Trump's lawyer's response on fraud.

XD

This.  The most legit audits are actually done by legit and competent outside sources.

If a doctor was telling people they had cancer without providing any actual evidence, they'd be stripped of their license and sued into oblivion for malpractice.

What if the doctor explains your medical condition in detail on the news? How can the public know you're not just wasting the system's time and money? Especially in a universal system.

I believe that would be a HIPAA violation. Doctors cannot legally share private details regarding my medical condition with the news. 

Some things are kept quiet/confidential for good reason.

Mayhap things that are being kept quiet shouldn't be so damned loud.

Parliament getting a little savage about the election.

Evidence. Evidence is the answer to every question you're asking.

Malpractice is a private cause of action. It's not a public matter, regardless of whether there is a universal system or not, because malpractice suits would be against the doctor directly. The public doesn't need to know shit.

BUT if the public is really that interested, court records are available, so they can look up the records (which would possibly be redacted to protect my privacy). They can see the evidence I've presented for my claim.

More importantly, the court can see the evidence for my claim. And if I am alleging fraud without evidence, then the court can force me to pay the legal fees for the doctor, and the doctor may have a cause of action for libel.

Again, the answer to everything you say is evidence. The point of your analogy, which you've now drifted away from once the obvious flaw was pointed out, is that we should take a claim seriously and check it out because not doing so may be harmful. The obvious flaw in that is that we can't take seriously any random claim that's thrown out there. A random person on the subway one day was telling about 5 different people that the FBI was after them and would come to their home shortly. I doubt very much any of them took precautions, nor should they. 

We have to have some way to determine which claims are worth looking into and which are not. The best way to do that is with expertise and evidence. When someone who is qualified to make a determination, like a doctor, makes that determination with evidence, then it's a good idea to check that out. When someone has one or the other (expertise or evidence) it's still probably worth checking out, although we would start off more skeptically. 

When someone with no demonstrable expertise who whines like a fucking child every time he loses (when Ted Cruz beat him in Iowa when Clinton won the popular vote) and has already wasted millions of dollars on a fraud investigation that turned up nothing (in 2016 when he claimed he won except for the illegal immigrants voting) is making a claim without any evidence, we don't have to take that seriously. 

Now please stop with the hypotheticals, because it's going to be considered derailing. They are pointless. Of course you can find some scenario where it makes sense to take someone's claim seriously, but that doesn't mean that a claim in a completely different scenario should be taken seriously. 

Pro-Trump Televangelist Handling His Loss Very Normally :/