1) Isn't an argument, but a series of assertions of fact completely unsupported by any argument.
1a) health care system is broken
1b) health care system is very expensive
1c) health care system should be fixed outright
1d) government footing the bill for the health care system isn't a "fix." [what is a "fix," then, and what distinguishes them?]
1e) government footing the bill for the health care system is a "waste of citizen tax dollars." [what wouldn't be a "waste of citizen tax dollars," then, and what distinguishes them?]
-----
2) No "true" Scotsman, and the presentation of the author's opinions as the description of an actual "true" Scotsman.
-----
3) Starts with extremely controversial statements of fact mixed with conspiracy...
3a) The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done [where, and in comparison to who?]
3b) The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done by design [now, I'm afraid.]
-----
3 cont.) ...then presents its first argument to back an assertion:
3c) Managing health care at the federal level just makes it even more expensive than it already is [ASSERTION]
3d) in addition to all the costs associated with the medicine, care, hospitals and doctors [costs(MCHD)], you've also got to pay the government middle-men [costs(GMM)] as well if you manage health care at the federal level [MFL]. [Summary: costs(MCHD) + costs(GMM) = costs(MFL)]
That's three premises:
(3d1): the only costs associated with health care unmanaged at the federal level [costs(~MFL)] are costs(MCHD) [i.e. costs(MCHD) = costs(~MFL)]
(3d2): managing health care in general [HCIG] requires that MCHD be paid for [i.e. costs(HCIG) = costs(MCHD)]
(3d3): for health care MFL, GMM must be paid in addition to the costs of MCHD [i.e. costs(MFL) = costs(MCHD) + costs(GMM)]
-----
3c-d: commentary) 3d2 and 3d3 are fairly uncontroversial as premises, but in 3d1, you assume the conclusion by defining MCHD both as the minimum necessary costs, and equivalent to the costs of the status quo [i.e. costs(HCIG) = costs(~MFL)]. If costs(~MFL) - costs(HCIG) > 0 is true, then this statement reduces to costs(~MFL) - costs(HCIG) <= costs(GMM) which is simply a naked assertion, not an argument.
The only tests that I can think of that would validate this would be if Medicare had more overhead than the US private insurance system [VERIFIABLY FALSE], or if foreign systems with socialized health care were in any case more expensive than ones without [VERIFIABLY FALSE.]
-----
4a) Federally managed health care is a further abuse of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution [APPEAL TO AUTHORITY]
4b) The commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, not dictate commands to citizens in states [NAKED ASSERTION]
4c) Allow states to implement their own health care acts if they so choose, and let the money stay closer to the people who need it [CALL TO ACTION]
4d) Allowing states to implement their own health care acts if they so choose should lower the administration costs [NAKED ASSERTION, and a strange one too. Having health care administered by 50 different state government administrations should have a lower cost than a having health care administered by a single federal administration? You don't think an argument is necessary for this assertion, or are you relying on "The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done, and that is by design" to do the heavy lifting here?]
-----
Honestly, I don't even think you're trolling. This thinking is just murky.
In breaking down my posts to bullet points and responding paratactically, I don't really have any way to rebut. If your goal is to win the argument, then kudos, you're doing well. If it's to understand 'the other side' of the argument, then you're failing miserably.
1d) what is a "fix," then, and what distinguishes them?
I don't know. I didn't claim to have a fix.
1e) what wouldn't be a "waste of citizen tax dollars," then, and what distinguishes them?
Well, there's the list of responsibilities enumerated to the federal government that they are obligated to perform. It's arguable whether those things are a waste of tax dollars, but the federal government is obligated to perform than either way. That would include interstates, highways, the postal service, etc. Further, another federal government job is to protect against the abuse of individual freedoms by the state, so clearly the Supreme Court isn't a waste of tax dollars.
Regarding 2, I wasn't aware of the author's Scottish heritage, but certainly I didn't mean any bigotry, however much you might wish to impart that upon me.
3c-d The only tests that I can think of that would validate this would be if Medicare had more overhead than the US private insurance system (VERIFIABLY FALSE), or if foreign systems with socialized health care were in any case more expensive than ones without (VERIFIABLY FALSE.)
There are other tests, like how efficiently the VA performs in caring for its patients, and whether or not the quality of that care is good or efficiently administered. You could also look to the many other programs that the federal government controls. USPS, Fanny Mae, FEMA, etc.
I think the part that you're overlooking in your response is that I haven't asserted that the Affordable Health Care Act is bad. I'm just saying that ignoring the many, many arguments in critique against it requires willful blindness. The author wasn't able to find "one good reason" why "anybody" would oppose the act, after having performed "thorough" research into "both sides" of the argument. I find that nearly impossible to believe.
There are things that I staunchly support, and admittedly, I have seen many red-herring arguments against them, but effectively what the author is suggesting is just.. nonsense. If she were talking about a programming language, instead of the Affordable Health Care Act, maybe it would be more relatable to dev and engineering types, but just as though I can see valid reasons why my preferred development stack is not the best in the world ever, I wish the author was able to see past her own bias. It seems she isn't able to.
Oh, and since I didn't respond to your points on 3, it's widely understood that the federal government is an adversarial process, with checks and balances. It isn't meant to operate quickly, or even efficiently. The process is meant to ensure that the actions of the men in elected office are always subject to oversight, which should help mitigate its ability for abuse. It's meant to ensure that no single branch of the government has more power than the others, so that we can't enter into a dictatorial regime. It's meant to ensure that a lot of really thorough discussion occurs on a bill before it can be enacted, and that both representatives and senators can get signoff to most accurately reflect the interests of its people.
Federal agencies, as an extension of the federal government, seldom run very efficiently. Having consulted for many of them, I have a unique insight into how they actually run and operate, and above and beyond the average 'big company' bureaucracy, there are additional levels of red tape that simply prevent them from running lean, or agile, or any way in which might vaguely resemble such a concept.
1a) health care system is broken
1b) health care system is very expensive
1c) health care system should be fixed outright
1d) government footing the bill for the health care system isn't a "fix." [what is a "fix," then, and what distinguishes them?]
1e) government footing the bill for the health care system is a "waste of citizen tax dollars." [what wouldn't be a "waste of citizen tax dollars," then, and what distinguishes them?]
-----
2) No "true" Scotsman, and the presentation of the author's opinions as the description of an actual "true" Scotsman.
-----
3) Starts with extremely controversial statements of fact mixed with conspiracy...
3a) The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done [where, and in comparison to who?]
3b) The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done by design [now, I'm afraid.]
-----
3 cont.) ...then presents its first argument to back an assertion:
3c) Managing health care at the federal level just makes it even more expensive than it already is [ASSERTION]
3d) in addition to all the costs associated with the medicine, care, hospitals and doctors [costs(MCHD)], you've also got to pay the government middle-men [costs(GMM)] as well if you manage health care at the federal level [MFL]. [Summary: costs(MCHD) + costs(GMM) = costs(MFL)]
That's three premises:
(3d1): the only costs associated with health care unmanaged at the federal level [costs(~MFL)] are costs(MCHD) [i.e. costs(MCHD) = costs(~MFL)]
(3d2): managing health care in general [HCIG] requires that MCHD be paid for [i.e. costs(HCIG) = costs(MCHD)]
(3d3): for health care MFL, GMM must be paid in addition to the costs of MCHD [i.e. costs(MFL) = costs(MCHD) + costs(GMM)]
-----
3c-d: commentary) 3d2 and 3d3 are fairly uncontroversial as premises, but in 3d1, you assume the conclusion by defining MCHD both as the minimum necessary costs, and equivalent to the costs of the status quo [i.e. costs(HCIG) = costs(~MFL)]. If costs(~MFL) - costs(HCIG) > 0 is true, then this statement reduces to costs(~MFL) - costs(HCIG) <= costs(GMM) which is simply a naked assertion, not an argument.
The only tests that I can think of that would validate this would be if Medicare had more overhead than the US private insurance system [VERIFIABLY FALSE], or if foreign systems with socialized health care were in any case more expensive than ones without [VERIFIABLY FALSE.]
-----
4a) Federally managed health care is a further abuse of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution [APPEAL TO AUTHORITY]
4b) The commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, not dictate commands to citizens in states [NAKED ASSERTION]
4c) Allow states to implement their own health care acts if they so choose, and let the money stay closer to the people who need it [CALL TO ACTION]
4d) Allowing states to implement their own health care acts if they so choose should lower the administration costs [NAKED ASSERTION, and a strange one too. Having health care administered by 50 different state government administrations should have a lower cost than a having health care administered by a single federal administration? You don't think an argument is necessary for this assertion, or are you relying on "The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done, and that is by design" to do the heavy lifting here?]
-----
Honestly, I don't even think you're trolling. This thinking is just murky.