A lot of things have changed since 2000, particularly the cost of delivering healthcare. It's much more expensive now than it was then, and as we saw in Vermont, not even the most liberal states are willing to take on the burden of single payer.
Which is why it's more important than ever that it be implemented: the primary justification for doing so is a reduction in cost. It was 13% in 2000; it's 17.5% today.
Furthermore, individual states can't reasonably implement affordable universal health care for the same reason that individual states can't reasonably implement effective gun control measures. Only when it's the law of the land within 100% of our sovereign borders can you forcibly restrict access (in the case of guns) or forcibly lower costs (in the case of healthcare) and make it feasible.
I don't disagree with the general long term goal Griffin, but given the electoral response to Obamacare, would you not agree that pushing for single payer or something similar right now would be a poor use of political capital? Personally I'd try to change Obamacare at the margins while focusing my efforts elsewhere if I was a Dem pol.