What's the opposite of "benefit of the doubt"?
You were responding to his comment, "Of course, Congress is never going to cut doctor's salaries that much in one fell swoop."
That was a response to the article he quoted, which discussed the possible impact of proposed Medicare changes on one doctor's net profits.
For your question to be meaningful, you had to assume that Scott's goal was to reduce doctor salaries. You then had to conclude that his comment was not a statement of fact, but stating a problem.
When you assume the worst of intentions, and use those assumptions to turn analysis into argument, you make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion. Challenging your opponent on every statement of fact may be a good rhetorical device, but it doesn't lead to common ground. It's a sign that winning the argument is more important than understanding each other.
