Very poetic, but doesn't really answer the question, and seems to be based on the false premise that a highly centralized government delivers better product at a better cost than the private sector does. I can think of no valid example of this. Look at government construction projects, military spending, our space program, disaster control (I can't BELIEVE you brought that up) and yes, education. Just because a government DOES do something doesn't mean that it's necessarily the BEST way to do it.

It reminds me of the article of faith I've heard from liberals and leftists all my life. "Well, YES government has done a crappy job, but that's because the right people weren't running it! Turn it all over to us and it will become a paradise!" In college, at the far-left brochure tables at the student union, it was "Nobody has REALLY done Marxism yet!"

Sorry, but government has been flipping back and forth between parties for many years. They've had their shot at creating paradise. Point to one government endeavor that is working better and more effectively now than it was thirty years ago, when the Federal budget, in constant dollars, was less than half what it is now. An endeavor that has less waste and abuse. That's costing less money per capita, and delivering more bang for the buck. I'll wait.

Do you want a health care system that works as spectacularly as our education system is working? In the U.S. we're paying three times the per-student costs in constant dollars we were forty years ago, when our education system was putting people on the Moon. How's that been working out for us? Are we getting three times the results we were then?

You want the truth? For most liberals and leftists there IS no line. If we nationalized health care, and somehow survived, there would be something else. Maybe it would be decided that housing is just too important to leave to the private sector, and simply finish off the process of turning all mortage activity over to the government. After that? Well, energy is pretty critical, too, isn't it? Go around to your friends and ask them, informally and without context, if they think the government should be controlling oil prices, profits, CEO salaries, or even running the oil industry. See what kind of answers you get.

It isn't about making life better for people. It's about power. An example: Never mind privatizing things, I can think of a lot of places where state and local governments have done a much better job of delivering product than the Federal government now does. Yet does anyone on the Left support taking any power away from the central authority to get things done more effectively? Have you EVER heard a liberal actually say "You know, maybe the Federal government shouldn't be doing this particular job?"

I use Hugo Chavez as an example because, particularly in terms of economics, his views are identical to a depressingly large number of people in this country. The Green Party is made up of liberals who aren't very good at lying about what they really want.

Just as an aside, the fact that businesses are carrying our health care costs is a freak occurrence resulting from government wage controls in WWII. That doesn't mean that's the only private alternative.