(V): Here is the problem.... to many on the right, it is just same old

He gives a great speech, says all the right things... you noticed when he said something like "we have to work together, compromise both directions" then everyone on both sides of the isle stand up an applaud. But the problem is, that does not happen..... with democrats like Pelosi in control, they have never once given any consideration to republican ideas or amendments

So to us, it is just a speech, with good sound bites, but the reality that most average people dont understand, is that there are many hidden things in the democrats plans, plans that on the serface seem like plans we can all embrace, but that when republicans try to add things to make sure certain bad elements dont happen, they get squished like tiny bugs by the democrats in charge.


I personally dont know tiny details.... but you could tell by the reaction, when Bam said that "no ilegal aliens would benefit from our health care system" thats when i think the guy said "lies", its just that I am so sure that there are so many parts of this plan that go beyond the veneer of this speech, many parts that need to be worked out better, and it seems to me like the democrats are not willing to compromise at all with many of the republicans concerns


Even Ferris can probably admit that there must be more to all this than meets the eye of the average American???

(V): I agree with you about Obama's approach to listen to all sides, but the problem is that the opposition doesn't give a rat's ass about listening to him.  They would rather listen to radical right talk shows & call him names than do what is right for the country.  The pres. now needs to spell out his plan for reform like he did tonight & stick by it.  The Republicans have had their fun.  It's time for the Democrats to govern.

... what gets me by the speech... Obama wants to make the health insurance market more competitive, he wants to end cancelling insurance for silly reasons (by those who get paid commission on finding ways not to pay out)... more preventive medicine.

What are the objections to this by Republican hard liners? I thought competitive markets were an idol of Republican hard liners.

.."more competition and more choice.... accountability.. Non profit option to keep insurance companies honest in the insurance exchange, no-one will be forced to choose it.. believe less then 5% of people will sign up.. self sufficient scheme by premiums.. "

And this is bad??

And yes I heard the "you lie" Ferris... ... Lot of booing at the bloke as well.

Ferris Bueller: I've not sat through all of it yet.. bit early before I have my second cuppa

You'll always get idiots in all parties. Blinkered people that choose ideology over what needs to be done. From what I gather Obama has listened to his party as well as the Republicans... those that want to work with him anyway.

Well one thing can be said no matter what.. He's being a better Pres then Bush because he is listening. Not to just the parties but those (such as doc's and nurses) who have working knowledge of the problems.

(V): You mean u missed one side of the aisle sitting on their hands or holding up papers through most of the speech.  In addition one idiot congressman yelled out "You lie!" during the Pres. speech.  In case you didn't notice,  those were the Republicans. They only care about destroying this president.

If President Obama wants to pass reform, he will have to do it w/ Democrats only, & they are not lockstep.

Ferris Bueller: Well by the standing ovations, I recon both sides in congress liked what he said. And by talk with everyone in congress and the senate, it looks like a plan has been formed.

As he said.. build on what works and reform what doesn't. Common sense really

Artful Dodger:  That's all the Republicans care about is destroying this presidency.  Well its not going to work!

".....But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.

(APPLAUSE)

Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. ..."

Czuch:  Obama will get something but this whole thing will undo his Presidency.  It's in the cards. ;)

I tell you right now.... I was instrumental in getting Olympia Snow to speak at my high school graduation 29 years ago, and I have been a supporter of her for many years, but if she caves on this one, I will personally spit at her feet!

Published: September 9, 2009

Following is the prepared text of President Obama’s speech to Congress on the need to overhaul health care in the United States, as released by the White House.
Skip to next paragraph
Prescriptions Blog

A blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds.

* More Health Care Overhaul News

Related
In Speech, Obama Will Not Insist on Public Option (September 10, 2009)
Blog
The Caucus
The Caucus

The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

* More Politics News

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Vikings:  that's a good name for her! 

Artful Dodger: they will only go over to the people who get their indoctrination from the main stream drive by's. Anybody that is informed can find holes in almost anything he said or like the gentleman from S.C. said, "That is a lie"!. but the look on miss jack-o-lantern face was priceless at that moment

Vikings:  I just wanna smack the smile off the Speaker's plastic face.  She's such a two-face lying hypocrite. 

I predict that many points in his speech will go over ok but other points will backfire.  Never threaten the people you want on your side.  Big mistake.

I've never heard someone lie through their teeth so much

Czuch:   With Obama, it's small steps to his indoctrination ideas.  The parents objected to the followup questions suggested by the White House.  Even so, most people no longer trust the White House and view what ever they do with suspecion.  Tonight is Obamas make it or break it moment.  I say he breaks it. 

I was right....

Pay scales for nurses/midwifes range from £13.2K to £65K+

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=4

+ upto nearly £7K in London allowance

Snoopy: I cannot agree with that, I know it didn't use to be that way (mum was a SRN and use to earn good money just doing two nights.. as much as a week of days) .. I know the gov has a tendency to listen to the nurses and midwife reps...

I think it's more a case of how qualified they are, and what speciality (if any they have).

(V): but sadly the ones who do the donkey work IE: the nurses get a pittance

Czuch: Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. People here still fight to goto certain universities and colleges. I believe alot of Americans get scholarships at Oxford and Cambridge don't they? Rowing and all. Certain colleges specialise in certain fields or, have special depts that reflect the demand for specific skills in that area. We have Private and Public schools, Boarding schools, etc as the need and dedication arises.

We have national Private Health companies.. over 50 off them... not thousands.. All that complexity and having to monitor them.. that's why they want you HR Republicans to support them. NHS trusts that cover counties, live medical record systems so doc's can see each others notes to make better decisions. Private works with Public. And from only 32p per day.. Just about $200. But complaints have been filed regarding over pricing against some companies... such is a matter of trading standards and possible court.

And no... No elites, wages are set, limits and all by government in the NHS. Doesn't mean rubbish pay, doc's here can easily earn $200K+

Ferris Bueller: If you say so.... I think Bam did have an initial plan to lobby the children for his agenda, and if it wasnt for the right wing talk radio crowd there to make sure that didnt happen, then it would have happened

So in the end, what was it all about anyway??? A big pep talk from the commander in chief???

Got to admit Bam is a good speaker and motivator, but that does not a leader make.... but if you want to get all teary eyed over him talking about how not having a father actually made him a stronger person.... or was he saying it was a negative thing, really



well anyway, thats typical liberal talk out of both sides of your mouth, dont offend anyone, make everyone feel happy, there is no real right or wrong its all good....

(V): Why can't you do as we.. private and public working side by side?



We already do... but that is not the end game, the end game is just a swap of power from private elites to public elites, in the end the people are still beholden....

(V): Well it seems the goal to me.... make everyone the same/ equal.... all the same care and education etc, and pay for it from taxing the wealthy, and then the wealthy are not so and the poor are not so.... you tell me where it all leads then?

Czuch: Wrong. It'll never happen, companies would have to be gone as such. And I cannot see any reason why that would happen.

Czuch: In some respects Czuch, your constitution contains socialist (of a type) values..

btw.. Are you trying to tell me that the Republican mind still thinks in McCarthy style ways? I thought that horror died decades ago, and further died when the Berlin wall fell (as in the end of the cold war)...

Why can't you do as we.. private and public working side by side?

Artful Dodger: No they don't, that is a complete lie. The 'experts' disagree, and because of WWII they've been arguing (pro repub's and pro demo's) since. AS WWII (I'll say this one more time) interfered with a pure run of data. IF WWII had not happened then there would be the ability to make a full analysis of the great depression.

But WWII did happen.

Tuesday:  I agree!  And that fact was clearly apparent during this so called debate over whether President Obama should be allowed to address school children about doing their best in school.  The right-wing "shock jocks" polluting our airways ought to have no credibility now.

Baby left to die for being 'too young'

NEWS.com.au

9 September 2009

A DEVASTATED mother claims doctors refused to treat her pre-mature baby because it was born two days early.

A DEVASTATED mother claims doctors refused to treat her premature baby because it was born two days early.

The tiny boy from the UK - born 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - died just two hours after being born, The Daily Mail reports.

Sarah Capewell, who has suffered five miscarriages previously, said she went into early labour and was told her newborn would be dead once delivered.

But after discovering her son, Jayden, had a strong heart beat and was moving his arms and legs, she called doctors and begged them to help.

Ms Capewell said doctors refused, saying medical guidelines state that "babies born before 22 weeks are not viable and are not to be helped".

She claims doctors at James Paget Hospital in Norfolktold told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

According to the Daily Mail, she told one paediatrician, "You have got to help", only for the man to respond: "No we don't."

"When I went into labour I was told he would be born dead, disabled and his skin would most likely be peeling off, in actual fact he was perfect," she wrote on her website Justice for Jayden.

"As you can see from his pic he was born alive, he was responsive and lived without help for nearly 2 hours.

"Reguardless of this doctors refused to come and see him let alone consider helping him."

A hospital official said it not t blame for setting the nation's guidelines and "like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance".

Ms Capewell is now campaigning to make the Government to change the law.

"This is down to government legislation stating that babies born before 22 weeks are not viable and are not to be helped," she said.

"Now I'm asking for your help in changing legislation so other families don't have to suffer unnessisarily."

The government wants single payer insurance - that IS the goal

they lie through their false teeth.

Universal Eyes:    A complete cut and paste.  How about using your own words?  Either that or just provide a link.

(V):  you aren't very well versed in Us politics or its history.   All the experts agree that the efforts to counter the effects of the depression actually prolonged it.

(V): Maybe with your vast educational and reading experience you can answer me this question.....


(I know you dont like hypothetical) But lets assume that the whole world were united under one system similar to the UK.... the middle class gets bigger, the poor gets smaller, as do the wealthy.... over time we are all pretty much middle class, right? Then what? When Paul is gone, who do you rob to pay Peter? Once there are no more poor people and no more rich people, then what?

Czuch: oh, I'll bet there is the highest percentage going to the school district, mine is

Vikings: ahhhhh..... well, at least it isnt all going to the education of kids I dont have....


...and V, before you say anything..... I do understand that a healthy, well educated population is a good thing for our country, even at the expense of those with no kids or who use very little medical services.

Czuch: check your property tax breakdown, 6 1/2% of mine goes to a hospital that is the main stop for the uninsured

(V): Let me clarify to, that a lot of the "FREE" care that people with no health coverage gets is recieved from private health providers but is paid for from higher fees to those with health coverage, and NOT from the government. Which might seem bad at first glance, but to me it is better to have people who use the services cover instead of the government taking from me to pay for the uncovered.

Like they do for education, even though I have never had any children, my government still takes my money to pay for it

(V): I am saying that we already do have some government PAID health care, but the treatment is from the same private care that insurance people use. (except some veterans care and some others)

So, yes of course the government is perfectly capable of paying for my health care, but I do not have any confidence in them running the whole health care industry or them running their own version of it and to compete with private health care. But if they want to try that, then fine, just like the postal service sucks, so will their health programs.

But in general, I am against socialism for America, and my main focus is to keep us from bleeding to death one cut at a time from more and more bits of socialized programs being implemented.

Universal Eyes: Let me put it this way... Over here one council cancelled the warden system for it's sheltered OAP accommodation. Those that moved there understanding they would have a warden now found that service cancelled, and the ability to live where they were in some cases severely impaired to the point that some had to go into care homes.

One supporter of this move complained about wardens helping old folk out of hours.

I didn't know caring was a crime these days.

(V): What about home care.Do you feel the same?

Czuch: That would be opening up the door for lawsuits.

Tuesday: I'm native Canadian yet I'm still supposedly covered for all medical and dental in the states.

Übergeek 바둑이: Well look at it this way if you die you can't be or are not responsible to pay for your health care so if they want to be paid they better not kill you.

Czuch: What i don't get is that you say the government run clinics are fine, yet you object to them!!

Politics (Czuch, 2009-07-27 13:08:17)

I quote.. "Lack of health insurance does NOT equal lack of health care, not in the US anyway!"

and ...."..have no confidence that the government health care will do any better than the US postal service when it comes to competing with private industry..."

So, are you saying, or not saying that the gov is perfectly capable of running a health system?

Übergeek 바둑이: the right of the People to healthcare, shall not be infringed.


Well, fine then.... but the government does not provide us all with guns, free or otherwise..... and we have no "right" that says they have to provide us with health care either.

Universal Eyes:

The idea of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) seems good, but certain things are not clear to me.

I am curious about what restrictions people have to withdraw money from the accounts. Reading more about it, I found certain details:

"HSA participants do not have to obtain advance approval from their HSA trustee or their medical insurer to withdraw funds."
"Funds can be withdrawn for any reason, but withdrawals that are not for documented qualified medical expenses are subject to income taxes and a 10% penalty."

What happens to somebody who is having money problems? Imagine that somebody lost their job and is defaulting on their mortgage payments. They can go, take their HSA money (paying the 10% tax) and save their home, but they would be left without the HSA. Somebody who for some reason needs money in a hurry could find themselves with no coverage of any kind all of a sudden, and knowing human nature, when people have money problems they will go for whatever they can grab.

The HSA is suppossed to accrue value over time, like an IRA.

"income tax is paid on the withdrawal, and in effect the account has grown tax deferred (similar to an IRA)"

I imagine that there is somebody managing that money, most likely some financial services firm. If for some reason they lost money (like IRAs do when the financial markets take a tumble) then people could find themselves with less money for medical expenses than they may have expected.

I Imagine that like IRAs, there is some degree of protection from bankruptcy filings. In some states bankruptcy proceedings or creditor lawsuits cannot seize assets in an IRA account. I Imagine that something similar must exist for HSAs. Otherwise somebody who goes bankrupt could lose healthcare coverage to creditors seizing the account.

I am curious to know too how the plan works for people who cannot afford to fund the HSA account. Would those people have to opt for different insurance plans, or rely on government-provided care? A larger family might be unable to fund an account for many children. I imagine that some government-sponsored child coverage would help those families.

Is the system fair for all age groups? As we grow older, our health can deteriorate. A senior's medical expenses are not the same as those of a person in their 30s. The assumption is that the HSA account grew over time, but if for some reason the account did not grow (like many retirement plans in the last 9 years), the senior would end up losing in relation to a younger, healthier person.

Well, these are technical details in an otherwise interesting idea, like educational savings plans (529 Plans) that allow parents to save money towards a child's future education.

Universal Eyes: Unfortunately for that author, one of the main points of the election was healthcare. The people voted..... yes.

And the analogy of fruit and veg is really bad... I would say looking for a "knee-jerk reaction"

Many people support the ideal of universal health care insurance coverage. The utopian heart beats strong and steady. But once the incision is made, there is no turning back. And without a clear understanding of economics, our experimental treatment may kill Uncle Sam.

The knee-jerk reaction of liberals to the rubber hammer of health care is the simplistic mantra, “Everyone should be covered,” or, “The government should pay for everyone.” Whether 46 million are uninsured or just one individual, anything less than universal coverage is simply unacceptable to them.

Conservatives, in contrast, whittle the number down. About 6.4 million people are on Medicaid or SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) but tell the census taker they are uninsured. Another 4.3 million are eligible and would be automatically enrolled after visiting a clinic or emergency room. Both groups are protected from risk and do not need more coverage.

Another 9.3 million are not American citizens. The law currently covers them for emergency care while they are in the United States. Debate is ongoing whether they should qualify for full medical insurance even if they are undocumented and pay no taxes.

Another 10.1 million have incomes more than triple the federal poverty level. Even people at the poverty level live better than the average American did in 1960 and more comfortably than 90 percent of the world today. For a family of four, three times the poverty level is $66,150.

About 5 million are healthy adults with no dependent children between 18 and 34. They have ruled out health insurance coverage as too expensive. The current proposals limit how much insurers can set their premiums based on age. The limit is two times, which discriminates against younger adults. Nothing makes sense about charging a 19-year-old half as much as a 91-year-old. Well-intentioned statism steals from struggling young people and lines the coffers of the wealthy AARP lobby.

So we are left with 10.6 million uninsured U.S. citizens with children who live three times below the poverty level - for example, a family of four earning less than $66,150 a year.

These are the heart-wrenching stories. Imagine a young middle-class family without health insurance whose child suddenly needs tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. They can’t qualify for assistance, but their son’s or daughter’s future depends on getting expensive treatments immediately. That’s the poster child for universal coverage.

The compromise for conservatives is to agree as a society that we can afford to make catastrophic coverage mandatory. Americans are generally compassionate and will try to pay after the fact. But if America’s generosity insulates people from this risk, they won’t feel the need to buy insurance. So in fairness everyone must be required to buy coverage ahead of time.

The compromise for liberals is to agree that we are not going to provide an entitlement program for the first aspirin purchased. We are building a safety net, not a hammock.

Insurance only makes sense for extremely expensive and unlikely scenarios. It is never advisable for everyday events.

Here is the perfect analogy: compare insurance that tries to cover the first dollar of health care to the idea of grocery store insurance.

Imagine the average family of four spends $100 a week on groceries, $25 per person. Now think about implementing universal grocery insurance for everyone.

There is no way weekly premiums would be less than $25 per person. They would have to cover the cost of insurance administration and reimbursement. At checkout you would be obliged to show your card and have your insurance numbers recorded. Each item would need to be coded to qualify for reimbursement. Shaving cream would be disallowed. Organic vegetables would only be reimbursed at the generic rate. A dietician would have to certify the tuna is for human, not feline consumption.

Coverage for a week’s worth of groceries would quickly rise from $100 to $200 a week. Then $300. Then $500. Soon many people couldn’t afford grocery coverage and would drop out of the system. They would have to grow their own vegetables and raise chickens. Those who paid in cash would subsidize the collection costs of those with insurance.

Pressure would increase to lower grocery costs. The government would implement price controls. But you can’t reduce costs simply by refusing to pay. Shortages and rationing would ensue.

Those who regularly ate steak would be denied. Families who normally made do with hamburger would start eating the maximum reimbursable amount of filet mignon. Vegetarians would get the meat anyway and trade it for organic food on the black market. Parents of children with allergies would demand expensive gluten-free options. Grocery fraud would be rampant.

Grocery stores would no longer be able to price items. “It depends,” clerks would answer. “Ask your insurance company.” Shoppers wouldn’t care as long as lobster was covered once a quarter.

Older women who ate sparingly would subsidize teenage boys. The obese would take advantage of items that were unlimited allowances. All of the restraint imposed by economic forces would be lost.

Clearly, insurance never works for frequent events with moderate costs. But unfortunately it typifies the style of government-imposed health insurance on the industry. Hundreds of regular expenses are required by law. Each one comes with a nominal copayment that fails to deter its use.

Insurance should be used to limit catastrophic risk, not to pool everyday expenses. Affordable medical insurance should have a high deductible. Then out-of-pocket expenses below the deductible would provide sufficient negative feedback to prevent skyrocketing insurance costs. We have just such an economic trial right now that appears very promising.

If you support universal coverage, consider Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Thus far, the results of HSAs are surprising and may actually be a miracle cure for America’s health-care crisis.

As long as funds are saved and spent on qualified medical expenses, all contributions, capital gains and withdrawals related to an HSA remain untaxed. And HSAs come complete with debit cards and checks.

To protect you against catastrophic medical expenses, HSAs are coupled with a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP), a minimum of $1,150 for individuals and $2,300 for families. Once the deductible is met, HSA-eligible HDHP plans cover 100 percent of most medical expenses.

Of course, these deductibles are significant. The minimum deductible for a family is $2,300; the maximum is $11,600. That’s a lot of money for a struggling family, but it isn’t crippling. People hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of dollars won’t mind losing a few pints of blood instead. They will consider themselves blessed.

Utopian liberals are willing to sacrifice the negative feedback of the first dollar coming out of pocket to fund that dollar for the truly needy. This is madness. Don’t break the system for the 80 percent of Americans who can afford to self-insure the deductible.

Utopians also suggest that automatically paying for routine health maintenance reduces the costs of health care. But annual checkups still cost more than they save. And if they are cost effective, let the insurance companies offer discounts on the cost of the HDHP if patients pay out of pocket for annual checkups. The less government tries to make those decisions, the better.

The good news is that HSA-eligible HDHP premiums are considerably less expensive than the cost of a traditional medical insurance plan. If you want universal coverage, demand Health Savings Accounts with high deductibles. Let’s agree we can solve the problem without a grand government takeover of health care.
Post a Comment

Czuch: No. I don't. I would like it made so kids cannot just take guns. I made that quite clear. Seeing as much gun crime is kid related.

Is being responsible regarding firearms anti republican?

Czuch:

> It is because of criminals who use guns in illegal ways that you want to infringe
> our freedom to bear arms, in the same way you want to change our whole health
> care system, just because of a few bad apples.

Your are right in this. Guns in themselves do no harm until somebody pulls the trigger. Opposition to availability of guns is just like prohibition. "If there is no alcohol available, then people will stop drinking. If no guns are available, then people will stop killing each other."

Some countries like Japan have full bans of buying and selling firearms. Their statistics show a low incidence of murder, but not a low incidence of stabbing. Less people die of stabbing, but it does not mean that stabbing happens less often than shooting.

Some gun owners are responsible. I know a man who collects guns and he loves hunting. He keeps at least 50 hunting rifles safely locked away in the basement of his home. He would never harm anyone. He just loves fishing, hunting, etc.

Then we hear stories of children taking their parents gun to school and shooting other children. Irresponsible parents leave the gun lying around without thinking of the consequences.

Healthcare in the US is somewhat like that. Some insurers are responsible and care about their clients. Others are greedy and charge more for providing less services. Some insurers operate in some states where they provide better or worse services than in other states.

Should the government intervene? Legislate companies at a federal level to ensure everyone in every state gets adequate coverage from private companies? Should there be price checks to make it affordable to everyone? Or should the state pick up the slack and provide equal healthcare to the needy?

People in the US don't seem to agree. Here in Canada the government did away with the problem by providing universal healthcare. It works here, in spite of the mistakes and problems with waiting lists, etc. However, the American reality is different. Somewhere along the way the problems with the system have to be fixed in a balanced manner. I think that if all the special interests could be removed, the government might find a better way to deal with the problem.