That's the wrong hill to die on. You stand there and say "these people need jobs, so they are given jobs in health care"

No, I don't. I think you keep missing my point.

These are not arguments about why we should not switch to single-payer. They are explanations for why we don't.

We don't switch to a single-payer system because doing so would cause a very large number of Americans a lot of economic pain. That doesn't mean we wouldn't collectively be better off making the switch. It doesn't mean those Americans deserve to be spared from that economic pain. It's not an argument at all about what we should do.

It's just pointing out that the obstacle to the U.S. switching to single-payer isn't some nefarious cabal of conspiring Elites. It's just ordinary people. There's just too many ordinary people that would be hurt in the switch for it to be politically feasible.

This is not a defense of the status quo. Rather, I think that advocates for a single payer tend to be in denial about why they haven't been able to succeed in changing the system. They like to ascribe it to the actions of people they find reprehensible (insurance companies, drug manufacturers) because it is much more pleasant to imagine sticking it to those actors, rather than all the SEIU members that depend on well-paying hospital and healthcare jobs who are part of their coalition.