the simplicity conundrum

My resolute faith in 'simplicity' stands on my arrived-at belief that 'simple' is the most stable state. It is stable because its obviously simple, and because its stable it is not likely to change for a very long time and will therefore remain simple...get it? Now if we leave that last bit aside, most sane and logical people will indeed agree that simple is usually good....right?
Which brings me to the real point of this particular note, the one I've been waiting to spring on all ye unsuspecting visitors who have ventured thus far...
WHY THEN CAN MOST PEOPLE NEVER ARRIVE AT A 'SIMPLE' ANSWER TO ISSUES/ CONCERNS/ PROBLEMS/ QUESTIONS IN MOST FORMS OF DISCUSSIONS?...?!
and here's what my two and half bits on this are...

What in the very first place are we trying to bracket as 'simple'?

Let me take the example of a 'stent'...the kind doctors insert in heart attack patients [Disclaimer at this point: Apologies to all medicos and diehard 'ER' fans if I take certain descriptive liberties but i intent remaining true to the philosophy and purpose of the hallowed invention] to keep their arteries open and their blood flowing happily ever after. The idea is simple - prop up the arterial walls against sagging under the weight of all that cholestrol bequeathed by years of great tasting food. Its effective and its simple enough that most lay folks like yours truly can grasp the idea and visualise it too.
So the point is..is that a 'simple' idea? I think so! And I would like to believe that a lot of folks would think the same way...
NOW...this is a great idea...what was this in response to? Blocked arteries...of course! I said that so myself (dolt for asking)..but think about it...what does a 'blocked artery' mean to a medical innovator who's trying to understand (in the days before you had this thing called the stent) how does he save a man who's blood is barricaded from flowing (apart from going back in time and signing up to sit on that man's shoulder as his guardian angel for the rest of his natural born life)?
Look at the things he's staring at - he first needs to understand why the heart has a stroke...once he figures it out he needs to understand what is cholestrol and why does it pick the poor man's arteries to build its home...now once he's past THAT one comes the question of figuring out how to stop it from building (you know prevention and all that)...but what happens to all the guys (including the guy above who started this all) who've already had a stroke because of all that cholestrol thats already in there (thats not going anywhere without a fight!)?? so he now has to figure out how to make a man live and live without a portable life support system attached to him 24/7...

I've put forth just a few questions which are about as high level as the view from hubble telescope...the point being that just answering one of those questions would take several lifetimes of the very best of mankind's intellectual capital, and if they are lucky at that...
is THAT 'simple'? I for one do not think so...and so to cut all this short, getting to the 'simplest' solution is fine sport and all that...but my learning has been that the key really is the problem!

have I defined it? have i scoped it? am i approaching it logically? and from all the perspectives that i can and then borrow some from my betters?
I would rather have the problem 'complex' enough so that when I am done answering it, the solution (simple or otherwise) answers the present question and hopefully a good many of the ones ahead...

so there...

[Standard Disclaimers - All factual deviations are mine alone and no responsibility is to be attributed to the educational institutions that let me pass through their doors. And, all references to the 'male' patient were strictly from a historical narrative perspective and do not purport to take potshots at or subvert any ideas of political correctness (and which female was ever going to be happy to figure as my model for a stroke patient anyways!!)]