Seems to be that way. I've seen a lot of comments and posts on various websites making that very point. Overheard a couple co-workers the other day parroting the same line. "We trust the government to give us clean water, maintain the roads, [etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.], but letting them provide health-care is too socialist?!?!"
Pretty much every government program I see on an average day is state or local. Water, sewer, schools - all local. Roads and police are a mix of state and local. Power, gas, etc are all monitored or regulated primarily by the state.
You can realistically get your voice heard on local or state issues. If some politician or unelected desk jockey is doing something stupid, getting him canned isn't impossible. At the fed level, reform ranges from exceedingly difficult to impossible.
If we need a socialist healthcare system, why not at the state level? Let states that want to be socialist do their thing, and let states that want to be less socialist do their thing? If a citizen disagrees, they can move and still be in America.
That's the typical argument I use with folks that want socialism. I try not to sell it as a 'free market' brand of socialism, they might get offended.
