Did you know that 2.5 millilon employees work in healthcare insurance and that a single payer option would probably reduce that in a huge way, creating a massive group of unemployed people?

If you've been following Pubski at all for the past three years, you're aware that I've been building a healthcare facility with my wife, the doctor. You probably didn't know that she used to help design benefits plans, or that a good friend of ours was the benefits coordinator for Cedars Sinai, or that I spent two years designing implantable medical devices. I didn't bring it up because it isn't relevant to your argument ("20 million people aren't about to lose covereage.")

I unmuted you because I thought you could be civil. Prove me right on this one, not wrong.

To that argument - that 20 million people aren't about to lose coverage - you have one study. That study is an outlier, and two years old. I pointed out that Medicare's own page says something else; you observed that two years ago, not everybody paid. So you deep-dived on that number and now here you are saying 3 to 7 doesn't equal 20, and you're right. But that number also doesn't count the state exchanges:

My broader point is that your argument is one that I haven't seen before - that the number of uninsured is controversial. You branched it out, I branched it out. I'm trying to be civil here.

The argument you made is unsupported. It doesn't mean you have other points - it doesn't even mean I disagree with those other points. It means that one aspect of your argument is one I don't think you made.