>>>Why settle for what works better? I want what works best.
>
>Usually this is achieved by considering evidence before reaching a decision.

Evidence shows us that markets work best verses central planning. They lower costs advance technology, increase and build layers of knowledge quicker and more efficiently than central planning.

How many more decades of evidence do we require?

>It may be easier to declare a position and then block any evidence that conflicts with it, but that sort of Soviet thinking doesn't lead to best results as has been proven through history.

I do not block nor ignore, I welcome evidence, and encourage people to prove me wrong. I'm perfectly willing to admit my mistakes and change my opinion and have done so on a number of occasions. It's not that I've been wrong more than most, I'm not afraid of being nor admitting when I'm incorrect.

Honestly assessing and admitting one's mistakes and learning from them are important life skills and they are absolutely essential for an investor. ;)

That being said. I will question everything put before me. In that regard, I have yet to see a more ideal solution than removing government involvement in the transactions of health care. Government has an important role in establishing and enforcing the rules, but needs to be completely removed from payments.

>The reality is that nobody really can be sure

We can be sure of the facts. With health care what we cannot agree upon is what we will tolerate. I'm perfectly willing to tolerate anyone eating, drinking & smoking whatever they want, I just don't want to pay for their choices. Others cannot stand fat people or smokers and they want their behaviors banned. For me, liberty is more important so even though the reality right now is that I am paying for other people's choices I'd rather push against my paying for them, rather than pushing against their freedom to make unhealthy choices.

Another Example:
Most people cannot tolerate "suffering". How we define "suffering" is where things get murky.
For me, seeing an able bodied 30ish man with his "hungry, suffering, please help" sign at an intersection where no less than 4 businesses have "help wanted" signs in the window tells me he isn't suffering, he's a lazy vagrant. Meanwhile, I see his dog (well fed mind-you) tied up to the street-light pole and I feel sorry for the dog.

Sidetrack: At the same intersection I saw this which made me smile. Guy A is a dancing sign guy at the corner and Guy B has a "please help" sign, bumming money in the intersection. Guy B goes to the Guy A and they share a laugh. After a minute or so (less than a light cycle), they exchange shirts, Guy A hands his sign and ipod over to Guy B and in return he hands over his "please help" sign. Guy A now proceedes into the intersection and Guy B starts his dancing sign routine. I still cannot figure out how they're sharing the job duties for the dancing-sign employer. ;)

>and if debate turns into fortified positions over whose walls people toss grenades at each other, the result always will be less than it could be.

That's just the nature of politics.

>>>Problem : I cut my finger...
>
>A better analogy might be:
>
>Problem: I cut my finger
>Solution: I know for sure that tourniquets are useful in injuries, so I apply one to my finger
>When the finger falls off, I declare that the tourniquet saved my arm that would have fallen off had I not used the tourniquet.
>If somebody tries to suggest that there might have been better treatment options, I declare that this is irrelevant because history has shown repeatedly that tourniquets not only save limbs, they save lives.

I couldn't have illustrated the folly of a centrally planned one-size-fits-all solution better.

Thanks in advance for when I use it in future discussions. ;)