I read your entire post and agree. What's the difference between single-payer and nationalized? I've seen the terms used interchangeably, is there a difference I'm not seeing?
I don't know if it's all that important IF (and yes, a BIG if, of course) the system works for the largest number of people.
I mean, it IS important, I suppose but the most important thing is keeping people healthy and helping those who for whatever reason, are NOT.
The Veterans Administration has a system that serves ten million vets and it's sort kinda close to the British NHS in structure.
If you are disabled beyond something like 35 to 40 percent you get NO bill whatsoever.
No sorry I cannot remember where the line is simply because my disabled Navy vet wife has always been rated 100 percent disabled, and I used to know ALL the VA Math back when we first got her enrolled but that is almost twenty-five years ago and VA has been upgrading and trying to improve so a lot may have changed.
Anyway, that's VA, pretty close to UK NHS in the way it works.
Canada is quasi-socialized but they work alongside third party private providers and if I remember correctly so does Germany.
It would seem that California with its forty million residents COULD almost duplicate Canada's system but to date, the various entities submitting ideas to the Governor have sent the Guv's some incredibly sloppy slapdash plans and that is why year in and year out successive California governors VETO them one after another.
To outsiders it looks like hypocrisy I am sure:
"Hurrr durrrr!!! California libturds say that they want socialized medicine but their Guvernur keeps vetoing them!" 
No, just stop sending crap scribbled on a cocktail napkin and maybe there's a chance we can pass it.
www.nbcnews.com
