But...
1)corporatism is probably inevitable given population size, and technological level
2)corporatism, or a version of it, used to be called fascism - a delicious irony
3)the alliance of the corporate elites with government began long ago - under Teddy Roosevelt - when the former realized that unrestricted competition was destructive and not in their interests.
It's unfortunate, but if the population cannot be trusted to be moral, a free society cannot really exist. John Adams wrote about that.
Yes, Clinton rejected the so called "single payer" approach of Mc Dermott [sp?] even though he agreed with it. The "Harry and Louise" ad campaign was financed by smaller health insurance companies who would be put out of business by the Big Five.
Interestingly, only Kucinnich [sp?] said in Fla. "I am NOT an insurance salesman" (repeated three times).
I think where the Corporatist model breaks down is where it violates "Boundary Conditions." Implicit in it is participation of Americans who, at the end of the day, gain in a net sort of way.
"Offshoring" tends to undermine this "consent of the governed" sort of thing.
BTW, nothing says that ultimately the "Corporation" has to be in private hands...the Port Authority of New York and the Tribourough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, as well as the Tennesee Valley Authority come to mind, where the excesses implied in Corporate Outsourcing can be curbed POLITICALLY!