Introduction The IMF is the largest and most well-known international lending institution in the world. Comprised out of 189 member countries, the organization is stated to serve the world economy by monitoring global risks and conditions, advising members on economic improvement, and providing technical assistance and short-term loans as means of stabilizing economies and avoiding large-scale financial crises. Many impoverished countries request the IMF aid when facing internal crises or are suffering from the aftermath of natural disasters, wars, and other events that bring upon massive casualties and devastation of the existing infrastructure (Ostry, Berg, & Tsangarides, 2014). While the IMF has seen some success at stabilizing several countries, it faces political opposition in many of the impoverished countries it has pledged to help. Contrary to its projected image, the IMF is not a humanitarian organization. Taking a loan from the IMF means forfeiting certain aspects of national sovereignty, reduction of social programs, as well as less autonomy in adopting policies and making financial decisions. Stories of successes and failures, in many scenarios, are explained by the country’s ability or inability to follow the IMF’s prescribed regulations as well as the austerity of the conditions that accompanied the loans (Ostry et al., 2014). The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of the IMF on social, economic, healthcare, and political development of Greece in order to determine whether receiving funding was beneficial or detrimental to the country’s long-term prosperity. IMF Policies on Loaning The unspoken rule behind IMF loans is that the country that accepts it voluntarily forfeits some of its national sovereignty to the IMF in order to achieve stability and be able to repay the debts in time. Despite claims made by the IMF that under their policies most countries in question increase the percentage of GDP spending on social programs and healthcare, the majority of independent researchers disagree with these claims (Ostry et al., 2014). In healthcare, one of the most significant socially oriented industries, IMF recipients are more likely to reduce their healthcare budgets when compared to non-IMF borrowers. According to Reeves, McKee, Basu, and Stuckler (2013), this trend was not affected by governing party ideologies, magnitudes of economic recessions, or debt crises. This, it is possible to conclude that one of the main strategies of the IMF to reduce spending and get its money back is to force cuts in the social sector, namely healthcare. Other policies implemented in developing and impoverished countries include increasing taxes and opening markets to foreign businesses, imports, and investors. In many scenarios, these measures are fatal for the local economies, who are unable to compete with cheaper and more high-end products brought from abroad by the developed nations. The Situation in Greece Greece became the recipient of IMF loans after the economic crisis of 2009. It was largely motivated by the inability of Greek businesses to compete with other developed nations as well by the adoption of Euro as a common currency, which was viewed by many economists as a controve