"20% of the people use up 80% of the health care costs according to a NPR report recently."

This is roughly correct. Although the 20% changes from year to year to some degree.

"These are the obese, the smokers, the "lifestyle choices"."

This is incorrect. First, most lifestyle choices really aren't that expensive. Second, they are encouraged by society (yes, even smoking). Third, and most important, plenty of expensive care doesn't fall into those categories.

"Fix that, and the healthcare cost issue goes away."

You can't. Or, at least no one has figured out how to do it. Ever.
We do however have the worst system in the world because we pay the most money for the least results.

For instance, if you want to "fix" obesity then you have to fix society. It's mixed in with our farm policy, housing policy, transport policy, employment policy, health policy, etc. You just don't tell people to eat less and exercise. We know that doesn't work.

There isn't much point in developing a light bomber if you have cruise missiles or UAV's. They perform much of the same role, are cheaper and expendable.

Actually, there is no inherent reason that the right to life dictates a right to own property Rights don't exist in the natural world but are created by humans. What most people find awful about Libertarian philosophy is the idea that property rights are equal to or greater than human rights.

Insisting that a company follow a well established law designed to promote access is not taking property. The company is free not to distribute the material (they have no right to make money). In fact, without the government and the laws, they wouldn't have a business model in the first place. That's what Libertarians frequently ignore in their faulty analyses.

Your minimum wage statistic is wrong. In my state, for instance, minimum wage is above $9 an hour for tipped positions.

This is simply untrue. Any carrier can deliver "mail" or the equivalent. They just can't use the mail boxes, as it is not their property.

It just so happens that they charge a lot more than the USPS. Mail delivery isn't cheap and it's not cost effective if you don't have the infrastructure.

Really? Do you even know the definition of a standardized test? If you think it means just multiple choice, you are incorrect. That is a common variant but it could also be a performance assessment. For instance, in Washington state, every new teacher has to pass a standardized test related to their teaching to get their teaching credentials. Being good on tests won't help you.

And exactly what content does Congress mandate?

I'll wait.

The states mandate content. We don't have national standards or subjects. We have suggestions for national standards. The Common Core standards (the closest thing to a national standard) are driven by the states.

Don't be misled by averages.

Federal funds typically are distributed unevenly through a state. Poor schools receive more funding, the wealthy schools receive less. So by refusing that funding you further penalize certain schools and certain populations. And while you can refuse some of the funding, you still have to provide the services (or get sued).

So how much did your students learn? And what standards did they meet? Do you have the data?

If you do, congratulations. You have done testing. If not, then perhaps you aren't as good a teacher as you think you were.

I agree that comprehensive formative and summative assessment done in the classroom matched to standards will be far more effective than general standardized tests. Any teacher and administrator that isn't an ignoramus knows that. And if you think unions are opposed to that, then perhaps you need to catch up with current events. I couldn't get my teaching certificate without proving I could do what you describe in the beginning; it was incorporated in the state assessment (wow, a useful standardized test, imagine that). Finally, good districts advertise to new teachers a system fairly close to what you propose. These are public systems.

If they can apply what they have been taught, then you ARE testing what you taught them.

Ultimately you need a balance between rote knowledge and the ability to apply it. In general, those students that don't know their facts also can't apply them if provided. As you noted, the opposite is not always true.

That's odd, because while I don't have an education major, I have a teaching certificate through a graduate program. The primary driver of the curriculum of the program is the state. And the people in charge are the legislators not educators. The legislators are responding to the desires of the citizens and the businesses to put ever more requirements on new and existing teachers. The legislators mandate the standards.

As humans are part of nature, your argument fails. We (nature) are applying the selective forces in the form of genetic engineering in the lab.

Virtually every food we eat has been genetically engineered in some manner. Opponents would be better served by asking for a better ingredient list. I suspect most people would probably like to know what chemicals reside in or on their vegetables and fruits, for instance.

They are heavy users in large part because it is "free" money. If you can borrow from the government at low rates and turn around and make money from safe investments (often in government bonds) at slightly higher rates, why wouldn't you?

I'm unsure if it is that high (95%). However, your point is correct. For instance, a doctor is really just a skilled trade. Why exactly do they need much of their undergraduate college classes?

Perhaps the largest complaint is that they don't understand the scientific method and cannot use, critique, and apply research. If that is the case, get rid of the undergraduate degree requirement or change it so they only take classes that meet the actual medical practice requirements. It would have the added benefit of reducing the time in school and their debt.

Degrees have become screening tools for HR and employers. They have also become a way to avoid training employees. Couple this with the massive expansion of administration costs at colleges with the removal of government support at State schools and you have massive loan debt for jobs that don't (or didn't) really need degrees.

And to get competition you would need effective regulation over natural monopolies. Which means you might as well support network neutrality. That is actually possible in the current environment.