Health Insurance and the "Far-Left" Position

Healthcare isn't particularly left wing, so it isn't the most left wing. 

An extremist is typically violent and tries to force their opinions and ideals on others. 

A militant uses violence and is confrontational.

I assume healthcare is supposed to be public healthcare as private healthcare is right wing. Wanting others to have healthcare is simply a sign that you're compassionate and considerate, and dare I say that you aren't a psychopath.

Modern types of arguments on less-exacting venues allow proxy issues to supplant the actual issues.  Is there a fallacy of bait-and-switch?

Health insurance <> health care and conflating the two is disingenuous if the asker knows the difference.  The only commonality of proper consequence (ie, the basis for disagreement) is a matter of who pays.

In an area I have much more contact with, I often see "Global Warming" used as a proxy for "Anthropogenic Global Warming".  It can't be just a short-hand, as AGW is a well-known abbreviation. 

The exact quote "Kinda wild how the most far-left, extremist, militant position you can take on health care is that people should have it." has multiple items of fallacy, and to me the ad hominem/pejorative terms are not the core.

Rephrasing it allows some clarity: "You can take a position on health care that people should have it" can hardly be rationally debated, but finishing the actual position of the Left "....have it without paying for it." puts the issue correctly in perspective imo.

I can see several possible fallacies in this fascinating statement. First you have to translate it. The statement “kinda wild” is nothing to discuss, it is simply pointing to the rest of the statement, a way to say that what is in the rest of the statement is interesting. The rest of the statement is about the debate over Medicare for All, or universal single payer health care of some form. M4A would guarantee health care to everyone. So if you oppose M4A as far left, extreme, and militant means that you see everyone having insurance as far left, extreme, and militant.

The most obvious and common fallacy is the Straw Man. The opposition may be opposed to everyone having health care, or they may be concerned that the costs will be too high. They may have ideas to provide health care for everyone via a different delivery method. So the statement sets up the straw man that if you oppose M4A you oppose health care for all.

Next is Special Pleading/Moving the Goalposts. M4A proposes universal health care at zero cost to the consumer (notwithstanding any additional costs due to tax increases). But the statement only discusses universal coverage, it says that the opposition is simply to universal coverage, not universal coverage at an excessive cost.

Next would be the Black or White fallacy. The statement is assuming that there are only two choices: the status quo supported by M4A opponents, or M4A, if you want to have universal coverage. It ignores that there may be other alternatives.

I think there are other fallacies that could be applied to this sentence – No True Scotsman (appeal to purity), Appeal to Emotion, Composition/Division, possibly even the Fallacy Fallacy.

Full disclosure, I support M4A, at least in the long run. I also support removing the age restriction to Medicare in the short run. But there are ample logical arguments to be made for these proposals.