"I've heard a lot of reasons why persons might vote no.  I haven't heard a good reason yet."

'Perspective' is something the Governor, for all his trappings, does not seem invested in.  He can argue that none of the reasons are good, but this is a man that has been immersed in government overreach his entire life.  He has no reverse gear, and this is all perfectly normal.  In order to further the issue, he drapes it in compassion and charity.  Ignoring the political pressure he now asks Michigan residents to place on so-called vacationing state senators, he says:

"This is not about politics, this is about doing the right thing for Michiganders"

Which Michiganders by and by, might be seeing such things as the right thing? Those who will get something for nothing?  those who will get a second, third, fourth chance at health insurance redemption? Will it be the hospitals that see a great windfall as taxpayers pony up even more for all the best government sponsored intent?  What of those, who simply want to see an end to private insurance options and free markets?

No, there are multiple sides to this argument, and the "right thing" has nothing to do with expanding misery and social dependence on government.  Certainly the governor sees there are multiple perspectives as well?  At 00:06:43 in the video KRH posted: (keep it open - There is more)

"I'm sorry, that's part of leadership. ..  Part of being a leader is you can't make everyone happy."  "In view you have to do whats in the best interest of the majority of Michiganders."

What if the best interest in your view is a complete redistribution of wealth from those who have to those who 'need'?  What if.. "the best interest of Michiganders" was served by a Jonestown koolaid drinking affair of 100,000 or so perpetual non producers? What if like lemmings, the best interest of the Michigan herd was to have 48% jump from a cliff?

Harsh?  Not really.  I don't think so.

As for making everyone happy, we all have different reasons for not wanting the expansion of welfare like the Governor does. But lets for the sake of argument break down such a trite statement that could just as easily have emanated from my own pipes. (but for different reasons)   At 00:08:42 of the same video:

"We're basically subsidizing the rest of the united states"

Decrying the lack of a senate vote further, Snyder then goes on to ask at (00:08:54 )

" isn't it better to say we're gonna try a solution instead of simply saying no?

The word "NO" has saved more souls, more lives, and more sanity than blindly thrashing about with empathetic reactionary devices. "Solutions" abound for all manner of things.  Some of them might actually work. However, could we argue for the ethics of painful forced human drug testing if it saves many more humans from experiencing that pain later on?  Is it moral to follow solutions that clearly cross the line from natural rights that we are endowed with, to those assigned by 'empathetic' and concerned government leaders?  Is all of that OK, so that we might assign fairness of care?

Consider the abundance of decisions one makes in the course of their lives.  Some of them cross the line from being responsible to dangerous.  Some, while seemingly innocuous and harmless have long lasting effect and costs. We own our life choices.  Some of us are fortunate to have other safety nets, and some of us learn early enough on through our mistakes to adjust our behaviors and priorities. In the end however, a long term smoking habit, a daily fast food regimen, or irezumi might actually have an effect on a person's longevity and general health. And unless a person is monogamous, or chaste, a whole host of health issues can develop more easily than otherwise.

All of the choices one makes in their life has effect and consequence. Frankly, no single one of us can monitor, nor guide an entire population into eating healthy, spending within their means, get them to quit taking drugs, stop smoking, inking up, or having sex like an oyster eating rabbit.  Aside from the fact I have no interest in doing so, it is not my responsibility nor that of anyone else.  It is also outside of our responsibility for the ailments that come from such decisions.

How hard is that concept to grasp?

Governor Snyder, the democrats in the legislature, and all the social redistributionists in the country can cry about making people healthy, yet they will draw the gun and put it to other heads in order to make that happen.  Somehow, progressives, empathetic folks, and the looters who profit from big government can disregard such logic and reasoning.  All the while, there are people who truly cannot provide for themselves through no action of their own, and we as society give THEM the shaft by cheapening the true protection our civilized society has to offer.

The notion of socialized medicine is nothing new.  There are numerous places to look if one wishes to see the results of "Trying a solution instead of simply saying no". History is replete with examples of failed redistribution and best intent, and even where a modicum of success is met, it still does not pass the ethical question of whether or not it is right to make one person pay for another person's poor judgment.

And guess what?  Even IF IT WORKS, it can be wrong.

I would insist that 'Leadership' is not exhibited by feel good acts where a majority of Michigan's citizens want something given to themselves, or the not-so-impoverished of 133%, as Snyder's posture suggests.  Leadership is the art of doing what is moral, what is legal, and what protects the rights we have been endowed with from our birth.  We are not designed as a nation of many wolves and few sheep, though it might seem at times the heated breath and culling is upon us. Our promise as citizens in these United States was that our governments would not place the yoke of responsibility of one upon another, and that our unified success was more dependent on the ability of the individual to succeed or fail in his or her own right, thus earning just recompense.

The constitution reflects recognizable truths and reflects on the inalienable rights we are granted as a gift from God; our creator.  These are not negotiable from one man to another, nor are they easily argued against.  Who might argue that one does not have the right to live, the right to be free, or the right to enjoy the fruit of one's hands?  It is one thing to argue that as a social compact we collectively protect those rights with courts, civil protection and infrastructure, but yet another when we assign away our rights in order to satisfy some false premise of being our brother's perpetual keeper; even in light of his or her perpetual bad choices.

Those heroes who oppose expanding welfare and growing government are agents of sanity and uphold the oath of office to defend our constitution that in turn protects US.  Their ability to see through the smoke and mirrors comes from their dedication to that pursuit.  These are not the 'kings', or nobles who dispense goodwill, circuses, and honorariums to appease the peasantry.   They are truly Republican, and rule of law, and simply put are honoring the document that protects us from the soft tyranny of benevolent overlords.