california’s medical plans will go on whether the aca lives or not because there actual state law and not going anywhere
The analogy between freedom of interstate (US) migration and immigration from other countries only holds if you have open borders. I mentioned it as a straw man of the right because, in fact, that’s just what it was during the last election: Trump claimed that “… Clinton had made a ‘radical call for open borders, meaning anyone in the world can enter the United States without any limit at all’.” and he made that claim multiple times in multiple different ways.
I had forgotten about that particular thread, so point taken there, although to be fair the OP was talking about a sort of Schengen area comprising first-world nations with similar economies and not completely open borders of the kind Trump was accusing Hillary of promoting. And even so, there wasn’t much agreement with that, and I pointed out why it might be problematic even between the US and Canada, though I do favor stronger economic ties.
I also believe that there is a role for the federal government to provide funding in lieu of Medicare to states that choose to implement UHC, which is the final piece that would put us in complete agreement. 
I don’t know to what extent migration of the sick and elderly to UHC states would be a problem if only some states chose to adopt it, but I suspect it could be quite problematic. Residency requirements would solve the problem of “medical tourism” but not the problem of permanent relocation.
The problem didn’t happen in Canada for several reasons. When Saskatchewan chose to go it alone in 1947, they didn’t have the money for full UHC so it was only a hospitalization plan, and even at that, it was only ten years before the feds agreed to cost-sharing and four years after that, all provinces had signed on. It probably wasn’t likely that there would be mass migration to a sparsely populated prairie province just for hospitalization benefits, and Saskatchewan wasn’t unique for very long anyway. In any case, five years after hospitalization coverage became universal, in 1966 the framework for joint federal-provincial funding for full UHC systems administered by the provinces was in place.
You mean to tell me the Canadians have endured fifty years of this socialist nightmare! I gasp in horror!
Yes, it’s amazing – ten provinces each had 50 years to figure out that the Dark Days of Socialist Hell™ had come upon them, and not a single one of them did a damned thing about it! The nice American insurance companies even graciously offered to help, but there’s no reasoning with crazy Canucks. Now we all have to stand in line at the DMV to get our rations of government health care, just like it says on all the right-wing Facebook posts. On the plus side, you can renew your plates at the same time you get your prostate examined, often by the same clerk.
Incidentally, I just realized why this board is so quiet right now – it’s Thanksgiving weekend in the US. Not in Canada, though. The Socialists moved the date back a month and a half just to confuse everyone.
Yup, I vaguely recall something about California enshrining the ACA into state law because of fears of repeal.
However, the real issue in the US is health care costs. We spend 18% of GDP on health care, other wealthy nations spend 8-12%.
Can the states do anything to make health care more affordable? Will they? That is the real issue.