Maybe, maybe not. What's interesting about the HBO/Showtime/etc. model is that it specifically encourages programming diversity, as the original article discusses at least a bit. Many people are willing to pay the surplus on their cable bill just to follow their one or two favorite shows, and few of the audience watches all eight (or however many). What this means is that whereas when a network adds a new show, they're trying to maximize its viewership on its own to maximize ad revenue, HBO only cares about adding new viewers that aren't already a part of their audience -- if a new show is only of interest to people already in the target demographic of an existing show and, therefore, probably already subscribers, nobody new will subscribe and the show won't pay for itself. As an audience member of their content, then, you're not expected to watch all of the shows, but you get the opportunity to watch a few that are probably more-narrowly-tailored to your interests than would be expected of network programming.

So yes, I would like to just be able to buy Game of Thrones, but I'd also, personally, like to be able to just buy Deadwood or (on Showtime) Queer as Folk, and I think if every show had to justify itself to network executives on raw viewership numbers instead of on audience-broadening power, those shows would never get made; their audiences are too niche compared to their production costs. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to see at least some content that's not aimed primarily at 18-35-year-old straight men.

Of course, this is the kind of reasoning that justifies 100-channel cable packages instead of a-la-carte cable channels, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. But I think the expectation that a-la-carte show purchasing could really work, economically, is probably not realistic (and this without even getting into the issue that it'd be tough to pay for a $75-million Game of Thrones season at a dollar an episode).