Having said that, FDR achieved similarly ..... money.
There can be no reasonable comparison between 1933 and 2019/20 America as relates to potential for major, transformational legislation.
In 1933, America was suffering it’s worst economic crisis
ever. One quarter of all American adults were unemployed, having no ability to provide for their families. They were absolutely desperate, pleading for any lifeline from the federal government and FDR offered that.
Regarding medical insurance, the point is that people generally don't care how their healthcare is provided so long as they get the healthcare they need; satisfaction or not, there is no especial attachment to a multipayer system with for profit insurers. Meanwhile, health care consistently polls as the top concern of voters, while majorities report that the existing health system has major issues:
New Poll Shows Health Care Is Voter's Top Concern | RealClear Opinion Research | RealClearPolitics
It’s already established that healthcare consistently polls as a top concern for Americans, and while most aren’t 100% satisfied with their current health/medical insurance plan, they aren’t interested or willing to give it up for a government run single payer program.
“ solid majorities of Americans rate the coverage (69%) and quality (80%) of the healthcare they personally receive as "excellent" or "good."
Most Americans Still Rate Their Healthcare Quite Positively
“When Americans are asked whether they support a “Medicare for all” system that would replace all current insurance with a generous government program, a majority often say yes. But when they’re asked follow-up questions, they often reveal that they’re not familiar with the details of that plan — or that they would also be happy with other Democratic policy proposals.”
“Most Americans want everyone to have coverage, but some people are willing to sacrifice more to get there than others,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “The people who are willing to sacrifice more are the people who have less to lose.”
How Americans Split on Health Care: It’s a 3-Way Tie - The New York Times
“ The advocates of Medicare-for-all have a ready retort: Other countries seem to have managed all right, so it must be possible here. But most of those countries’ systems started a long time ago, when health care was a much smaller share of the economy and fewer people had robust, comprehensive private medical insurance.
For example, when Britain’s National Health Service was established in 1948, health-care spending was less than 2 percent of gross domestic product, and many people simply couldn’t afford to see a doctor. That meant that the tax bill for universal coverage was relatively modest. But perhaps more important, for both doctors and patients, the program offered an almost pure gain. Doctors could keep seeing private patients who wanted to pay extra for faster personal service. But they could also collect a salary from the NHS for seeing patients who previously couldn’t have afforded them. It was win-win.
For the United States to do the same thing, the cost would at a minimum increase the federal budget by more than half again. And that would be political child’s play compared with the task of telling more than 100 million Americans that their current insurance is being canceled.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ricans-like-their-health-insurance-way-it-is/
As to ACA, it's not remotely comparable to an SP rollout, so I wouldn't say the outcomes of ACA are at all translatable to those of SP, and to be fair, statistically and on the whole, ACA has had positive material impacts in terms of constraining cost increases and improving coverage (though it is by itself woefully inadequate as a fix):
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia
I wasn’t comparing the two plans against each other, I was commenting on our government’s failure to keep it’s promises with ACA.
There is no reason to believe that the much more dramatic shift of all Americans to a single payer government run program would turn out better. In fact, considering that the “Medicare for all” plan would be a far, far more complicated transition, with many competing opposing views/motives, it is virtually certain that Americans would not end up with the plan promised.
* Note - It was necessary to truncate part of your post in order to fit my response.
