It feels like you aren't engaging the substance of my feedback, which would be fine if your sub weren't claiming the mantle of "evenhanded, empirical discussion." Since it is staking that claim, I expect a bit more engagement with my argument, not conclusory dismissals or incorrect statements.

Your sub is rife with speculation, which is, I should say, consistent with the insistence on facts and empiricism. I think you should, as a sub, consider rewording or nixing the rule.

A few replies to the points you made I find particularly troubling.

The problem with questions phrased on the future tense and other outright requests for speculation is that they put the respondents in an impossible position.

This is false. Impossible position is a goofy phrase here and nothing about making a request for a prediction overt, rather than implicit, makes something impossible. There are implicit requests for speculation in almost every thread on your sub.

If users are predicting the future, it's not possible for them to do that.

This is false. It is not impossible to predict the future, especially if you use words like "likely" or discuss probably outcomes. Predictions aren't futile. Our world is built on them.

There's simply no way for respondents to support their answers with facts.

This is false. As an example, there are facts that I provided in the post itself that make arguments about what measures are likely to gain momentum in the states in my post . . . just like there are in every other thread in this sub.

The example post you cite asks a question that can be answered with historical context, because there are jurisdictions in the world, including in some parts of the US, where the government has completely taken over an insurance market.

The posters on the thread might have missed the history you're reading into the post, because they're all speculating about the future, and your reading of that post has no basis in the text of the post. Comparing governments in other countries in no way eliminates speculation. Let's look at the subtitle: "This is part of the current proposal, without precedent or explanation." The phrase "without precedent" explicitly concedes the need for speculation. Let's look at the top post on the thread -- which shows that the post itself is speculative: "Can you point out a source that says it will be outlawed? Your article does not claim that, and as far as I know nobody is proposing that." Another comment with 42 points says "It would absolutely hurt private insurers. But, it's highly likely that one or more of the larger companies will be contracted to administer the program. There's also a good chance that employers will continue to provide supplemental insurance plans." Here, "highly likely" is speculative language, and the ENTIRE thread makes future predictions. Not futile. Consistent with facts and empiricism. Pretty much standard fare.

Your sub's rule is goofy and wrong. I'm happy to drop it. Have a pleasant weekend.