Why Apple Won't Buy Epic, Contrary to the Recommendation of Jim Cramer

Jim Cramer, the financial analyst, recently suggested that Apple should buy Epic (see: Jim Cramer: Why Apple should buy Epic). Below is an excerpt from the article: 

The most obvious acquisition in the [healthcare] space, Mr. Cramer said, is of EHR provider Epic. He noted that Epic and its competitors often engage in information blocking, or the refusal to share data between networks, which can lead to issues with patients' and providers' ability to access health records. However, Mr. Cramer notes that Apple launched its Health Records service last year, which allows iPhone users to access their own medical records from participating hospitals [see: Apple Getting Traction with Its App to Access EHR Records with iPhones; Cleveland Clinic and Apple Make EHR Data More Broadly Accessible via iPhones]. He said Apple has the potential to act as the middleman between providers and hospitals with different EHR systems. "If Apple wants to become the universal electronic health records provider, to be the handshake between, say, the [Apple] Watch's data and the [EHR] system, they're going to need to break into this market big, and the best way to do that is by acquiring the best [which is Epic].

Here's a list of the major reasons why I personally don't think that Apple would ever consider acquiring Epic:

1. It's highly unlikely that Judith Faulkner, the founder of Epic, would ever consider selling the company and certainly not to Apple. I believe that her social and political orientation does not align with those of Big Tech and Apple.
2. As I have suggested before, I think that Apple is most interested in doing business in the first tier of health (i.e., primary care) and home health rather than the more complex processes that take place in hospitals (see: Defining and Delineating the Changing First Tier of Healthcare). Moreover,  most health systems are relatively unsophisticated from an IT perspective and would be unnerved by interacting with Apple/Epic as a vendor.
3. Apple is already the market leader in the deployment of digital health in the home market with what I have called wearable health ecosystems (see: The Evolution of "Wearable Health Ecosystems" and Associated Partnerships). This home health market is exploding whereas hospital inpatient admissions are declining on a year-to-year basis (see: Hospital admissions show glimmers of stability amid long-term decline).
4. The culture of Big Tech is to try to avoid, when possible, highly regulated sectors of the economy -- hospitals and inpatient care are some of the most regulated markets in the U.S. Thus, a no-go from this perspective.  
5. Apple has already been quite successful in cutting deals with healthcare systems to acquire access to their patient data which is their primary goal in order to develop financial lucrative predictive health algorithms (see: Points of Contention Between Hospitals and IT Companies Developing Algorithms). What additional benefit would be gained as a an EHR vendor?
6. It borders on bizarre that Cramer thinks that Apple would serve as a white knight to rescue healthcare consumers from "information blocking" by Epic. Apple would likely be opposed to EHR interoperability barriers because it militates against their acquiring the medical records of consumers and not in order to serve as an advocate for health consumers. 
7. I believe that the EHR monopoly, controlled by companies like Epic and Cerner at present, may be interrupted in the near future by a federal government with an orientation toward helping consumers rather than lining the pockets of big businesses. This could possible entail the development of a public utility in the cloud for all health records, including those generated by consumers at home. In other words, the Epic/health system monopoly might well be broken up in the near future.