Irony defined by Obama health care plan

Josh Gerstein from Politico has a must read piece today about how revenue from Obama's new tax proposals will pay for national health care reform and will affect the nation as a whole.
The piece basically outlines and explains a simple irony: the states that are most likely to profit from immediate health care reform, are the ones that voted against him last November and whose congressional leaders are least likely to support it, and states that voted for Obama, are those most likely to pay for it.
The budget outline that Obama announced last week clearly raises taxes on wealthier Americans in order to fund some sort of universal coverage in America, however, the vast majority of America's wealthier citizens live in places like California, New York, Connecticut, and Florida, places that voted for Obama, some by very wide margins.
The citizens most likely to benefit from the nationalization of health care would be in places where the states are unable, or unwilling, to fund health care for their poorer citizens; places like the deep south, and the prairie west. Placess that voted for his opponent, some by very wide margins.
The article states plainly: “The places that would benefit monetarily are those that oppose it, and the places that would be spending more money to shift revenues to other places generally would support it.”
Some Democrats say that if Obama's plan is enacted and largely conservative states are suddenly flush with federal cash to keep up with national regulations on funding health care, it could turn the country on it's head, a sudden permanent blue majority in places like Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas as grateful citizens recognize the benefits of government intervention.
Obama alluded to this too, in his speech the other day when he said: “Some of the issues surrounding health care — the way it cuts isn’t even going to be Democratic/Republican, there may be regional differences. There may be a whole host of other differences.”
Still, with Obama basically taxing his base, is it entirely plausible to think that maybe Nancy Pelosi's constituents in San Francisco, or Chuck Schumer's in New York, might be somewhat opposed to know that the very issue liberal democrats have been fighting for will be based entirely on their empathy for the very conservatives that have been trying to destroy the idea of nationalized health care as long as the debate has been around?
This is up for debate, but I'd definitely like to see where this one lands.

PS. Speaking of California, the states proud governor, who is the GOP's unlikely standard bearer on universal health care will be chatting up the president in Southern California next week when Obama makes a visit to tout his new plans.
When was the last time Obama visited Washington State? Oh yeah, in February of 2008.