that's a bit of a misnomer since it was passed by the overwhelmingly democratic statehouse while romney fought it the entire time

They've been asked. Request was denied.

It's certainly harder to do on a state level. There is no inter-state border control. Doing single payer on a state level is likely to bring in the worst cases from at least neighboring states.

California might do it, but they have a few big advantages. First, their population is high enough that they can absorb a little cross state immigration without hitting the balance too hard. Second, the states near them tend to be more sparsely populated, unlike the east coast.

Basically you're looking at only California and New York if you want to do it on a state level. And they're both going to face huge lobbying against it.

If this is something you want to get done, it's got to have a lot of public support. And if you're able to gather that much public support, why not just do it federally? It works better that way anyway.

Maybe. It's worth trying.

Really shows me how traumatized I am by United Health Care when I see UHC and it immediately brings them to mind and not Universal. I had to put in some work to understand that Acronym

It's only cheaper if you consider current healthcare costs. It would require tax increases, and under current progressive tax models, those would be disproportionately high for the upper class, for whom the increase would not offset the elimination of their healthcare premium.