2nd Post (sent as a second attempt when my 1st post didn't get passed the "moderation"; eventually it did get through, but this one didn't)
When it is recognised that the STATE was originally created, and still exists, primarily to facilitate the <i>self-exploitation</i> of society, to the advantage of whose in positions of power, it is hardly surprising that when "Big health flexes its lobbying muscle, democracy quivers".
When the state was first created, by a coalition of aristocracy and clergy, back in the Middle Ages, it was, of course to the exclusive advantage of these two groups, i.e. classes, which organized and exploited the mass of the population as an exploitable ENVIRONMENT, rather than as a genuine society with its own legitimate interests.
But in order to facilitate their control of society (the social environment they were intent on exploiting), they had to create and maintain the MYTH of it being a genuine society, a PEOPLE and a NATION, with the state representing people's original TRIBE (which human nature and behaviour evolved in and were thus adapted to, long before the advent of civilisation).
The original two elites (classes) have now been largely displaced by countless others, which tend to interdigitate and are all but impossible to define, especially since general access to education, and "<i>social mobility</i>", means they are no longer determined by birth.
However, although today's dominant and privileged elites are not rigidly defined, they tend to be associated with particular industries (e.g. film and media) and professions (e.g. bankers, lawyers), and, of course, as ever, with private property, i.e. capital, which now anyone (not just members of the aristocracy and clergy) might have. It is no coincidence that the principal role of the STATE is to define and enforce property rights.
All this questions the legitimacy of the state itself, of course, which, ever since its creation, there have been massive taboos, intimidation (and perceived self-interests) against doing - until very recent times, on pain of severe punishment, including death. So it is no wonder that, even now, few are inclined to take my reasoning seriously.