I tend to agree with this. It seems odd that a lot of people want there to have been a compromise by a government -- it seems at least as likely to me that the developer just didn't want to work on TC anymore and would like it to go away.

It does indeed appear to be OpenBSD only at present (from http://www.libressl.org/ ):

This

This is where the debate ends. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act) made the US a single payer system, we just haven't been honest about it. Because of this law, anyone who enters the ER with an emergency must be treated. If the person does not have an emergency, they may be sent away; however, if they have an actual condition (e.g. cancer), the hospital must treat it later when it is worse and an actual emergency.

I dislike the concept of the government being the purveyor of healthcare for philosophical reasons -- because if it provides it, it is at least implied that it can take it away. It also gives the government essential control over the medical profession (again, if you're the only payer, you can set the rules). The government manages to mess up most things it touches. That said, the current situation is both morally and economically untenable. At some point, reality and practicality triumph over philosophy. Everyone is living longer, and nearly everyone is going to need some form of long term care. The only economically efficient way to handle that is to have a single payer. Or let them die.

Indeed it is taken totally out of context -- it's from pg 4 of the article, talking about a library called d3.js, which is apparently a library "to make things move on the screen"

In what jurisdiction are you speaking? In every place I'm aware of in the US the plaintiff does receive the damages.