You'll find absolutely no argument from me about Single Payer (check out the old arguments I was in with Scott around the time the ACA was being considered, for example).

But your heart attack counter-example is a bit off. If, in fact, we were all worth half a million, could we all afford insurance? Of course we could. The point I was trying to make is that if you are foolish enough to have a health care delivery system that includes private health insurers competing over dollars people intend to spend on health care but which will be re-directed to shareholders instead, then a more equitable distribution of wealth would only aid that system by allowing everyone to participate in it.

The abortion issue is one I already spoke of. But, as I said, not all social ills would be cured. However, (and IMO this a HUGE However), more equitable distribution of wealth would mean fewer than twenty-some per cent of our children living in poverty, fewer of us food insecure, fewer of us domicile insecure, more of us with access to health care, etc.

But especially after yesterday's special election results, I think those things that I know you and I oppose about our society are not only unopposed by the masses, but are actually supported by the masses. To borrow from a comedian, "There's no fixin' that. That is forever."