Brian Schwartz asks a very useful question:

"How likely is it that people arrive at their opinion based on moral grounds, but then cherry pick data from empirical studies that validate their morally-derived position?"

My response: “Very likely.”

"If that’s the case," he says, "it’s more honest and worthwhile to address the ethics straight on."

That he does, in a post titled "How to argue for health savings accounts." More broadly, it reveals what is morally objectionable about our current approach to health insurance.