It wouldn't surprise me if they started with the end goal "don't provide healthcare to poor people" and worked backwards from there to find justifications.

It would certainly explain the intentionally vague way he presents his arguments that confused Scott Alexander.

Because if he clearly stated the strong part of his argument, then it wouldn't support that goal, but the vague form does.

You want healthcare? Look here's a random bit of research in which it's not clear that the people even knew they had healthcare insurance, which proves that it won't help you.

Do we need to pin him down and for every bit of healthcare that he reluctantly admits helps people say "do you or do you not support this being provided to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay?".