We don’t live in an Ayn Rand novel where we get a mid-story paradigm re-write.
I agree. (Not sure where why you included an Ayn Rand reference, but whatever. Seems a bit off the point.)
Wage disparity illustrates the disingenuousness.
Odd comment. Like you said, you don’t get a mid story rewrite:
Income disparity has been rising unabated since the mid 60’s, regardless of what sort of tax scheme we use, what politics we operate under, what sort of welfare systems we institute or reform.
So, whose disingenuousness are you talking about? Seems like it would be the Dem/liberals, who keep saying they want to do something about it, but never do.
Romneycare is the Capitalist path for healthcare in America.
I would have to disagree. It’s a CORPORATIST path for health care in America. (Corporatism and capitalism are not synonymous.)
We don’t have that option with our bodies. Everyone will end up in a hospital regardless of how “self reliant” they want to pretend.
Any universal care system addresses that factoid.
The alternative to an amended ACA to provide support for market options means we are inevitably going to single payer. We don’t get to say stop, we’re going to try the Swiss model now. We either are going to amend the private side to provide insurance to the citizens or Medicare for All.
You offer a false choice. Any and all universal care models are on the table.
Moving to the Swiss model from where we are today would be evolutionary, relatively easy, and least disruptive.
Moving to a single payer model would be a rip-and-replace, difficult, and highly disruptive to the current delivery model. Hence, unwise.