For the sake of clarity I think reserving the term socialized medicine for situations where the government is the one providing service such as in the UK and not when the government is providing funding such as Canada. There is also universal healthcare systems like Singapore that still provide a strong private component.

I believe it's because "universal healthcare" is so non-political, it's basically meaningless in the context of this conversation. Universal healthcare just means "everyone has access to healthcare". Well, 92.1%[0] of Americans have health insurance, and close to 100% of Californians have health insurance with a public option[1]. The city of San Francisco even adds coverage[2] on top of what California and federal programs can offer, which basically means everyone has access to healthcare, even those 400% over the federal poverty line. Oh, and there are more people in the state of California than all of Canada, which is especially interesting when Canada's system enters the debate.

[0]: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-28...

[1]: https://www.coveredca.com/health/medi-cal/

[2]: https://healthysanfrancisco.org/

There is more authoritarianism in your life in the US than there is for the average person in Cuba. I know it's hard to believe, but it turns out spending almost half your waking hours selling your labor for a wage to a much richer person than you doesn't actually end up with a life defined by agency.

Cuba isn't poor because of an inefficient command economy. Cuba is poor because it has been denied access to its largest trading partner (and more) for over half a century. And people _still_ have a better healthy life expectancy in that country than in the US. Imagine what it could be like there if the US did more than pay lip service to world prosperity and peace.

They don't, this is a lie from the country that's been embargoing Cuba into oblivion for sixty years.