Aside from the democrats' opposition to the war in Iraq, their other platform in '08 is going to be the emergence of universal healthcare. Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich all all jumped on the Hillary train when it comes to a solution to healthcare.

Personally, I think there are two many hands stirring the pot. If we could somehow make the healthcare market truly competitive where people could shop around and purchase what type of drugs and coverage, prices would come down. However, special interest groups don't want to see this happen. This is the main problem with the current situation. The president wants it both ways.
Original Post
Well, I will be the first to admit that our healthcare needs a facelift. Our coverage is going down, co-pays are going up, bi-weekly premiums are getting higher, and now they are even DENYING some claims that are totally necessary as per the DOCTOR, not the Insurance Clerks!!!

I KNOW something needs to be done, but for God's sake, there are already TOO many hands in the TILL of medical care vs. Insurance payments!!!

I hate to really admit it, but Hillary gave Healthcare a great facelift when Bill was in office, she already KNOWS what to do .... and guess what... INSURANCE companies KNEW their places during that era... Now they RULE us all.
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Aside from the democrats' opposition to the war in Iraq, their other platform in '08 is going to be the emergence of universal healthcare. Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich all all jumped on the Hillary train when it comes to a solution to healthcare.

Personally, I think there are two many hands stirring the pot. If we could somehow make the healthcare market truly competitive where people could shop around and purchase what type of drugs and coverage, prices would come down. However, special interest groups don't want to see this happen. This is the main problem with the current situation. The president wants it both ways.


Sounds to me like you are supporting much of the plan that Hillary came up with back in Bill's term.

For some reason, it was demonized by the right wing nuts to the point where if people were asked if they liked "Hillary's plan" they said definately "NO!". However , when they were asked if they liked a plan that would ---and then gave the plan Hillary put forty without using her name, most people thought that was a good plan.

Everyone should contribute to the health system if they use it. The problem now is there actually is universal health care. Those who don't have insurance just go to the emergency room and get it for free. Problem is, those of us with insurance pay for them in increased cost that our insurance pays for.
If you must have insurance for your car, you should have to have insurance for your body.
You really need to study up on Hillary's old plan. She didn't have any medical personnel, health experts or insurance experts in her conclave, only government bureaucrats. Little things like the health police financed from seizure of all your assets, if you tried sought private care were chilling.

It was the Canadian plan on steroids. And, that plan is not one to copy.
Excelman, I believe that free markets and competition are the best way to go about this problem. If government would get out of the way of the people, we would be better off. Hillary, to my knowlege, wants government to be in charge of deciding our healthcare coverage for us. So, I would definitely say I am not on her side.

There are always going to be free riders in any system. The goal of government should be to make programs as efficient as possible so the costs of these free riders are minimized.
My understanding of Hillary's plan, I read it but that was long ago in a galaxy far away, was as I remember it, for the government to provide a pool of private insurance companies that would offer plans at reasonable rates.
You could still keep whatever insurance you have now, but for those without company sponsored insurance, the rates you could get health insurance would be comparable to what most people pay for company sponsored ins. Don't know why that would require doctors to oversee. I don't remember anything about the government seizing private property.

I have good insurance. My interest in this is mainly because I am tired of my insurance paying for all the people who don't pay anything for their medical care, and it gets rolled to those of us who do. This raises my rates, and I don't like it!
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
My understanding of Hillary's plan, I read it but that was long ago in a galaxy far away, was as I remember it, for the government to provide a pool of private insurance companies that would offer plans at reasonable rates.
You could still keep whatever insurance you have now, but for those without company sponsored insurance, the rates you could get health insurance would be comparable to what most people pay for company sponsored ins. Don't know why that would require doctors to oversee. I don't remember anything about the government seizing private property.

I have good insurance. My interest in this is mainly because I am tired of my insurance paying for all the people who don't pay anything for their medical care, and it gets rolled to those of us who do. This raises my rates, and I don't like it!


I see your concerns. My concern is that in the end we are going to pay more for health insurance than we are now. Maybe not directly, but in the form of additional taxes to supplement those who can't afford to pay for their coverage government offers them. I guess I am just skeptical that government can do a better job making decisions for me than I can.
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
My understanding of Hillary's plan, I read it but that was long ago in a galaxy far away, was as I remember it, for the government to provide a pool of private insurance companies that would offer plans at reasonable rates.
You could still keep whatever insurance you have now, but for those without company sponsored insurance, the rates you could get health insurance would be comparable to what most people pay for company sponsored ins. Don't know why that would require doctors to oversee. I don't remember anything about the government seizing private property.

I have good insurance. My interest in this is mainly because I am tired of my insurance paying for all the people who don't pay anything for their medical care, and it gets rolled to those of us who do. This raises my rates, and I don't like it!


I see your concerns. My concern is that in the end we are going to pay more for health insurance than we are now. Maybe not directly, but in the form of additional taxes to supplement those who can't afford to pay for their coverage government offers them. I guess I am just skeptical that government can do a better job making decisions for me than I can.


I share your concerns about taxes, but I still believe you and I are paying now, except that thru the emergency rooms at hospitals, there is not a more expensive way to get health care.
If my memory is correct, I don't see whats wrong with the pool for private insurance companies that people could choose from.
Maybe PBA will read this and provide a link as he seems to have a link to virtually everything, and prove me right or wrong about Hillary's plan but it sounded good to me.
BTW, I have never found a Canadian who would trade his health care plan for anything we have here, and I have asked quite a few .
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
You really need to study up on Hillary's old plan. She didn't have any medical personnel, health experts or insurance experts in her conclave, only government bureaucrats. Little things like the health police financed from seizure of all your assets, if you tried sought private care were chilling.

It was the Canadian plan on steroids. And, that plan is not one to copy.


I have had the same medical insurance for many many years, and during the years that Hillary revamped it, we got good benefits from it, our co-pays were so much lower, our deductibles were less than half of what it is now, and that just started in the Calendar year of 2006. Nope, she revamped it, and she did a good job of it also... As far as medical personnel, she didn't need them, all they want is their money, either direction... from the insurance, or from the 'hide' of the patient...

and insurance experts???? WHO would WANT them??? They are the ones who use all their time figureing out HOW to mess you out of any of your benefits. NOT using them was the best thing she could have done. And she seized NONE of my assets...

No one I know of had insurance problems during that era, even the elderly people I know.... I remember LIVING that, and I wish it was like it was then, because now, what we pay out of pocket is totally ridiculous, considering the HIGH premiums we have to pay monthly just to carry a card.
quote:
Originally posted by smurph:
but in that same mode of thinking ,,,are docs really worth 3 million a year? are they in it because it is desire to heal and cure the ill or to become wealthy? I see too dang many in it simply for the wealth to be had.


Or to break that down, are they worth 100 dollars for 10 minutes (IF that) of the time they see you?

Wealthy is the answer... no doubt. I haven't seen a doctor in years who actually CARES about illnesses, they just grab their prescription pads and give steroids or antibiotics... that'll cure EVERYTHING, dont ya know Roll Eyes
quote:
but in that same mode of thinking ,,,are docs really worth 3 million a year? are they in it because it is desire to heal and cure the ill or to become wealthy? I see too dang many in it simply for the wealth to be had.



If they save your life, yes they are worth it. Why would someone go through 8 years of tough college work, residencies, exams, certifications, and the rest of that for a job that paid $26k a year? I agree that our health care system is flawed, but handing it over to the government is absolutly the wrong answer.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
but in that same mode of thinking ,,,are docs really worth 3 million a year? are they in it because it is desire to heal and cure the ill or to become wealthy? I see too dang many in it simply for the wealth to be had.



If they save your life, yes they are worth it. Why would someone go through 8 years of tough college work, residencies, exams, certifications, and the rest of that for a job that paid $26k a year? I agree that our health care system is flawed, but handing it over to the government is absolutly the wrong answer.


She didn't say 26K a year, she said THREE MILLION a year, quite a difference. And handing it over to Insurance companies is not the answer either... they are in it for themselves.... Insurance companies dictate too much of our lives as it is.

House Insurance, Car Insurance, Contents Insurance, Insurance on the extra valuable that one might own, Healthcare Insurance, Business Insurance, Malpractice Insurance, Liability Insurance, the list goes on and on and on...

They have their thumbs in our pie as much, if not more than the gov't already does.
At no time have i said they do not deserve a good income.But ALSO, if my life or a loved ones life is on the line I can give you a nice long list of local docs i DO NOT WANT in the room,much less responsiple for life. They do go the extra length to achieve their goal. But there are far too many showing up on the other side of that prescription pad with NO CONCERN for peoples health,only how fast their finicial empire grows.
There does need to be a ceiling on their salaries and i will stick to that ,reguardless what the argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Aside from the democrats' opposition to the war in Iraq, their other platform in '08 is going to be the emergence of universal healthcare. Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich all all jumped on the Hillary train when it comes to a solution to healthcare.

Personally, I think there are two many hands stirring the pot. If we could somehow make the healthcare market truly competitive where people could shop around and purchase what type of drugs and coverage, prices would come down. However, special interest groups don't want to see this happen. This is the main problem with the current situation. The president wants it both ways.

Fighting Illini.

I can tell you for certain that the Clinton Plan, as presented in 1992, is superior to anything the Republicans came up with since (nothing till this year's State of the Union) But I think it is too far reaching to get passed.
That Said, let me critique the Bush plan for Mandating Health Insurance PURCHASES, and providing a Tax Deduction EQUAL to the personal deduction to individual taxpayers, and a dollar for dollar expensing for companies.
First, Insurance costs are already not taxed in company profits. The cost reduces the profit.
Secondly, 2000 dollars a year will NOT BUY AN INSURANCE POLICY. But, the Bush plan has a safety net for the working poor. If their company does not pay premiums for health insurance, the low paid worker gets his premium paid by the general fund. This provides a two prong incentive for low wages. First, the company that does not provide insurance, while not getting a tax benefit, is only taxed a portion of their profit. The insurance premium comes out 100% of the company's profit. Second, at the cut off level, an employee also looses money by providing his own insurance, so there is an incentive for the low and unskilled worker to take lower hourly pay so that he will qualify for Government paid insurance. Low paid workers, regardless of their skill levels, tend to slow economic activity, because they don't have "purchasing power."

PERSONALLY, I THINK THE BUSH PROPOSAL IS ANOTHER SHORT SIGHTED, QUICK BUCK SCHEME.
You're right, there are plenty of bad doctors out there. The Shoals is plagued with them. The good doctors go to bigger cities where the competition is tougher and they can make more money. Ever know someone that had to drive to B'ham, Nashville, or Atlanta to see a doctor?

Quality speaking, no other country on the planet is advanced as we are with health care. This is because the latest life changing procedure, medicine, or equipment can turn a nice profit for the company that produces it. This is the incentive for advancing the medical technology. Give health care to the government, you take away the incentive. Then you'll have a health care system on par with a communist country.

The problem is with the insurance. I don't have a solution, I just know that giving more control to the government isn't it.
Excelman, I hope you don't rely on PBA any of your information. I have yet to see anything but an opinionated article without facts. As for Canada's healthcare system, many Canadians are coming to the states for healthcare because in Cananda the doctors are not as good and the waiting time for any type of procedure is much longer.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Aside from the democrats' opposition to the war in Iraq, their other platform in '08 is going to be the emergence of universal healthcare. Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich all all jumped on the Hillary train when it comes to a solution to healthcare.

Personally, I think there are two many hands stirring the pot. If we could somehow make the healthcare market truly competitive where people could shop around and purchase what type of drugs and coverage, prices would come down. However, special interest groups don't want to see this happen. This is the main problem with the current situation. The president wants it both ways.

Fighting Illini.

I can tell you for certain that the Clinton Plan, as presented in 1992, is superior to anything the Republicans came up with since (nothing till this year's State of the Union) But I think it is too far reaching to get passed.
That Said, let me critique the Bush plan for Mandating Health Insurance PURCHASES, and providing a Tax Deduction EQUAL to the personal deduction to individual taxpayers, and a dollar for dollar expensing for companies.
First, Insurance costs are already not taxed in company profits. The cost reduces the profit.
Secondly, 2000 dollars a year will NOT BUY AN INSURANCE POLICY. But, the Bush plan has a safety net for the working poor. If their company does not pay premiums for health insurance, the low paid worker gets his premium paid by the general fund. This provides a two prong incentive for low wages. First, the company that does not provide insurance, while not getting a tax benefit, is only taxed a portion of their profit. The insurance premium comes out 100% of the company's profit. Second, at the cut off level, an employee also looses money by providing his own insurance, so there is an incentive for the low and unskilled worker to take lower hourly pay so that he will qualify for Government paid insurance. Low paid workers, regardless of their skill levels, tend to slow economic activity, because they don't have "purchasing power."

PERSONALLY, I THINK THE BUSH PROPOSAL IS ANOTHER SHORT SIGHTED, QUICK BUCK SCHEME.


Edekit, with all due respect I think both Hillary's and Bush's plans are set up for failure. The government has to distance itself from regulating the healthcare program and distance itself from HMOs and drug companies and let people shop freely for healthcare. This will make people purchase within their means and maybe force people to live healthier lives in the long run.
National managed health care is definitely not the answer. When I lived Germany, my landlord, a doctor, would not use the national system -- didn't trust it. The British health facilities are falling apart and far to expensive for what they deliver. The french lost 15,000 people three summers ago in their old folks homes due to a heat wave -- what we'd call summer in the south. The Canadians wait for months at home for operations that are routine in the US.

The US medical establishments are the only one still coming up with new cures and procedures for diseases. Kill the goose and you may kill the procedure or drug that might cure you.

Fighting Illini has the best idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Excelman, I hope you don't rely on PBA any of your information. I have yet to see anything but an opinionated article without facts. As for Canada's healthcare system, many Canadians are coming to the states for healthcare because in Cananda the doctors are not as good and the waiting time for any type of procedure is much longer.


Actually, I'm relying on my memory, but now that I've gotton old, get CRS on occasion.
I don't believe Hillary proposed a nationalized health care system. I know, her political opponients said that, but that was not the case.

Do you object to some way that insurance companies could be pooled in such a way as to offer an affordable insurance plan, or would you rather continue to suppliment hospitals thru taxes and your insurance to provide health care to those without insurance? The only other option I see is to refuse anyone without health insurance or cash in hand and let 'em get well or die.
I think Bill Clinton had a good idea in to help young doctors get their degree in return for serving their country in free clinics or the military , but of course the Republicans would have none of that! It may actually help people without increasing the profits of the medical field. (Remember Bill Frist of Tenn owned hospitals)
quote:
Originally posted by smurph:
At no time have i said they do not deserve a good income.But ALSO, if my life or a loved ones life is on the line I can give you a nice long list of local docs i DO NOT WANT in the room,much less responsiple for life. They do go the extra length to achieve their goal. But there are far too many showing up on the other side of that prescription pad with NO CONCERN for peoples health,only how fast their finicial empire grows.
There does need to be a ceiling on their salaries and i will stick to that ,reguardless what the argument.


AMEN TO THIS!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Excelman, I hope you don't rely on PBA any of your information. I have yet to see anything but an opinionated article without facts. As for Canada's healthcare system, many Canadians are coming to the states for healthcare because in Cananda the doctors are not as good and the waiting time for any type of procedure is much longer.


Actually, I'm relying on my memory, but now that I've gotton old, get CRS on occasion.
I don't believe Hillary proposed a nationalized health care system. I know, her political opponients said that, but that was not the case.

Do you object to some way that insurance companies could be pooled in such a way as to offer an affordable insurance plan, or would you rather continue to suppliment hospitals thru taxes and your insurance to provide health care to those without insurance? The only other option I see is to refuse anyone without health insurance or cash in hand and let 'em get well or die.
I think Bill Clinton had a good idea in to help young doctors get their degree in return for serving their country in free clinics or the military , but of course the Republicans would have none of that! It may actually help people without increasing the profits of the medical field. (Remember Bill Frist of Tenn owned hospitals)


And you get an AMEN too!!!
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
National managed health care is definitely not the answer. When I lived Germany, my landlord, a doctor, would not use the national system -- didn't trust it. The British health facilities are falling apart and far to expensive for what they deliver. The french lost 15,000 people three summers ago in their old folks homes due to a heat wave -- what we'd call summer in the south. The Canadians wait for months at home for operations that are routine in the US.

The US medical establishments are the only one still coming up with new cures and procedures for diseases. Kill the goose and you may kill the procedure or drug that might cure you.

Fighting Illini has the best idea.


A member of my family is from Canada, and disagree's strongly with your comment... that just isn't so. They get what they want WHEN they want it, unlike here in the US where we get what the Doctors WANT us to get WHEN the Insurance companies allow it, after several opinions and co-pays.
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Aside from the democrats' opposition to the war in Iraq, their other platform in '08 is going to be the emergence of universal healthcare. Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich all all jumped on the Hillary train when it comes to a solution to healthcare.

Personally, I think there are two many hands stirring the pot. If we could somehow make the healthcare market truly competitive where people could shop around and purchase what type of drugs and coverage, prices would come down. However, special interest groups don't want to see this happen. This is the main problem with the current situation. The president wants it both ways.

Fighting Illini.

I can tell you for certain that the Clinton Plan, as presented in 1992, is superior to anything the Republicans came up with since (nothing till this year's State of the Union) But I think it is too far reaching to get passed.
That Said, let me critique the Bush plan for Mandating Health Insurance PURCHASES, and providing a Tax Deduction EQUAL to the personal deduction to individual taxpayers, and a dollar for dollar expensing for companies.
First, Insurance costs are already not taxed in company profits. The cost reduces the profit.
Secondly, 2000 dollars a year will NOT BUY AN INSURANCE POLICY. But, the Bush plan has a safety net for the working poor. If their company does not pay premiums for health insurance, the low paid worker gets his premium paid by the general fund. This provides a two prong incentive for low wages. First, the company that does not provide insurance, while not getting a tax benefit, is only taxed a portion of their profit. The insurance premium comes out 100% of the company's profit. Second, at the cut off level, an employee also looses money by providing his own insurance, so there is an incentive for the low and unskilled worker to take lower hourly pay so that he will qualify for Government paid insurance. Low paid workers, regardless of their skill levels, tend to slow economic activity, because they don't have "purchasing power."

PERSONALLY, I THINK THE BUSH PROPOSAL IS ANOTHER SHORT SIGHTED, QUICK BUCK SCHEME.


Edekit, with all due respect I think both Hillary's and Bush's plans are set up for failure. The government has to distance itself from regulating the healthcare program and distance itself from HMOs and drug companies and let people shop freely for healthcare. This will make people purchase within their means and maybe force people to live healthier lives in the long run.


They ONLY failed when Bush's group took over... and subtely changed it all... which was in 2005.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
You're right, there are plenty of bad doctors out there. The Shoals is plagued with them. The good doctors go to bigger cities where the competition is tougher and they can make more money. Ever know someone that had to drive to B'ham, Nashville, or Atlanta to see a doctor?

Quality speaking, no other country on the planet is advanced as we are with health care. This is because the latest life changing procedure, medicine, or equipment can turn a nice profit for the company that produces it. This is the incentive for advancing the medical technology. Give health care to the government, you take away the incentive. Then you'll have a health care system on par with a communist country.

The problem is with the insurance. I don't have a solution, I just know that giving more control to the government isn't it.


BAD and GREEDY doctors are EVERYWHERE, not just limited to the Shoals area... People only THINK they are good when they get them over the flu.... EVERYWHERE!
Sorry, ya'll, but after reading these posts I felt that I had to infuse some facts into it. Number one, doctors do not make 3 million a year. I know because I am one. The average salaries for most primary care physicians is around 150K a year. Number 2 is there are great physicians here locally. Number 3 is that you can find lousy physicians anywhere you go, just like you can find lousy car mechanics, lousy pastors, lousy lawyers, etc., etc. Number 4 is that it is a known fact when a third party gets involved with paying the bills, prices go sky high. Fourth is that if we make people responsible for their own money (like health savings accounts do) they start spending it responsibly and start doing the things that are necessary to improve their health. Fifth is that anything the government controls, it screws up. Just look at education, welfare, social security, and on and on and on. Does anyone really believe that they can handle healthcare? I guarantee you that Bush's drug plan will cause a dramatic escalation in prices because of fact number 3 above. I must say I agree that if you decide to cut doctor's salaries, then the brightest and best students will say "adieu" to the healthcare field, because it is barely worth what our real salaries are (definitely NOT 3 million) to put up with all the hassle
quote:
Originally posted by kdcarter:
Sorry, an addendum; I obviously haven't had enough sleep. I repeated a fourth reason twice, but I think everyone gets the point.


All Christians believe in unaverisil health care. I know many good doctors in this area. They are all underpaid. They are worth far more than a politician or a footballl coach. Did you ever think of the hours a doctor works? I know in my heart Jesus loves doctors, because he said heal the sick. How in the world could a Christian be opposed to healing the sick?
Like I said, "The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that the Quebec government cannot prevent people from paying for private insurance for health-care procedures covered under medicare.

In a 4-3 decision, the panel of seven justices said banning private insurance for a list of services ranging from MRI tests to cataract surgery was unconstitutional under the Quebec Charter of Rights, given that the public system has failed to guarantee patients access to those services in a timely way.

As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and even died in some cases, justices Beverley McLachlin, Jack Major, Michel Bastarache and Marie Deschamps found for the majority.

The Quebec government reacted by saying it would apply immediately for a stay of between six months and two years before the decision takes effect, given the chaos it could cause in the delivery of medical services in Quebec.
Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoit Pelletier said the province would consider using the notwithstanding clause in Quebec's constitution as an alternative to abiding by the court's decision.

The plaintiffs in the case – a Montreal patient and a doctor wanting to set up a private clinic – asked Canada's top court to strike down sections of the Quebec Hospital Insurance Act that prevent people from buying health insurance for medical procedures covered by the public health plan. Waited year for hip replacement

The two plaintiffs in the case had separate complaints, but the court decided to hear their court challenges together. In 1996, Montreal businessman George Zeliotis waited a year for hip replacement surgery. While waiting, he asked whether he could purchase insurance that would allow him to skip the public queue and pay directly for the surgery. When he learned it was against the law, he took his case to court.

Canadians can buy private health insurance for things outside of public medicare such as prescriptions, physiotherapy or private hospital rooms.

The 73-year-old Zeliotis argued the year-long wait for surgery was unreasonable, endangered his life and infringed on the charter's guarantee of right to life, liberty and security.

The second plaintiff, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, wanted the court to overturn a Quebec provision preventing doctors who don't operate within the medicare plan from charging for services in public hospitals.

Chaoulli, who had tried but failed to set up a private hospital, represented himself before the court.
On Thursday, Chaoulli said the ruling can only improve the quality of the country's health care system by taking some of the burden off cash-strapped provincial governments.
"The government cannot continue to raise taxes to pay for health care," Chaoulli said. "Too many Canadians are suffering."

Senator Michael Kirby, who chaired a Senate committee studying health care, recommended the provinces pay for private treatment if the patient isn't treated within a certain timeframe.

Lawyers for the federal government argued the court should not interfere with the health-care system, considered "one of Canada's finest achievements and a powerful symbol of the national identity."
I have one question for all you "let the Government take care of me " supporters...if Universal Healthcare is so good, why do those Canadians that have such coverage come to the United States for their major healthcare? You had better look into all the facts before advocating such a policy..there have been cases in Canada where major surgery took 6-12 months before occuring..some have even died for lack of immediate action...is this what you want? I don`t want the Government in my healthcare decisions.
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Aside from the democrats' opposition to the war in Iraq, their other platform in '08 is going to be the emergence of universal healthcare. Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich all all jumped on the Hillary train when it comes to a solution to healthcare.

Personally, I think there are two many hands stirring the pot. If we could somehow make the healthcare market truly competitive where people could shop around and purchase what type of drugs and coverage, prices would come down. However, special interest groups don't want to see this happen. This is the main problem with the current situation. The president wants it both ways.


You hit the nail on the head. There needs to be a menu in front of all medical providers offices. We need to do away with medicare. People need to take responsibility for there health.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×