What evidence do you have that it is something other than a combination of taxation and government control?
What that "something else" is, you have absolutely no idea, you readily admit to your ignorance, and yet consider yourself to be offering a logical and well reasoned argument.
None of your "possibilities" are actual "facts and observations", instead they are all your own ideological conceptions of how you think things work. Perhaps if you could admit that, not to me but to yourself, then you would find the intellectual curiosity to search for answers.
That's the biggest issue here, you don't know but think it's a good idea anyway. And while you have the intellectual honesty to admit your ignorance on the subject, you completely lack the intellectual curiosity to find the answers to the questions you don't know.
That means absolutely nothing unless you can also offer facts and observations to explain why/how such a result is possible.
Again, it seems beyond your intellectual aptitude to ask the obvious rational questions of why and how, so you offer your own ideological beliefs in place of actual facts and observations.
Earlier you offered the suppositional explanation that it was possible because they "shared the costs" but such a conclusion can't stand up to even the mildest of intellectual scrutiny: If the cost is X, then the cost is X. Whether that cost is paid by one segment of the population or spread across the entire population, will not change the fact that the cost is still X.
