Canada's single-payer insurance with no legal private alternative, is the norm internationally. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the Netherlands all have Obamacare-like systems with dozens of competing private insurance plans with premiums. 30% copay is the norm in France's three separate government insurance plans. Australia has single-payer insurance but people are heavily incentivized to move to private plans. Etc., etc.

I can't help but read "massacre" when I see "masscare"...

As they say, naming things is harder than you'd think