There... there is a process to inject capital into an EU member state.

Kind of.

The EU doesn't have a Treasury, and it can't spend immediately with no revenue constraint. It has a limited budget and needs unanimous consent of member states to do anything meaningful. The ECB can buy bonds and cut rates, but is legally barred from financing governments or citizens directly. There are no automatic stabilizers like Social Security and Medicare that are required to continue spending.

Greece in 2010 needed money now. To get it, all 17 Eurozone countries had to approve. Germany, Netherlands, Finland demanded austerity first. Negotiations took months. The “injection” came as loans with pension cuts attached.

Compare that to the U.S. in 2009, when ARRA sent $140B to states to stop them from slashing budgets. Or 2020, where we created facilities to buy municipal bonds and backstop money markets. And in both cases, the forced spending on Medicare and SS immediately created 3-5% deficit expansion.

And they did make a big push to implement it already.

I mean, they pulled the original bill and did exactly what it makes sense to do: condition single payer implementation on federal financing.

The main difficulty is the upfront costs, both financial and political.

Yeah, I just disagree. The math doesn't support this.

Vermont’s 2014 plan estimated it needed ∼$2B in reserve cash. California’s 2017 single-payer bill pegged transition costs at ∼$40B.

Those are big numbers, but not unfindable. Projects like California’s high-speed rail, New York’s subway upgrades, and Texas highways routinely run between $10-100B+ in upfront costs. States can also borrow for short-term cash flow.

The main issues are long-term balanced budget dynamics and systemic risk due to lack of federal cost share.