No, I just don't see any point in debating anything when you presumably agree that nobody is being bankrupted by free ambulance rides given that you called it a strawman. If you wish to defend what you called a strawman, which I didn't think people normally did in good faith but could be convinced otherwise, then I am willing to let you set the definitions you wish and make a case, as is standard for those instigating a discussion, while reserving the right to decline further participation if my disagreement with the position is below a certain threshold and/or any other reason I might find the discussion unproductive.

I never said no one would be bankrupted by ambulance fees.

We’re talking about financial ruin of the government.

I really don't see the point of playing these word games. I had assumed you meant the government, yes.

Clarifying definition is not a "word game". You seem quite uncomfortable debating the facts, and that's ok.

I am not interested in discussing "facts" with someone who has yet to acknowledge their motte-and-bailey, which for obvious reasons does not engender a reasonable expectation that such a discussion would be approached in good faith. If you wish to make a claim, you are free to explain your preferred definitions yourself. If you don't, there is nothing to debate.