How appropriate is it to frame the discussion being collectivism vs individualism? These are inerasable traits of the human experience.

They typically do not contend with one another; the individual is a byproduct of the collective and exists to (re)vivify the collective; it is inherently circular.

The point of the argument should therefore be, to what extent do we hone our concerns, where as you stated, the moral concern. I don't think choosing to frame morality under the individual deters the legitimacy of the collective for the very reason I stated; the two are interlocked. However, it should be said that our interactions are under an individual basis, not collective - only when the question of groups interacting with groups do we abstract from the individual person to the individual group.

If we appropriately categorize where the premise of an argument lies, where collective or individual becomes a concern, then there really isn't a problem.