> Yet, does his failure to define or consistently use the term "free market" undermine his thesis?

Yes, since one of his main points was that the free market failed in this case. Even allowing that he imprecisely described a distorted market pre-ACA, he clearly prefers a differently-distorted market post-ACA without much justification about why this time it will work out in the end. Anecdotal evidence about quoted premiums (not even considering out-of-pocket expenses going forward) is not convincing.

> Historical background is often very useful in a policy essay.

He cherry-picks his historical background then. A better background would discuss the employer-provided healthcare mess, the financial insolvency and increasing costs for Medicare and Medicaid, and the perverse incentives of related programs like Social Security Disability. Even if going into the Republican/Democrat history, it's a limited view. He left out more piecemeal initiatives like Medicare Part D, health insurance co-ops, and subsidized high-risk pools.

So I disagree that the limited historical background the author provides is value-added. On the contrary, that talking point detracts from his thesis.

> Broken promises with no legal recourse" would be a pretty good characterization of pre-ACA health insurance, by the author's account. Why would you expect the ACA to be any worse in this regard?

You can sue an insurance company if it advertises one thing and then changes the deal after you sign up. People, the author included, are not keeping their plans and doctors. I was pointing out that this bait-and-switch will happen in either system, but companies can be held civilly liable for making bad promises.

> So, again, what evidence is there that this problem will be more acute under the ACA?

What evidence is there that it will be less acute? To me the convincing prima facia case is that ACA will at least be more of the same in this regard.

> The fact that the author feels strongly about a certain political issue cannot be used to rebut his argument about that issue.

I think you're missing my point. I actually thought the first half of the piece was interesting. But by the time I reached the end of the piece, it seemed to me that the beginning of the piece was just a roundabout setup to his final point about how ACA is great and cathartic to the author.

> The author offers technical arguments concerning a matter of public policy.

Some. But he also offer personal anecdotes about how he felt guilty that a family friend couldn't get insurance. And many of his arguments are appeals to fairness more than they are descriptions of incentives and outcomes.

> He then states a political opinion which follows logically from those technical arguments.

That's the thing. It's a political opinion, so it doesn't follow logically. Even his logic is suspect. There are matters of fact that aren't considered (employer-provided healthcare, healthcare costs for state governments, healthcare subsidies, price regulations, policies changing between states). There are arguments that aren't, strictly speaking, logical (association fallacies, false dichotomies, straw men).

A logical conclusion would be more modest, technical, and have fewer exclamation points.