Without "JC" propaganda filling the media, those "ordinary people" would be told to go out and get a real job, like everyone else.

Like I said, it's more comforting to believe that the impediments to switching to single-payer can be laid at the feet of nefarious actors like "JC's." Rather than the simple fact that it's politically unpopular to take steps that would result in ten million plus people losing their jobs.

Every Congressional district has a hospital in it, nearly every one has multiple hospitals in it, and while it's unlikely that the hospital(s) is the largest single employer in their district, in most districts the hospitals will be among the largest employers in their district. They also tend to have more union density than the economy at large, with specific sectors (like nursing) being heavily unionized. So going to a Congresscritter with a plan that requires their largest employers to lay off half their employees is not a recipe for success. Which, again, is why Vermont (and other states) couldn't do that.

And to clarify again - I am not saying this is the way things should be. I'm saying that this is one of the main reasons why we don't shift. You can't solve that problem by getting rid of "JC's" role in the process - whether directly or by 'propaganda' in the media. Congresscritters are going to be loath to slash health care reimbursement rates for fear of damaging the hospitals and other health care institutions in their district, and they're not going to be at all comforted by experts telling them that the hospitals will be just fine because they can lay off half their workers as redundant in the new system. Unlike the many millions who get fired from private companies, Congresscritters care a lot about whether the people that are fired get really unhappy about the people who orchestrated their firing.