It’s time to stop wrangling about health care and do something.

The history of health care in the United States is a grueling story of attempts and resistance. It’s easy to find articles about this history — no need to rehash it here. Throughout this ridiculous, decades-old debacle, nothing has been accomplished except a perpetuation of the corporate gravy train at the expense of we the people. In health care, as in all big corporate enterprises, Americans are regarded and treated as nothing more than resources. It’s high time we stopped allowing ourselves to be plundered by big medicine and the many politicians who ride that gravy train. Few issues are as important as the basic human need for good health. Few humans are served by a capitalist model of health care. And not a single branch of government has ever done anything to provide a better model. Oh of course, politicians on the mythical left trot out their affection for “health care for all” during campaigns while their opponents on the mythical right counter with reforms more palatable to those who uphold the sanctity of the free market.

Make no mistake, I appreciate the objections to socialized medicine. In theory, it makes sense. But the corruption in our government is so broad and deep, the center of power that would run any Medicare for All program cannot be trusted. There’s a lot of swamp to be drained, and next month, voters will put their trust in Janus-faced candidates uttering pretty promises to the electorate on one side and a wink and a nod to lobbyists on the other. And for another two years, the mining of the populace will continue unchecked — status quo perpetuated.

This hamster wheel is apparent in the party platforms of the two political behemoths. Both offer up long-winded statements of their health care priorities and proposals. Both positions are convoluted and filled with impractical generalities.

Democrats want to protect the Affordable Care Act and push out provisions for Medicaid expansion into every state. They promise to fight vouchers and privatization and to increase funding for community centers while decreasing prescription drug costs. Protections for mental health and reproductive rights make the cut, along with long-term health care. The Democratic statement also opposes gun violence and violence against women. Are these even causes about which there is any dispute?

The Republican platform lays out a contrary and equally vague set of promises with the centerpiece being “repeal” of the Affordable Care Act and a parallel “replacement” with competition, patient choice, wellness, timely access to treatment, and “excellent care.” The ideology will presumably manifest in reduced red tape, fewer mandates and cost containment through “price transparency” that informs patients about costs. The list of specifics includes calls for tort reform, strengthened law enforcement, and an end to drug abuse. What lovely campaign fodder.

The Green Party definitively favors a single-payer system to be administered at the state and local levels. The inevitable benefits would be a bureaucracy reduced from current ACA bloat, fewer administrative costs, and vastly decreased outlays by businesses and public employers for health insurance premiums. Unlike other platforms, the Green plan supports funding for both traditional and alternative health.

One has to admire the frugal Libertarian platform point on health care. Its single paragraph begins with a definitive sentence: “We favor a free market health care system.” Individual freedom of choice is the central idea, with a particular nod to the freedom to choose service and insurance across state lines.

For decades, we have given the executive office authority over this issue. While Donald Trump ran for President under the Republican banner, he most likely supports Libertarian ideas about health care and would uphold a free market in this as in all matters. This should give as much pause as the socialism bogeyman does. When corporations have free reign, good health is guaranteed only for stock portfolios and executive salaries.

This may be the only issue for which choosing the lesser evil is necessary. The Green plan offers the best of the inevitably painful options. If funding it requires small pain on everyone’s part to end the greater pain, then so be it.