It gets tiresome to see accusations of things like "mental gymnastics" and "web of intellect" every time someone attempts to discuss a non-trivial political issue. If we could just snap our fingers and fix all of our problems, we'd have done so by now.
Law, politics, and economics are hard, and they sometimes involve considering multiple factors. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be goaded into an unprincipled anti-intellectual stance by people trying to expedite their own solution.
Everyone agrees that the economics of health care in the US are bad. I don't know anyone who is happy with this state of affairs. Everyone feels like the other parties are out to screw them. Docs feel that they get fleeced by facilities and insurers, insurers feel that they get fleeced by beneficiaries and providers, etc. I had a medical device manufacturer as a client for a while and they too felt that the industry was unfair to them and that they had to set high prices to try to survive.
With so many people in the U.S. receiving their care on differing bases, it's hard to really get a single, strongly-motivated group to coalesce and push some real change through. Every employer negotiates their own contracts; some are good and some are bad, depending on how much your employer cares about benefits and such. Some people have state-provided care through Medicare or Medicaid. Others have to pay private (which is where things get really bad).
With everyone's experiences on such a deeply personal issue differing so widely, unification is difficult. Mix in a little political brou-ha-ha and it becomes nearly impossible. I'm sure that fracturing is part of the game by the insidious elements that lie underneath the covers, but it is a reality we must recognize and address legitimately.
On top of that, medicine is one of the largest industries in the U.S., and changes to that structure threaten to disrupt the employment of many people. There is no surer way to get a political position dismantled (and its elected purveyors destroyed in the next election cycle) than to threaten the livelihoods of a meaningful portion of the constituency.
Changes to the regulatory structures impacting all of this should be carefully considered, and I would hope that we at least run them through the "intellectual paces", as it were. Let's not jump on each other's backs with silly accusations for not acquiescing quickly enough.