The point here being that whether or not a universal health care system fails in MD is irrelevant in the bigger picture of things. Just keep trying at the state level until it reaches the federal level.
But all those instances you gave were either repealed outright, rejected by voters or ruled unconstitutional. I'm talking about a system that goes live, stays operational and then proceeds to implode spectacularly, and maybe even leaving the state's finances in a catastrophic situation. If there is a plan out there that can avoid all that by more than just luck without raising taxes so much that voters themselves prevent it from going live, then I'd like to see it, but as it stands now the idea if expensive and it would require repurposing Medicaid dollars I think. And it's not just about keeping it viable in the eyes of conservative voters on the fence with it, it's about keeping i viable in the eyes of Democratic politicians, who are easily spooked as it is. Another issue that state-level plans make me wonder about is people migrating to that state just for free healthcare, which could be a long-term issue if no other states do it. I don't think it's constitutional to ban interlopers from taking advantage of that system.
Also pre-1930s judicial rejection of Social Security seems like a nice preview of a conservative future: conservative judges reject everything big / notable the left wants to do, making up legalese to justify it as they go.
Saskatchewan and Alberta implemented systems with far more on the line, y'know what, the system was successful enough that now Canada has it.
And exactly how many Americans have seriously moved that way just for the free healthcare?
