I would have to disagree. Both Canada and the Great Britain have the equivalent of a government option. The Canadians do it through the Canada Health Act which is a publicly funded health care system, and which is administered through each province. The British do it through the National Health Service. I would not call either system facism. Both governments are western style democracies. In fact I recall my constitutional law classes in which the Sovereign Immunity Doctrine was the subject of study. In effect the government becomes a market participant when it enters the field of commerce. Isn't it interesting how private insurance carriers manage to co-exist and compete with both the Canadian and British systems. One must ask why not here.

"I'd rather be a hammer than a nail"

                                                                                      El Condor Pasa

With respect to the insurers being non-profit entities, I would again have to disagree. The insurers I have been acquainted with both personally and professionally are very much concerned with profit.One in particular of which I know is very fast to initiate legal action against its subscribers to enforce its policy's contractual premium payments whether or not the subscriber has filed any claims. If it was not concerned with profit it could have simply cancelled the policy.  If they were really non-profit then they would not be concerned about competing with a government option.