> he clearly prefers a differently-distorted market post-ACA without much justification about why this time it will work out in the end.

He very precisely describes how parts of the ACA address different modes of market failure he observed. The existing-condition regulations prevent the bandwagon effect and corporate freeloading (only covering healthy people). The individual mandate prevents individual freeloading (retaining fallback benefits without paying into the system).

See, health care markets have a long history of failing (or at the very least failing to deliver value in comparison to their single-payer counterparts). We already know "undistorted" markets where care providers sell directly to patients don't work for emergency services (you have consent issues with unconscious people AND the nearest hospital is always an effective monopoly and can price gouge accordingly). The "undistorted" market already failed to deliver value. Health insurance companies tried to fix the problem but it turned out that deceiving customers into buying shit plans was a better business strategy than legitimate innovation. Again, the "undistorted" market already failed to deliver value.

The US strategy amounts to trying different permutations of regulations until we find one that allows the free-market to work. So far, it has been a whack-a-mole experiment that costs ~$1.5T and >40,000 lives per year (in comparison to single-payer systems). When does it end? Do you really want to pay 2x for care today in order to gamble on the possibility that eventually the correct combination of regulations will be discovered that creates an efficient free-market system?

> companies can be held civilly liable for making bad promises.

Then why were they getting away with it?

His observations of what the companies were getting away with contradict your claim that the courts were able to keep them in check. The ACA attempts to keep them in check by making it harder for them to dupe users in the first place (that's what the standardized silver/gold/platinum plans are all about).

> it seemed to me that the beginning of the piece was just a roundabout setup to his final point about how ACA is great

He uses evidence to support his thesis. How does that detract from his argument?

> [In addition to technical arguments,] he also offer personal anecdotes

Anecdotal evidence doesn't invalidate his technical arguments. Also, the support it provides his arguments can only be ignored in the face of better evidence. Do you have any?

> many of his arguments are appeals to fairness more than they are descriptions of incentives and outcomes.

Outcomes are judged by fairness. The "technical arguments" you just referred to describe incentives. The hell are you complaining about?

> It's a political opinion, so it doesn't follow logically.

One of the funny things about logic is that it knows its own limits (Godel Incompleteness). Unless you have a strict logical rebuttal, why should I discard his argument for yours (which, as far as I can tell, is based on faith rather than observations, experience, anecdotes, and analysis)?

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

A logical conclusion that suffices to guide policy decisions doesn't exist. We must get over ourselves and make do with the best that we have.

Look, if you're actually interested in scholarly analysis of this kind of thing, here's a good starting place: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources

I haven't found a paper-aggregation of comparable quality for the "other side" of the argument (I'm familiar with the 1989 Heritage Foundation memo, not much else). If you could reciprocate with such an aggregation, I'd be much obliged.