in the form of legal (& punitively enforced) mandates to purchase a "product" from those corporations. The 200 billion you mention isn't provided to the employees/workers/citizens ... it is a subsidy that goes to the corporations (along with a portion to be paid by those self-same workers/employees/citizens in addition).

The mandate that these monies be directed to corporations, who will then (with some regulations) re-direct the monies (less their percentage cut) to those who are actually providing the health care... is a corporatist solution. It is a corporate-centric solution. Single payer, directed through an expansion of medicare or even of the VA, would have been a public/nationalized solution because it would have used public/nationalized resources to solve the issue of delivering health care to citizens.

You can try to spin it... but the term 'corporatist' applies to this example, because the kernel of the approach was to utilize corporations.

You can attempt to marginalize those who use the term 'corporatist', or you can sing the praises of the corporations... but when you try to marginalize those who use the term 'corporatist' by trying to conflate a corporatist policy (as explained above) with a public-interest-policy (as explained above with regards to other means of delivering health care by utilizing public/nationalized resources)... then you just make yourself look like a talking-point spewing hack... and in the process you simply marginalize yourself.

Thanks for playing... maybe you should do a little more work on that metaphorical curve ball?