they were, after all, federalizing healthcare, right?
Who was? The Democrats via ACA? Is "federalizing healthcare" a buzzword that maps to "bad" or "good"? Because it sounds like a Republican talking point, but here you seem to be saying that it would have been good for California.

And you are so blinded by your prejudice that you simply forget that that was a major republican platform in the healthcare debate.
See, that right there is why people always seem to miss the point you're trying to make. You're assuming that I'm advocating positions based on Republican or Democratic talking points. So you make arguments that are loaded with buzzwords and shorthand which you assume I understand.

I'm not advocating a Democratic talking point. I'm saying:

* The OMB analysis shows that ACA will reduce healthcare costs.

* I don't believe insurance company statements blaming the ACA for their rate increases. That doesn't mean I assume the government is more trustworthy, just that I don't trust the insurers.

* Total cost savings could be a wash, or even show a slight increase in costs, and I would still support covering everybody. Note that before you get to focus on defining "slight" so you can argue about this point, you first have to get past the OMB analysis.

Show me something as comprehensive, that reaches a different conclusion, and explain why I should favor that analysis over the OMB, and you'll have the makings of a real argument.