My idea was that our health insurance was to be modeled after the Credit Union model. Unlike banks who prioritize profits, Credit Unions prioritize membership retention. As a result they focus on offering the lowest rates and highest customer service which makes them far better option than big banks.

Unions are dangerous because they are a stepping stone to socialism. Lower prices and better service sounds great, but that comes at a steep cost that eventually leads to economic collapse (ie Venezuela). The higher price you pay for banks ensures more accountability (they've never crashed the economy) and helps reinforce the profit and shareholder model, which is the foundation of capitalism.

The "cornering the wealth" is a leftist lie.

You think the Rothschild family and their domination of European wealth and power for generations is a lie?

The idea is that just like monarchies, wealthy families usually are invested in their communities

This is like saying that slave owners were invested in the community of the slaves they owned. I guess it is true, if by invested you mean they control the money and pay the bare minimum to keep the slaves from revolting. As a shareholder, I have rights, voting power, and get a percentage of the dividends. For a family owned business, I get none of that, and just have to accept whatever they provide.

On the other hand shareholders only care about extracting wealth. They don't care about building a legacy, improving the communities or any of these initiatives. They are like locusts that once they pillage a company they move on to the next leaving a trail of carcasses behind. See Blackrock, Vanguard and Blackstone as examples.

Which is fine because you and I can be shareholders. I noticed that everyone who complains about this system are usually those who are too poor (through personal choices) to own any stocks. Notice how the big stock holders aren't complaining?

A real world example is McDonalds vs In-n-Out. One is a corporate shell of company that produces some of the most disgusting food imaginable while the other is praised as offering one the best burgers around and a paragon of customer service. I'll let you figure out which is family owned and which isn't.

McDonalds has had a much larger impact on the world than just about any other company. You can say what you want about their food, I think it's fine. Not great, but fine. Whenever McDonalds has entered a city, or even a country, they increase the standards of cleanliness. Also, McDonalds has made multiple shareholders and franchisees millionaires. In-n-Out has horded their wealth, stock pilling their profits for themselves. If you want an "animal style" economy, then sure, In-n-Out will get you there.

If you want another example: state owned Airbus is currently running circles around Boeing when it comes to build quality, reliability and efficiency. It's so bad now that Airbus went from a minor player in the 1980's to wrestling the crown from Boeing itself and becoming the biggest plane builder in the world.

State owned enterprises are the next step in socialism. It looks great on paper, and when you have a whole state propping up a business, it looks great. But this all comes at a cost, which is economic ruin. Boeing may be having their bumps, but this kind of market correction is what drives companies to increase efficiency. Plus, they just received some large government contracts (not Airbus), so they're still doing just fine.

These are just a couple of examples of the top of my head. The reality the only thing shareholders care about is extracting wealth. They don't care about building a legacy or even investing in their own communities.

Some kings are good, some slaveholders were (relatively speaking) nice to their slaves. That doesn't change the fact that it means we aren't in control. Being a shareholder is more Democratic.