I wouldn't bother at all, in fact, if it weren't for the steaming mass of ad hominem attacks piled on top of it. But that's his style: he uses strawman arguments and personal insults to obscure fuzzy thinking. Apparently, in the minds of the free-market, anti-government zealots out there, if I support expanded government funding and regulation of health care insurance, which I long have and still do, then I may never ever criticize or disagree with anything the government does.
That's the mindset of an ideologue: purity above all else. You are for the government or you are for the private market. It’s an either-or, absolutist position. You cannot logically have a nuanced view or a pragmatic approach: that’s unpossible!
Clearly, there’s no point in discussing anything with this sort of person, so I won’t bother. But I will make one point — just one point — in rebuttal. The worst abuses I have encountered, thus far, have been by private, not governmental actors. Contracted Medicare carriers and insurance companies have been far more aggressive in trying to exploit the logical catch-22 in the medical necessity rules. For those who say they fear the government intruding into medical care, I agree it’s a fair point. But given their financial incentives and lack of ethics, I will always fear the private insurers even more.