[johnwallz]

I think for a lot of conservatives, more than the cost, is the philosophical question of whether the Fed Govt should be involved in social welfare programs like healthcare. The original role of the Fed Govt was foreign policy and the economy in a republic of strong states. The country is pretty well split between conservatives and progressives and a one size solution for all 50 states is always going to piss off 50% of the country. Why not look to your state for Healthcare? When a Democrat was in the Whitehouse, Texas talked about secession and now that a Republican is in the whitehouse California was talking the same thing. The thing is why does CA evern care about the whitehouse. It's the 5th largest economy in the world. If it wants healthcare for it's people then go right ahead and leave the rest of us out of it. Massachusetts offered healthcare to it's citizens under Romney before Obamacare and people who were opposed to that in MA were free to cross the border into NH, a libertarian state.

[ykevinator]

Except for in Afghanistan, then social welfare is great.

[GVIrish]

I think for some conservatives it's about the philosophical question of the Fed Gov't should actually be doing. But IIRC most are supportive of Medicare/Medicaid so they're not totally against government run healthcare.

I find that Libertarian leaning people definitely look at the universal healthcare as something that shouldn't be a public good.

Each state could make its own laws and to that point I think some will make some movement on that front if universal healthcare efforts falter.

[JoeAltmaier]

Ha! States have been eroding local ability to make local efforts (our state minimum wage forbids counties/municipalities from choosing any other); feds have been eroding States rights to choose. All this under a party that pretends to support local small government. Of course they panic when that local small government tries something that they don't like, so they squash it.