Healthcare for All?
What Americans think about universal coverage.
Article created by The Century Foundation
To the extent one can rank people?s personal economic worries, rising health care costs are frequently at the top of the list. For example, in a June 2005 Lake Snell Perry Mermin survey, 27 percent picked rising health care costs, 18 percent wages not keeping up with costs, 14 percent a secure retirement, 12 percent higher taxes, and 9 percent rising gas prices as their chief economic worry. Just 5 percent picked losing their job. One way to control health care costs, of course, is in the context of a system that would provide universal health insurance coverage to Americans. Would Americans support government action to create such a system? They say they would, though there are nuances to that support which suggest mobilizing the public to move in that direction remains tricky. Here's what we know and what we don’t about public opinion on universal health care, based on available data.
What We Know
1. Rising health care costs, not health coverage, is people’s chief health care concern. For example, in a June, 2005 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, the top worry was “having to pay more for your health care or health insurance” (45 percent said they were very worried), followed by “not being able to pay medical costs when you are elderly” (42 percent), “your income not keeping up with rising prices” (40 percent), not being able to afford the health care you think you need (34 percent), losing your health insurance (30 percent), and not being able to change jobs because you’re afraid of losing your health insurance (18 percent)
2. The public wants the government to play a leading role in providing health care for all. For example, in an October, 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62 percent to 33 percent), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system. Similarly, in Kaiser polls from 1992 to 2000, a large majority of the public agreed that the federal government should guarantee medical care for people who don’t have health insurance. In a slightly different question asked more recently by Kaiser in June 2003, more than seven in ten adults (72 percent) agreed that the government should guarantee health insurance for all citizens, even if it means repealing most of the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, while less than one-quarter (24 percent) disagreed with this statement. Finally, the last time Gallup asked whether the federal government should make sure all Americans have health coverage, they agreed that was a federal government responsibility by 62 percent to 35 percent (November 2002).
3. American overwhelmingly agree that access to health care should be a right. In 2000 just as in 1993, eight in ten agreed that health care should be provided equally to everyone, and over half agreed “strongly” or “completely.” In addition, in 2004, about three-quarters (76 percent) agreed strongly or somewhat that access health care should be a right.
4. The public says it is willing to pay more in taxes to provide every American with health care coverage. In August 2003, Pew found Americans favoring, by 67 percent to 26 percent, the U.S. government guaranteeing “health insurance for all citizens,” even if that meant repealing most of “recent tax cuts.” And the majority was scarcely diminished (67 percent to 29 percent) by referring not to repealing tax cuts but more directly to “raising taxes.” Similarly, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Public Opinion Strategies (GQR/POS) found, in January 2004, a 69 percent to 28 percent majority saying that they would be willing to pay more per year in federal taxes to assure every American citizen received health care coverage.
5. But support for universal coverage drops significantly if such a program would mean limitations on access to medical care. For example, while 62 percent in the October 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll said they wanted universal health care system run by the government, rather than the current system, that support dropped to 35 percent if that limited choice of doctors and to 38 percent if that meant longer waits for nonemergency treatment.
6. Moreover, willingness to pay more in taxes for universal coverage is a “soft” commitment. For example, when phrased as whether the respondent would be “willing to pay more—either in higher insurance premiums or higher taxes—in order to increase the number of insured Americans,” 51 percent say that they would not, compared to 45 percent who say they would. And, in the GQR/POS survey, when asked how much they’d be willing to pay in additional taxes to assure universal coverage for American citizens, 40 percent would not name a dollar figure at all and 16 percent named a figure under $100.
7. The public also is not completely clear on whether the federal government actually has to lead the way on universal coverage. When asked specifically about responsibility for covering the uninsured, four in ten people (43 percent) do say that the federal government should have the most responsibility for providing health insurance coverage to the uninsured, but two in ten (20 percent) say that state governments should be most responsible, and about one in ten (11 percent) say that employers should be most responsible. Another two in ten (18 percent) think that the responsibility belongs to none of these or to another group (June 2003 Kaiser poll).
8. And the public is not sure whether the government should make a major or a limited effort to provide health insurance to the uninsured. The last time this question was asked by Kaiser in May 2003, 42 percent said that there should be a major effort, 37 percent said that there should be a limited effort, and 13 percent said that things should be kept the way they are.
9. The public generally wants to build on, rather than eliminate, the current employer-based private health insurance system. In a January, 2000 Kaiser poll, they preferred building on the current system to switching to a system of individual responsibility (54 percent to 39 percent) and in a November 2003 Kaiser poll, they preferred keeping the current system to replacing it with a government-run system (57 percent to 38 percent).
10. In that context, the public supports a wide variety of options for expanding health insurance to cover more Americans. In a June, 2005 Kaiser poll, the public said they favored tax deductions or credits for businesses (88 percent); expanding state government programs like Medicaid (80 percent); expanding Medicare to cover people ages 55–64 (74 percent); tax credits for uninsured individuals (73 percent); and requiring business to offer employees health insurance (70 percent). In a December 2003 Harvard School of Public Health/Robert Wood Johnson/ICR poll, 80 percent supported expanding Medicaid/SCHIP; 76 percent supported employers being required to offer a health plan; and 71 percent supported a tax credit plan. Trailing these options, but still garnering majority support, were a universal Medicare plan (55 percent) and an individual coverage mandate plan (54 percent). Finally, the 2004 GQR/POS poll found 74 percent favoring guaranteed health care coverage for all American children under 18 and 62 percent favoring catastrophic health insurance coverage for all Americans. (Note: one of the only options that didn’t garner majority support in these polls was a single or national health plan financed by tax payers that would provide insurance for all Americans [37 percent to 47 percent].)
What We Don’t Know
So, it appears that the public is very open to a government-supported system of universal coverage, but not sure about how (and how fast) to get there and what kind of system it really wants. This is a challenging environment for advocates of universal coverage. To be effective, they will need to resolve a number of unanswered questions about public responsiveness to a universal coverage message.
1. Does the public see a connection between universal coverage and containing health care costs? If so, what kind and how can that connection be strengthened? If not, what can be done to create that connection?
2. The public says it favors a government role in guaranteeing health insurance coverage for all. But how does the public envision that role? And what does the public really hear when terms like “universal coverage” and “guaranteed health insurance” are used? Do advocates know what kind of terminology would actually work the best when talking about these goals with the public?
3. If the public believes access health care is a “right,” is that the best way to talk about the goal of universal coverage? If not, what is the best way to connect to Americans’ values in and around the health care issue?
4. We need to know much more about the sensitivity of the American public to the costs involved in extending health insurance coverage. How seriously should we take the surface commitment to pay more in taxes? How would the issue have to be framed to make that surface commitment into a more durable one? How important might the issue of containing health care costs be to getting the public to accept the costs of universal coverage?
5. How can advocates avoid the restricted choice counterattack that will inevitably be raised to any universal coverage plan? Should consumer choice be a central element of any universal coverage plan? If so, what is the best way to frame that?
6. The public appears to support the general goal of universal coverage but seems shaky on the scale of the effort need to meet that goal. What is the best and most effective way of making clear the scale of effort needed to actually attain universal coverage?
7. The public appears to support a wide range of possible ways to increase coverage, but it is unclear which, if any, of these approaches the public identifies as particularly effective. Can the public be led to identify progress toward universal coverage with a few key reforms that would stand out from the rest? If so, which ones and how should advocates talk about them?
Page 1 of 1 
Health insurance does not necessarily translate into health care, for all. These terms are often used interchangeably, and that is clouding the issue. The headline of the article refers to universal health care, but then goes on to discuss health insurance.
Stating the issue in this manner is disingenuous and misleading. What the public wants is universal health CARE, not universal health INSURANCE. They are not the same thing.
Unfortunately, universal health CARE needs to be paid for. Separating health care from health insurance is like separating getting pregnant from childbirth - although they're not the same thing, they cannot be separated. Even if the government provides the "system" to provide universal health care access, the big four commercial insurance companies that dominate the health care (insurance) market will most definately be included. As we can all agree, access to health care, universal or not, requires a third party payor system to make it possible and, when it comes to comparing effeciancy ability, there is no comparison between the federal government and the private sector. So, although I agree that universal health care and health insurance are not technically the same thing - you can't have one without the other in some form or another and, regardless of who, how and what may bring about universal health care, unless americans chane they the way they think about their health and abandon our unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, it won't matter because the real problem is the state of personal health, not the state of healthcare or health insurance. For decades, doctors and insurance companies have been fighting a losing battle as we (their patients and insureds) continue to lead unhealthy lifestyle lives.
I think we are all missing the central point. We need to trace the problem backwards. A person is sick. The problem is not that there is not a doctor in the house, but that the doctor is charging more than the person can afford to pay.
So what makes up the cost? Obviously you have to pay the doctor (he/she is a highly trained service provider that should be properly compensated). People may complain that doctors get paid too much, but would we be able to attract the best and the brightest to the profession without the promise of a strong incentive. So what are the other costs? You have administrative costs to deal with (office staff, nurses etc). Finally, you have the doctor’s legal protection (i.e. the doctor’s malpractice insurance). Here is where the rubber meets the road. Lawsuits are the hidden cost that most who talk about universal health coverage gloss over and the cost on which we can have the greatest impact without impacting the care we receive. If we can enact tort reform that protects patients from reckless doctors and protects doctors from reckless lawyers and juries, we reduce the cost of health care tremendously. Remember, the cost is not just the insurance, but also the cost of all of the extra/unnecessary tests that doctors and hospitals perform to protect themselves from lawsuits.
With the reduced cost of health insurance, we ensure that everyone has catastrophic health coverage and means test preventive coverage. We allow insurance companies to compete for the government dollars since they will have an incentive to keep costs down: keep and attract more customers and make a solid profit. Admittedly, I don’t know how much this would cost or how big of a bite tort reform would take out of the overall cost of health insurance, but imagine the cost if we just let the government implement universal healthcare with no thought of how to control costs.
All this governmental health coverage look terrific on paper. Same as Communism. In real world pratice it fails. When you give any government power to control this much you will utimately pay with your freedom and pocketbooks. Come now, you know any government is inefficient and expensive when it comes to doing anything. Reason? They are very unaccountable. Even in our system the politicians do what they want and then lie to us come election time. This is why we should speak out and not support this unverisal coverage. Give a government an inch they take mile.
Your reasoning is ludicrous. By taking the government out of it, you're allowing 5 insurance companies make the decisions...in which we have no say because we can't vote on insurance companies. That's why we vote for the politicians who would help us in our quest for universal healthcare. Taxes be damned! Taxes would be less annually than any middle class household would pay on premiums per year.
If we have a problem formulating a Universal healthcare system, why don't we learn from countries who have had them for years and sort out what works and toss what does'nt.
What has to be tossed for sure is the burden of employer healthcare. Quality and access is as fickle as having a job and get fired and don't have one.
One should carry a card similar as a Social Security card, walk into a hospital get care and walk out without a bill.
With regard to universal Healthcare, the main questions for me are;
-Would I have a choice in selecting a doctor, and would the system not limit choices regarding treatment? Would illegals be denied access to our healthcare system, thereby relieving the burden of an additional escalating cost on middle class america?
If the answer is yes to all of the above, then I would consider supporting a univeralsal healthcare system.
You she has a plain HSU will support the health care costs! Hilary could not lead a group of boyscout out of a park. Just like her husband failed 10 times to get Bin Ladin. 9/11 Is on his hands just as he had sandy berger get is notes on the subject.
You're all missing the point. Health care costs money. The government has no resources of its own, but only what it takes from the people. to say, then, that people have a right to health care is to say that one person has the right to live off of another person. It is to say that one person has a right to something they did not earn, while another person doesn't have a right to that same thing in which they did earn, namely the money they get taxed. It is never just to force any person to pay for another persons health. It is the responsibility of each person to pay for theirs and their families own health care. You don't have a right to make me pay for your health care and I don't have a right to make you pay for mine. The statistics are irrelevent. Why is this so hard to understand people. Even if the government could run the system with max efficiency, it would still be WRONG because, again, no person has the right to live off of another persons earnings. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? So I say down with social security, universal health care, medicaid, medicare wellfare, and every other unjust outrageous socialist program. If you want to hep someone out, kudos. I applaud you. Don't force others to do the same.
Oh, and by the way, the universal health care proponents feed us these figures to play on our emotions, e.g "47 million people don't have health care" and so on. They want you to confuse "don't have", with "can't afford". They want you to think that 47 million people can't afford health care. But, I wonder how many of those people don't have health care because they don't want it. They may want to spend their money on something else. How many of them are twenty somethings who would rather have a brand new mustang, or hi def TV? And by the way,there's nothing wrong with that, it's their prerogative. I wonder how many of those people that "can't afford" health care have cable TV, and cell phones, and the internet, and eat out once a week and twice on Sundays. If those people want health care, then they need to get their priorities straight. Don't feed me this bull crap that 47 million people can't afford heatlh care. It's dishonerable for these people (read Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, AARP, so on and so forth) to play peoples emotions like that.
I am the CEO for two different health care companies and having served on various boards with hospital regulation I all to well understand the system. The only possible solution to save this country from financial ruin in the future is a national health care coverage for all and that would mean for political individuals as well. A serious situation has evolved when non taxpayers and prisoners heve better health care coverage than working class citizens. I know because my company bills them! A problem exists when a CEO of a large not for profit hospital makes four times the salary of a hard working open heart surgeon. Wake up America we are now losing service oriented jobs to companies abroad due to the cost of insuring large numbers of employees, Wher would you do business if you could same millions annually by not having to insure health care costs not to mention compensation . I had a CEO of a large company(Travelocity)to tell me that this was one of the largest reasons for leaving our country. If it is a requirement of employers here to carry the coverage we will see even more go abroad. I would be willing to join, support, and dedicate our companies to a total national health care system. I can be reached at 276-926-4646 to discuss my ideas and future political hopeful. Lets be fair to all.
I agree with parts of a lot of the comments above. Everything costs money - either directly from our pockets or indirectly through other means, such as taxes. I agree with having responsiblity of each person to be able to pay for there one healthcare. I don't agree with being liable to have to pay for another persons health care. What many people, including myself, is to just be able to see a doctor, care for the health issues I face, and be able to know that the bill that I am going to be faced with isn't going to make it impossible to shelter and feed my family. Being in my early 20s, and facing mulitple chronic health conditions, some with the possiblity of turning life threatening, I want to be able to know, without worry or concern, that I am going to be able to manage and care for this conditions so then I can be around to watch my children grow. There isn't no new cars, big houses, ect in my house, just your basics - unfortunately never enough to covers the basics. Bottem line, people in america need to have the ability to be able to care for there health. Right now, that isn't there. Doctors don't except you to treat you without health insurance or "loads" of money upfront, insurance charges high without much payout, unless you have a pre existing condition (such as mine), then they don't cover you at all. Inability to work, yet denial for diability. People need out of the hype of health insurance vs universal, government ran vs non government ran. A system needs to be founded allowing an individual to walk in, get the care that is need reguardless of what may be the problem, and have the ability to pay for what is their responsiblity. I agree, we need to back up and start at the basics.
Now is the time that we the people take back what insurance companies and increasing health care costs have done to someone like Stacy. In a country where the middle class struggles due to a chronic illness and a mother has to decide to pay a health insurance premium or put groceries on the table for a child we have our priorities mixed up. It is amazing to me that we have the most expensive health care in the world but fall behind many many countries in regards to longevity of life. In our country we seem to put the money in fancy buildings or administrators salaries than into appropriate perspective. I now see many people retirement age who cannot retire because of health insurance premiums, I know no other country where this happens. Is it not amazing that over fifty percent of insurance companies are doing business in the Caymen Islands where there is no controls. I say we take care of our human element at home first and people like stacy can finally stop worrying about their health care as well as their childs. I am always available 276-926-4646
Cole makes an arguement that, universal health care is not the same as the universal health insurance; a claim that is not true, but my main point is that Cole does not back his claim and explain the differeces, if any, according to his claim.I think that is misleading not the article.
I must admit i am muslim and i love cocks!
universal healthcare is something that we all need to not only save money but stay healthy.
This should be addressed as well; privant/family doctors and come clinics will not accept or treat Americans without insurance, or the money up front. This should be out lawed! It doesn't matter how much pain a person is in, you don't have the money tough.
i agree that they should look at the countries that already have universal health care.i had coverage with my job due to work going to another country the job was gone along with coverage. having a chronic health condition as i do.coverage is impossible for a pre existing condition,and unaffordable.you end up losing everything that you have worked for to cover medical cost and hospital costs.you want have anything to leave here for your children except for the medical cost.if they dont take it now they will take it when you are dead.health care needs to be reformed somehow some way.many people dont have health care because they cant afford it not because they dont want it.our country sends millions of dollars to other countries,when that money could be spent here helping people to have coverage.
Insurance is one of the greatest evils of our time. Eliminating the middleman (insurance companies) would go a long way toward seeing that everyone HAS healthcare.
I grew up in a time when hardly anyone had insurance, yet we all saw whatever doctors we needed to and got excellent care without going bankrupt. Then the insurance companies were allowed free reign - the rest is history.
We should relegate it ALL to history by shutting down the insurance industry and replacing it with a system designed to help people rather than one run to make stockholders a profit.
i am all for universal healhcare but ever wrer i look people (the media) try to make heathcare look awsome why?
The pubic think the same about heath insurance as it dose on heath care so dose'nt make much differants
Have people become more worried about health care more seens SICKO or the same?
Dear Sam,
The media wants to hide the truth for everyone.
dear lilly,
that makes sense the media offe hides the truth.
Dear Sam,
It depends on wheather people watched SICKO or not weather they are effeted also weather they cred or not.Maybe they (like me) alreay me already knew.
Dear lilly,
or they watched it and it changed them like it did to me (i am going off line.)
Should all americans have universal healthcare?
Should all americans have universal healthcare? I need to hear from people in the age groups 18-21; 22-35;36 & over. can you please post age group you are in. thanks
It is illegal for a hospital/practice to refuse emergency treatment because of a lack of Health Insurance. By the way read the 10th Amendment!
I am 18, and everyone should YES have health care.
I have cystic fibrosis and other major medical condions. I have only medcare and they only cover what they have to I need to be seen by a dentest and a eye dr and other drs as well but they wont pay i beleave that it is time that all americans stand up and say enough is enough we need medical for everyone not just the healthy and not just the ritch if a ballet came in front of me that said do you want medical for all american s i would say yes this idea about people not needing covarage that have pre exiting condions is foolish if anyone needs it its us we need help in amerca it s time that we stand strong and get it right
Hospitals are required to care for someone in an emergency room regardless of their ability to pay according to EMTALA. This does not mean that they do not have to pay for said care or guarantee any follow up care that may be needed. Meaning that you could be treated for your heart attack, or whatever, then sent a bill for $100,000 that you are expected to pay. I am 34, I support universal health care. Lack of access to health care or lack of ability to pay is the fifth leading cause of death in this country. I think that we should have more pride in our country and how we treat our citizens than to put a price on human life. Could you put a price on your child's life, your parents, spouse your own life? It is unrealistic to expect everyone to pay for their own health care. Lack of access to care is why the US has one of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancies in the world. I would think that this would be a national outrage that we are one of the most unhealthy nations in the world with citizens going bankrupt due to medical bills.
i believe that they should find a way to make universal health care possible for the people that need it like the single moms working two or three jobs and still not making it or the elderly that dont have 401k and also just to ease peoples worries.
Universal healthcare does not have to increase taxes. I am British, but have lived in the USA for 14 years. I am married to an American and we chose to live here so she could be near her family.
I am currently unemployed and have no insurance. Cobra would have been $1100 a month, completely out of my reach.
I came over to the Stated in 1994, when Hillary Clinton was trying to get universal healthcare the first time.
Listening to radio shows and watching TV shows showed my just how uniformed the general public is with regards to the costs of a single payer healthcare system. Contrary to popular belief the NHS (National Healthcare System) in the UK is far superior to the system here. Both systems have waiting lists, they are called schedules. Specialists can only see so many people a day. Brtis complain because we are never satisfied, not because the US system is better. Anyway to get back to my point of Universal Healthcare and its cost. If I earned $50,000.00 a year in the UK (a median income there) I would pay a total of 24% in taxes and national insurance etc. I would have no hospital copays, no doctor visit copays a $10 medicine copay (regardless of whether the prescription were for a year or a week) If you do not believe me you can use this tax calculator. It shows you how much you pay broken down into national insurance, income tax etc.
Here the link to take you to the UK PAYE (pay as you earn) Tax Calculator.
If the Brits can do it for 24% total deductions in taxes etc. then so can we.
http://listentotaxman.com/index.php?c=1&yr=2008&married=1&age=0&add=&code=&pension=&time=1&ingr=25000&vw[]=yr&vw[]=mth&vw[]=wk
i seriously disagree that 9/11 was on Bill Clinton I belive that was a very stupid comment for you to make!!!!
Sounds like you are just another bitter Republican, I guess you think that Goerge W. has done a better job of killing Bin Laden? About as much as he has driven our economy into the ground...
Being a health care worker , I see the hundreds of thousands of patients that are over flooding our emergency rooms that have no health insurance and use the emergency rooms as a doctors , office, because they cannot afford an office visit. If you don't think we are all paying for these fellow Americans with out insurance, then you are sadly confused.
I don't know which emergency rooms you go to, but there are legal and moral mandates that require everyone to recieve treatment for life threatening events, not for many of the trivial things that emergency rooms are being overwhelmed for.
Healthcare for all would be a wonderful thing. Only if everyone did there part contributing to its funding. I see how medicaid is abused every day and it would be pointless to have universial healthcare end up the same way! Americans need to become more responsible and work together to make universial healthcare work if it comes into play. Universial healthcare would not work if some people did there their part while others beat off the system like they do today! Hopefully somemajor changes will happen to the healthcare system that will be better for all people!!!
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WASTE CONTINUES!
For any of you who think that the U.S. Federal Government can run the health care industry in a more efficient manner than the competition-driven private sector, you need to seriously consider EVERY government-run program: the waste and fraud will consume any potential savings. The US already has health insurance programs for those who cannot afford it, one is called Medicaide. In the U.K. and in Canada, people wait for months for treatment, doctors are abandoning medical practices and turning away patients because the government dictates how much the doctor can charge (what motivation exists to squeeze in more patients each day?) . Fewer dentists, nurse and surgeon's means EVERYONE WAITS.
The United States is the last hope for drug discovery and therapeutics for all the world. If this "evil profit" motive is removed, who will pioneer new treatment for prevention for disease? No one, that's who! Are you prepared to pay for health insurance for smokers? for drug abusers? for all those who refuse any personal responsibility for taking care of themselves? Should we give liver transplants to alchoholics everytime they blow through another liver? Are flat panel TV's a RIGHT? How about cell phones? Should the person who has no desire to work have the same right to live in the same comfort as those who work their ass off every day? Then why does everyone have a RIGHT the best insurance?
There is a huge difference between health insurance and access to health care. There is also a difference in health insurance policies. In order to accommodate insurance for everyone, the money and care must be rationed such that coverage and care will be minimal. And thanks to government inefficiency, we (those of us who pay income taxes) will pay more for less. No question about it.
Just look at Social Security: where is the money we pay into this fund every week? It's not there. It has been spent. It is not a part of the federal budget because they don't want you to know they have spent it. This will be the largest power grab in history and they will take with that any incentive for cutting edge medical treatment, and without that, the future is very bleak.
The US constitution requires the government to do two things: protect the geographical borders and protect the citizens from all enemies...until they close the borders, don't let them take over health care...they can't do the simple, don't let them try the complex.
Our current financial
Our current financial meltdown only exacerbates this crisis in affordability in proper health care. Health care costs are spiraling out of control; no wonder why many people cannot afford it. That’s why, in order to help the people with this kind of dilemma, Walgreens-the prescription megastore, is offering free healthcare to those who qualify for a while. It seems likely that it will last the rest of 2009, so those who can't get payday loans to throw money away on a doctor, can head to their nearest Walgreens that has one of the Take Care clinics that they installed in certain store locations. Proof of unemployment must be furnished, or you'll be turned away. The Take Care Clinics were started back in 2007, to provide quality healthcare to those who couldn't afford it as easily as regular care, which is a very charitable thing for Walgreens to do.
This should be addressed as
This should be addressed as well; privant/family doctors and come clinics will not accept or treat Americans without insurance, or the money quotes up front. This should be out lawed! It doesn't matter how much pain a person is in, you don't have the money tough.
Something Must Be Done
I don't want government run health care anymore than anyone else, but something has to be done about the rising costs associated with even the most simple of medical treatments. It's easy to blame the doctors and hospitals for the current problem, but there is also plenty of room for blame to spread around to insurance companies and some lawyers that look at the medical services industry in the U.S. as a "cash cow" for their lawsuits. If it were not for the rising cost of medical care, no one would be talking about nationalizing what we current have in the U.S.. So, the governments first job should be to find someway to slow the current rise in health care costs.
موقع منتديات
موقع منتديات العاب دليل العاب طبخ العاب بنات العاب سيارات العاب باربي العاب للبنات فقط العاب تلبيس العاب تلبيس بنات العاب بنات فقط دليل مواقع العاب قص الشعر العاب ترتيب الشعر العاب اطفال العاب بنات جديدة العاب البنات العاب قص شعر العاب ترتيب تلبيس بنات العاب الطبخ العاب السيارات العاب مغامرات العاب اكشن العاب استراتيجية العاب ذكاء العاب ذكاء للكبار العاب مسدسات العاب تصويب العاب سباق سيارات باربي العاب جديدة العاب سونيك العاب ميك اب العاب مكياج توبيكات 2009 العاب بنات 2009 العاب طرزان العاب براتز العاب ديزني العاب دراجات العاب دبابات دليل المواقع قوقل الياهو الهوتميل رسائل حب توبيكات ملونه تسريحات 2009 صور×صور رسائل شوق صور ماسنجر توبكات ملونه توبكات مسجات توبيكات حزينه فساتين سهرة رموز متحركة للماسنجر حنان دشتي رجيم الطب النبوي منال العالم صور 2009 اناشيد طيور الجنة توبيكات فيديو صور العاب طبخ جديدة hguhf العاب http://www.arabstart.com/sitemaps/sitemap_index.xml.gz http://forum.arabstart.com/sitemap_index.xml.gz
