But we aren't talking colloquially, we're talking about within the maxim. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it feels like you're doubling down in order to prove a point.

The maxim, applied here, is an obtuse oversimplification of the problems with the health insurance system, and the barriers to changing it.

Yes, if we could wave a wand and delete the fact that it ever happened, that would be ideal. But the problem is more difficult to solve now, because we have the problem of the health insurance system, and the problem of drastic systematic and economic change.

In my experience, choices to label opposition as either reductive or overly complex are largely rhetorical. They don't pass the validity test.

Perhaps we should ask borrow the "magic wand" that seems to exist for every other country. Maybe they can lend us theirs since that's apparently how realistic a system that does not bankrupt people is.

Sadly, it doesn't seem equally possible or realistic to build a system where CEO's aren't revenge murdered.

Precisely zero countries have dismantled a 1.6 trillion dollar, 80 year old health insurance system.

That's not to say it's impossible to do, or that we shouldn't. But, an economic, political, and social mass of this magnitude doesn't turn on a dime.

Other places had the luxury of solving the problem much earlier and on much smaller scales.