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.