Discussion on:

Lessons learned in Greece

The American people should all take that Greek trip to see what the future of the US will be like if we continue down the road to a European social economy. We should be looking north to Canada for a model of economic development and fiscal conservatism (except for their healthcare plan). Every voting American must become a political activist to make our government act responsibly. We can no longer assume our representatives are acting in our best interests.

The facts: US spends twice as much per person as Canada on healthcare and healthcare outcomes (life expectancy, infant mortality, obesity, etc.) are worse. The theory: US companies have plants in Canada because companies does not have to pay for healthcare.

...that following Greece's path will ultimately lead to bankruptcy.

The difference bewteen healthcare and being healthy is like the difference between a house and a home. A house is a piece of shelter that most people spend 30 years paying for, or possibly worse, renting, for most of their life. A home is wherever you live and take care of your yourself. Terms like "healthcare," "home loan," and "homelessness" have been confused with "sickcare," "house loan," and "house-lessness."

Healthcare has nothing to do with being healthy; it only pays for doctor visits, emergency care, and prescription drugs. And what healthy person would need those? Excercising, contributing to a community garden, getting plenty of rest . . . preventitive measures like these aren't covered by healthcare.

So, not to bash Canada and their healthcare system, but healthcare itself is merely a dead end. Suppossedly Albert Einstein has said (quite beautifuuly,) "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing."

So, health care, while not supportive of healthiness (like you point out) - does support a persons or family's economy, when bad luck strikes.
Sometimes bad luck strikes with Murphian precision, you know, and people can go bankrupt from health problems.
Healthcare is about two things: keeping the work force as capable of work as possible, and keeping health problems from becoming too much of a financial burden for the people who happen to contract them.

there won't even be a healthcare plan, "free" or paid or voluntary.

When governments all over the world are having problems meeting their debts, eventually, they'll run out of enough funding to take care of even the most basic of government functions, and there won't be anything left for social programs, including socialized medicine. Those who have it, should enjoy it while they can, because, the piper is going to have to be paid, sooner or later.

Sure, it could happen... if something occurs to stop all business, or at least turn it all the way down.
Otherwise it's just a question of matching spending to revenues.

and it devastated the country for more than 15 years, and we're still paying the price for many of the problems from the great depression.

Don't see it? Put on your "thinking" glasses. Don't be short-minded. Look at history.

Not all business will stop, but enough to render most government programs as null-and-void.

Of course, the dollar is overvalued now... and it keeps going up because some people are thinking their money is safer as dollars.
Sooner or later you'll have to burst that bubble or choke, just like you choked on the gold standard for ten years (the amount by which the depression was artificially prolonged by unsound policies)

what matters most is what businesses do, and what government do, and mostly, what people do.

But, the biggest problem for any economy, is what government does to affect businesses and the consumer. Right now, that intrusiveness has businesses and the people being very defensive and very careful with their spending. Spending is what's needed and if people are afraid to spend, then the economy will continue to contract, and we'll have fewer and fewer jobs.

Or matching revenues to expenditure. Nothing wrong with a high taxing economy if the taxpayers get worthwhile services in return. Some things are best provided by the government - think defence, infrastructure, education and yes, healthcare.

people's money, which is always the case with socialism, and then, there won't be any kind of services that can be provided; not defense, not healthcare, not social security, not road service, not food stamps, and not much of anything. We are already well on the way towards that eventuality, and your high taxing for expenditures will be the cause. Perhaps, you need to start doing a little bit of thinking about causes and effects, while also learning the lessons of history about countries that tried to do too much for the people, and ended up killing their productive side (aka: the economy), and destroying the country along the way.

Your tax and spend mentality is the kind that destroys countries. We are witnessing that right now, in the U.S. and in many parts of the world. A country cannot spend its way towards prosperity if the economy can't support that spending. High taxation is one of the major reasons that the economy is in the toilet.

Your tax and spend mentality is the kind that destroys countries. We are witnessing that right now, in the U.S...

No, you idiotic git! What we are witnessing in the U.S. is the failure, no, refusal to match revenues to spending levels. This idiocy was perpetrated by the G. W. Bush administration, which was handed a balanced budget by the Clinton presidency. Bush, Cheney, and their cronies, who apparently included nobody capable of adding 1+1 to get 2, promptly proceeded to throw rational fiscal policy out of the White House and, apparently, out of the Republican party..

Well, I finally got around to revisit this thread, and as usual, your garbage is still soiling the discussion.

Look, when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility, the democrats and socialists like you wrote the book on the subject.

Spending under Bush/Cheney didn't get so absolutely out of whack like it has under Obama, and their spending was nowhere near the obscene spending that happens whenever a democrat is in office.

While spending did go up under Bush, there were a few wars to take care of, but, under Obama, the spending is all for nonsense and without any results whatsoever, except to increase the debt and the yearly deficits. Spending without results is the same as flushing money down the toilet, whereas, under Bush, any spending did produce results, and the economy was quite prosperous under his administration. The only thing that undid the economy was the nonsense perpetrated upon the American people under previous democrats administrations, like Carter and Clinton.

So, again, you demonstrate your inability to think, and you continue soiling the discussion with more of your "sheet". Grow a brain already, and you might start making some sense.

None so blind...

In January 1981, the US national debt was just under $1 trillion. Since the Reagan tax cuts were passed, the only time the growth of that debt has slowed was in the last three years of the Clinton budgets. This is fact.

Bush went to war and cut taxes at the same time, declining to pay for war for the first time in American history. This is fact.

The economy tanked in the last year of the Bush administration. This, too, is fact.

Yet you continue to blame the current President for all the fiscal troubles this country faces.

You, sir, don't demonstrate the good sense God gave road apples.

and, you, sir, are completely clueless about the history and the facts on the issues you mentioned.

"I think I've said this before"

And, you were as wrong before as you are now.

"None so blind..."

True, but, there is nobody more blind than he that doesn't understand the entire truth behind the issues, and you refuse to examine the issues in complete context.

"In January 1981, the US national debt was just under $1 trillion. Since the Reagan tax cuts were passed, the only time the growth of that debt has slowed was in the last three years of the Clinton budgets. This is fact."

Yet, what Reagan inherited was a deep recession from Carter, and he (Reagan) had to do things to stimulate the economy towards recovery, and, as all smart-thinking economists understand, cutting taxes is a great stimulus to any economy, and for certain, those Reagan tax cuts did stimulate the economy to the greatest economic recovery seen in history, with GDP growth oftentimes reaching 8%, which economy then generated a huge tax revenue windfall, which, democrats, who were in control of congress, immediately saw an opportunity to go on spending sprees. What Reagan created with tax cuts, was an economy which most people, even most democrats, would be happy to see return. But then, Bush Sr (a RINO) and Clinton, immediately went on to raise taxes on everyone out there that was breathing, and thus, the economy took a few dives. In fact, Clinton inherited an economy which was growing at about 4%, and left the country with a recession for Bush Jr. to have to undo.

Now, you and I both know that, Clinton had nothing at all to do with balancing the budget in the last couple of years of his administration. The balancing of the budget was as a result of the republican congress, which forced Clinton to cut back on spending. Sure, the "near" budget balance occurred while Clinton was in office, but, he had zero to do with that "budget balance". In fact, Clinton fought the republicans, tooth-and-nail, to stop the republicans from passing their "balanced budget amendment". But, Clinton had to give in to political pressure and the republicans had their way, with Gingrich leading the way.

Now, when it comes to spending, every year that Clinton was in office, the national debt went up, and in fact, the debt was increased by about 25% during his administration, and, his spending sprees would have added a lot more to the debt and yearly deficits if it had not been for the republican congress, which essentially, neutered Clinton's spending sprees.

So, again, you have the facts completely wrong, and the only thing you could say positive about Clinton's years is that, he had a republican congress to reign him in.

"Bush went to war and cut taxes at the same time, declining to pay for war for the first time in American history. This is fact."

Bush went to war? Are you that dense?

Bush was forced to war, by the 9/11 attacks, which, if you were to have any kind of common sense at all, you would realize were planned and rehearsed and trained for during the Clinton years. War in Afghanistan was inevitable, and any president that didn't go after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, would have been run out of office.

Sure, Iraq was not a mandatory war, but, what Hussein was doing from Iraq was virtually no different from what the Taliban were doing from inside Afghanistan. So, it was, according to some military and diplomatic experts, the right time to go after Saddam, and in fact, the whole world, and especially the middle-east, are a lot better off without Saddam and his family creating havoc.

When it comes to paying for the wars, the economy under Bush was productive enough to pay for them, and in fact, tax revenues were more than paying for the wars and for the recovery after the 9/11 attacks. Again, the tax cuts under Bush stimulated the economy towards fantastic recovery from the Clinton recession, and it was generating, like in the Reagan years, fantastic tax revenues to handle the spending for the wars and other areas. In fact, in the last couple of years of Bush, the budget was very close to getting balanced, and without the budget gimmicks like Clinton had to use to make it appear that, the budget was getting balanced. Sure, spending under Clinton did go down, but, as a result of the republican congress budgets, and what Clinton did was to use budgetary and bookkeeping gimmicks to make it appear as if the budget was in complete balance and leaving a "budget surplus", which, none of it was real.

So, again, you either fail to understand the issues, or you are deliberately lying on the issues, or you are completely ignorant of the underlying facts on the issues, or, perhaps, you just let the democrat party's talking points speak for you.

"The economy tanked in the last year of the Bush administration. This, too, is fact."

That is a fact. But, the real underlying fact is that, the economy tanked, but, as a result of democratic policies of the past, under Clinton and Carter. The housing bubble occurred as a result of the CRA (a Carter bill), and the stringent enforcement policies for the CRA under Clinton, which forced banks and lending institutions to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay for them or had very bad credit. It's the stupidity of the democrats which caused the economy to tank while Bush was president, and it would've tanked under any president at the time, but, the REAL FACT is that, it was the democrats who caused the economy to tank. Bush had actually tried to reign in the lending and he also tried to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were actually encouraging the bad lending practices. But, no!, the democrats stepped in and stopped Bush from passing legislation to put a stop to the bad loans and to Freddie and Fannie. Again, the democrats caused the economy to go into deep recession. Are you smart enough to notice a pattern? Democrats take over the presidency, and leave the economy in recession, and then, a republican has to be voted into office to recover the economy from recession. It happened under Carter, and Clinton, and now, under Obama. Sure, Obama "inherited" the recession, but, he immediately went about making things many times worse. Democrats, who are really socialists, can't be trusted with the economy, and they've proven it over and over and over again. And, you, being so clueless and unthinking, will immediately blame a republican, even if he had nothing to do with a bad economy.

So, your versions of "that is a fact" is really, "that is how I lie about the facts".

"Yet you continue to blame the current President for all the fiscal troubles this country faces."

Absolutely, I blame him!!!

He is the most inept and clueless and idiotic president/"leader" ever in the history of the country, and perhaps in the history of mankind.

He took a bad situation, and promised to make things better, and proceeded to make things many times worse. That is the equivalent of taking a rotting meat, and turning it into dung. I thought Carter was pretty bad as president, but, the current idiot in the White House is many times worse. Even you must know that, but, you can't bring yourself to admit it.

"You, sir, don't demonstrate the good sense God gave road apples. "

It takes a smart person, a person with common sense, to understand the issues, and to understand the underlying sub-issues, and causes and effects, and you are quite lousy at that. You are as bad as the Obama, and you are part of what has made this country head towards self-destruction.

When you grow a brain and start doing some real thinking, then you can come back and tell me about not having common sense. You demonstrate the complete opposite of common sense, and you are completely unqualified to judge anybody else about their common sense.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the saying goes, but your right; prevention doesn't eliminate accidents or unfavorable outcomes. And I would agree that people have gone or could go bankrupt from healthcare and other medical costs. I can only imagine that it would be very scary.

However, if doctor visits and hospital stays are costing more than ever before--enough to cause bankruptcy--then paying a company or government entity to manage your money for you (which implies extra costs of administration) would certainly add to those costs, if I'm thinking correctly. Healthcare, it seems to me, is more or less a savings account . . . that is managed by someone else . . . and carries a monthly fee . . . and is suspiciously more accepting of deposits than withdrawals. It makes more sense, for me at least, to deposit a monthly "premium" to my own dedicated savings account or money market fund, and then pay the hospital/doctor out of pocket.

With this "healthcare plan" I can, for instance, raise or lower my "premiums" with wage reductions and pay raises, or switch "insurers" (banks) whenever I like. I choose which doctors are in my "network of providers," and pick the ones I like best. I don't risk losing my policy due to preexisting medical conditions or late physicals, and cannot be denied coverage. And, to top it all off, I'm making some (albeit meager) interest.

Quite right. If people can't afford medical treatment, leave them to die on the streets!

at it's finest.

Hope you understand the difference.

there were a 'sarc mark', I wouldn't use it.

Would you bother using it?

(Would anyone know if there is a "DUH!' emoticon?)

First you misunderstand an obvious sarcasm, then you just keep on going.

Your behavior is as lacking in manners as your arguments are lacking in deliberation.

But, one snide remark deserves another.

So, why is boxfiddler even bothering to post his nonsense? And why do you have to be the one coming to his defense? Is he (she) so helpless?

If I see you being abusive of others, it may amuse me less.
By the way, I do not fight for others. I do show support of the tone I would like to see perpetuated, also by showing resistance to its opposite.
It's my way of negotiating the kind of society I wish to live in.

The kind of society you wish for others is damaging and destructive and enslaving.

You believe in big government programs and in government control for too many aspects of people's lives.

Your ideology is socialist, and socialism needs big government, and big government needs to control people in order to get those people compliant with what government dictates.

That's not a free society. That's an enslaved society.

However, the damage from socialism is being felt, and people are beginning to wake up, and the people in the U.S. are getting ready to kick out our communist president, and even the Europeans are beginning to realize that, they need to replace the big government policies.

But, it's okay; you can continue to believe that your views are the better way, even in the face of all reality. You'll just be left behind, just like all the other failed socialists of the past.

If I'm abusive of others, it's because, a long time ago, I got tired of playing nice with the people who took advantage to advance their demonic and enslaving ideology. That's the way I perceive the democratic party's goals, and I will not play nice with anybody that believes in any part of their ideology.

I believe in a moderate society dominated by a well-educated middle class.
I don't believe in a society dominated by an uneducated lower class (idiot socialism).
I also don't believe in a society dominated by Robber Barons, such as you obviously desire.

but then, I realized that, playing the class card was counterproductive after realizing that, there will always be those that lead, and those that follow, and, without the leaders getting their rewards, neither the little guys nor the big guys would prosper. It's the nature of humans, and class warfare is a socialist tool.

Fact is, people need to learn to be more responsible for their own lives, and depending on the labor of others for their well-being, is not conducive towards a great society.

Even before government (aka: people) subsidized healthcare came about, people were not dying in the streets. So, why the hyperbole?

Fact of the matter is that, the way we are going, with government subsidized healthcare, and the many other social programs from "government", that we are headed towards a time when there won't be any funding at all for healthcare nor for housing nor for food stamps nor for social security payments, nor for even the most basic programs which governments are supposed to handle. There comes a time when we the people have to say, "enough is enough!". There is too much dependence on government for things that we should be responsible on our own.

Even then figures can be very misleading. The Canadians I have had contact with are here in the states seeking healthcare because Canadian healthcare is being controlled by someone other than doctors. According to there experience if you receive a diagnosis that you need immediate medical attention or face the possibility of death within four months you might expect to get an appointment for six months from now. You can manipulate figures all you want but people are coming to the US from Canada for better medical attention that is given by doctors and not bureaucrats. When medical decisions are based on cost rather than outcome you can certainly decrease cost and you will almost always decrease the positive outcomes along with it. I defer to some of the other replies for specifics. I doubt that those who believe the Canadian system to be superior have had much personal involvement with it. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Increased governmental involvement in health care will just speed us down the road toward monetary collapse. The idea that there is a silver bullet that somehow we can create a system that will give us more (better healthcare or anything else) and cost less does not work. The only way we can really get more through less is with innovation and discovery which is thwarted in a controlled setting because there is no incentive for the researcher or the investor. How many of us work harder longer hours to solve a problem without hope of some additional gain? Even if that gain is just not loosing our job.

I've spent a great deal of time with the Canadian medical system.

Are there waiting lists? Yes. Can urgent cases get quicker treatment? Absolutely.

There is no army of bureacrats deciding who gets what (unlike the US Insurance system). Doctors make the calls. And yes in hospitals have their own bureacracies, and many people in those bureacracies are doctors.

The government's role is to simply decide what to pay for and how much. It does not decide who has received too much. It does not decide whether or not you need to see a specialist. Those are calls that doctors make.

My mother's hip deteriorated faster than expected, and normally it would have been a 3 months wait. She was referred to the top specialist in the country, saw him in a week, and had surgery 2 weeks later.

My son had similar urgent issues as a toddler, he got into a top hospital (where many American pediatricians come to train) and was seen immediately. Had an MRI within hours of arrival.

The outcome figures are very telling. US has better outcomes in some areas, Canada in others, with striking similariries in population.

Urgent cases don't get quicker treatment when there is a backlog of urgent cases and there usually is. There's usually a 6 month wait to see a specialist for the first time to find out if there is a problem, let alone if it need immediate attention. The wait in the ER can be in excess of 12 hours. I know someone who was in the ER waiting room for 6 hours with a broken hip until he passed out in pain.
As for the non emergencies, it's common to wait 1-5 hours after your scheduled appointment around here, only to see a doctor for 10 minutes who is trying to rush you out as quickly as possible.

I don't blame these problems on free healthcare but there are definitely problems with the Canadian system.

My wife(now my ex) has had three high risk pregnancies, and several serious other issues. My son has had several issues, one requiring specialists and a surgeon. My mom was in and out of hospitals for the past 10 years, before she passed away.

Yes I've waited a long time in the ER. And at the same time there were people there who had the flu.

About things you have no clue about.

If you bother to look at the outcome studies you will find that in some areas Canadians get better treatment and live longer than Americans, in some it is reversed.

As for my family, I come from a large family, and we don't have more issues than many families I know.

which, means that studies are often performed with desired results being the main driver for those studies.

A study is only as credible as the research that's put into it. So, when a study is conducted, with a desired outcome, then the study is flawed. That's why there are many different studies that reflect different results, and the results are mostly dependent upon who is seeking or funding the research. The Canadian system is just as flawed as all other nationalized systems.

When it comes to your family's health problems, I was mostly going by what you posted, and what you posted seemed to indicate that, perhaps the care they're receiving is not good quality. In fact, no "one system fits all" kind of care is going to be of high quality.

Yes I am speaking from experience. I've waited in the ER with someone in severe pain in excess of 12 hours on a few occasions. After about 6 months she got to see a specialist to diagnose her condition. I got struck in the eye in an accident as a kid, temporarily lost vision in my eye, 6 hours before a doctor glanced in my eye and told me to go see an optomologist. As a teenager I tore most of the ligaments in my ankle, 7 hours before I saw a doctor, let alone got an x ray to see if it was broken.

After all, with all the money going into the US political system, there is a competitive advantage to be gained by skewing the numbers. People go skewing the numbers because they're looking for profits, or because they're protecting their mother lode. In this case the biggest culprits are Insurance and Big Medical.

Severe pain does not constitute a medical emergency. I don't know that case, but Doctors call the cases as they see them, and allocate resources on a basis of perceived need.

Also, the ER is for emergencies. There are usually time slots allocated for rush cases at normal clinics. Try going to one of those next time, if it's inside normal opening hours.

Do you really think that you have control over what type of heath care you get and when? Unless you are wealthy, you toe the line to the insurance companies and the drug companies. You need a second opinion every time you get a breast exam due to density of tissue? - tough, the insurance company will not cover it. So if your well off, you pay for it, just like a Canadian would do if they wanted it done outside the system.

I think I have more control that people with insurance companies in the US.

I can ask any time for a second opinion. I can see any doctor who I want. I can go to any hospital I want.

when the costs start getting out of control, like they did in the U.S. with Medicare and Medicaid and drug programs.

BTW, there is no problem with getting second opinions in the U.S. for any illness, and people can still choose their own doctor, and hospital. Insurance companies do have a network of doctors and hospitals, but, it's not as if people are limited on their choices.

The problem with nationalized healthcare is that, just like all other government programs, it take a long time for the problems, especially the funding problems, to start eating into the economy and then rendering that economy unworkable. That's what happened in the U.S. with so many large and costly social programs. Canada has not felt those problems yet, but they will; it's just a matter of time.

First off, I don't consider healthcare in Canada to be "nationalized". When Canada bought an oil company in the 70s, it was nationalized, as was "Air Canada" when it was bought (both now private BTW).

The organizations that delivery healthcare in Canada are not "owned" by the government. They may be heavily regulated, they may depend on government funding, but they are private institutions. We have hospitals run by religious groups, by Healthcare consortiums etc. The provinces have most of the regulations.

Secondly, we have had this system in place since the 50s. It isn't like it is new.

Look, if any organization is dependent upon government, for anything, especially for funding, then it's a government function, aka: a government run program, which essentially makes is a nationalized program.

A system doesn't have to be "officially" bought, or officially declared "nationalized". It is nationalized if it depends upon government to oversee it and to get funded in any way by government. It's also nationalized when government controls how it's run.

In the U.S., we've had social security since the 1930s, and people still of it as their "social security", but government dictates how much you will contribute and how much you will receive and when you will receive it, and where your money goes after you die. Same with Medicare, where people still think of it as "their Medicare", but again, it's government in control, even if they allow Medicare part C, which is a way to get an HMO to manage "your" healthcare; but, even there, it's the government that sanctions which organizations are eligible to manage your healthcare, and government still demands that, contributions go through them before it goes to your HMO. Thus, it's government healthcare, and a nationalized system of care. OdumboCare won't be any different.

I you personally don't have control of a program, then it's not you that's making the decisions. It government is dictating the terms, then it's a government program, which makes it a nationalized system.

Look, if any organization is dependent upon government, for anything, especially for funding, then it's a government function, aka: a government run program, which essentially makes is a nationalized program.

"Anything" is pretty much all-inclusive of government services. I can't think of an American business that doesn't rely on the government-provided highway system, whether to deliver the goods or allow employees to come to work. So, does that mean you think all businesses in the U.S. are nationalized?

With definitions as broad as those....

First off, the Fed gov't controls very little of the day to day delivery of health care, save the general principles of equal access and no fees. The Provincial governments decide which procedures to fund. Hospitals can and do decide what procedures they will do, for example all Catholic hospitals don't do abortions, and some other religious based hospitals don't either.

Hospitals and doctors are truly independant, they just submit their bills to the government for payment, same as a US hospital does to an insurance company. Difference is the lack of bureaucracy in the Canadian system, since if its on the list, it will get paid, there is no profit motive, and the administartion costs with single payer are much much less.

According to your definition of Nationalization, our entire country would be nationalized, since virtually every business takes advanatage of tax incentives, government grants etc.

Look, there are many services which are appropriate for government to do, instead of the private sector, such as police and fire departments, and the military. But, there are many services which are better handled by the private sector.

The fact remains that, much of what governments involve themselves in, doesn't have to be done by government.

Your spin on my definition is just that. Road work and road service does not mean that trucking services are also "nationalized". (BTW, road service is mostly a local government function). Now, if the government were to include the control of the trucking services, then it would, indeed, be a government run service and basically, "nationalized" (if it were by the national government), or a publicly controlled service.

The airlines are regulated by government, but, they are still "for profit" organizations, and therefore, not nationalized. However, the TSA is a government function, and therefore, a nationalized service. Getting radical in your interpretations and observations, is not going to change the fact that, government control has been creeping into the private sector, to the point that, many private sector functions might as well have been nationalized, like the banking industry.

and, even if there is the appearance of private sector management, all of that management is through government regulations.

Government is "taking" money from the private sector, meaning, the people. The people's money is being used to service other people that the "contributors" have never even met. That is re-distribution of wealth. No matter what, when the money has to go through government hand, and the regulations are set by government, and the decisions about who and when and where healthcare is to be provided is through government, then it's a government function, even if there is the appearance of the private sector being in charge.

It's the same with the American Medicare/Medicaid system, where anything that happens with the funding, is controlled by the government. Thus, if I use an HMO to manage my healthcare, my HMO receives its funding from government, and government gets to set the rules, and even decides which HMOs are qualified to receive Medicare/Medicaid funding. In other words, the patient is not in control, and neither is the HMO. Government has, effectively, created a nationalized system. That's essentially the same in Canada.

So, can you leave the Canadian system, and refuse to "contribute" to it? Can you get your own doctor and your own hospital and your own medicines, without the government involvement? Bet you can't.

In fact, you admitted that, your healthcare system is a government system, by your own statement that says: "...they just submit their bills to the government for payment, same as a US hospital does to an insurance company". That is the smoking gun for a government provided and government controlled system. No matter how you slice it or spin it, it's a government controlled system.

BTW, that's pure nonsense about your "poli-sci" courses, because, when it comes to political science, I could, without a doubt, be your teacher, and the teacher of most professors in universities. Most political science professors teach with a bias, and not with a non-partisan approach. In fact, "political science" has nothing to do with "science" at all, and therefore, not "fact-based".

I prefer to deal with facts, and that's something that, many schools try to avoid, at least when it comes to government and political issues.

Look, if any organization is dependent upon government, for anything, especially for funding, then it's a government function, aka: a government run program, which essentially makes is a nationalized program.

There is no reasonable way to read that sentence to NOT mean what I suggested.