COMMENTS: 18
Obama Demands Better Health Care for All: "This Time, We Will Not Fail"
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.
President Obama kicked off his ambitious goal of reforming health care and providing insurance to all Americans, the first major government effort at reform in 15 years. At the White House's health summit, Obama pledged to pass comprehensive legislation this year, despite economic crises and U.S. engagement in two overseas wars. "When times were good, we didn't get it done. When we had mild recessions, we didn't get it done," Obama said. "There's always a reason not to do it. Now is exactly the time for us to deal with this problem." Indeed, with increasing job losses, approximately 14,000 Americans are losing their health coverage every day. Forty-six million Americans are without health insurance (86.7 million over the last two years), while others are paying more than they can afford. The health care cost share of GDP "is anticipated to rise rapidly from 16.2 percent in 2007 to 17.6 percent in 2009, largely as a result of the recession, and then climb to 20.3 percent by 2018." Referring to a statement made by Health Care for America Now's Richard Kirsch, Obama addressed the cost issue, arguing that "by covering more people, we can also lower costs at the same time, presumably because those who are not insured at the moment are ending up using extraordinarily expensive emergency room care." In his new budget, Obama plans to set aside $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment to reform the health system. While the fund represents a strong start toward reform, it will not be enough to provide affordable coverage for all and a stronger commitment will need to be made. But Obama also "indicated for the first time that he was open to compromise on details of the proposal he put forth in the 2008 campaign." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) -- who has spent decades as a champion of expanding access to quality health care -- said at yesterday's summit that previous efforts to reform health care "haven't been the kind of serious effort that I think we're seeing right now." "This time, we will not fail," he urged.
THIS IS NOT THE 1990s: A number of interests groups, led by the health insurance lobby, effectively killed major reform when President Clinton led the last effort to seriously overhaul the nation's health care system in the early 1990s. Today, however, "insurers, drugmakers, doctors, hospitals and employers, as well as consumers, are more optimistic that a prescription can be found," and have joined the vast effort, mainly with the common interest of driving down costs. "The stakeholder community is no longer organizing to say 'no,'" said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Indeed, Obama was surrounded at yesterday's summit "by men and women who made their careers killing health-care reform." Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who "proudly reminded" attendees that he was instrumental in killing Clinton's reform plan in the 1990s, "announced that he supported the principles that have been outlined by Obama." Insurance lobbyist Chip Kahn, who also helped kill Clinton's plan with his infamous "Harry and Louise" TV ads, praised Obama for arranging the bipartisan summit, adding that Obama "successfully launched the process we need to achieve health reform, which we all want." AHIP also strongly opposed Clinton's efforts, but yesterday, Ignagni told Obama, "You have our commitment to play, to contribute and to help pass health-care reform this year."
STILL OPPOSITION TO REFORM: Despite Ignagni's pledge, Time Magazine's Karen Tumulty said that in a "break-out session" yesterday at the summit, the AHIP president made "one of the more radical" proposals for getting reform enacted, "which is to take most of this out of the hands of Congress, set up a commission...to come up with a plan and present it to Congress on a sort-of take it or leave it basis." The Wonk Room's Igor Volsky, was who also at the summit, noted that the insurance industry may believe "that it can get a better deal out of (and have more influence over) some kind of commission." One group is already rallying opposition to Obama's agenda: the Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR) and its leader Rick Scott, a health care entrepreneur who once pledged to run hospitals more like McDonald's. CPR's obstruction started yesterday when the group took out a full-page ad in the Washington Post, recycling the right's talking points and accusing Obama of providing "virtually no details" of his health plan. The ad asked the president to share the details of his plan to "allay our fears and end the speculation." Obama's and Sen. Max Baucus's (D-MT) health plans are available for download on CPR's own website. Moreover, obstructionists in the media are starting to rev their engines as well, with many right-wingers, like de-facto GOP leader Rush Limbaugh, charging that Obama is on a "relentless drive toward socialized medicine." As Media Matters noted, such statements are "neither accurate nor original." In fact, "socialized medicine in its purest form is difficult to come by in the real world," observed the Center for American Progress. The Urban Institute wrote in an April 2008 analysis, "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services," and therefore, progressive health-care reform proposals do not "fit this description."
DR. DEAN WEIGHS IN: In an interview with The Progress Report this week, former Vermont governor Howard Dean outlined the principles he believes should guide the health care reform debate. He argued against a single-payer system, against an individual mandate, and for extending free health care to all Americans under the age of 25. Dean also expressed support for building upon the existing employer-based health care system by giving Americans the choice of keeping their existing insurance plan or enrolling in a new public option. "People hate the health care system, but they love their own doctor and they pretty much like the care they get," he explained. "So what you cannot do is create some system that is going to scare people." Dean argued that free choice and competition should be the cornerstones of health reform. "The brilliance of Barack Obama's plan on the campaign trail was a) no one has to change if they like what they've got and b) if you want to, you could essentially buy into Medicare," Dean said. "I don't think we should impose a single payer on everybody, but I do think we should give Americans the choice of having one if they like it. If it works for them, that's what they’ll choose; if it doesn't work for them, they'll choose the private sector."
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tmullins on Mar 7, 2009 1:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Mar 7, 2009 3:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Public coverage with private care
Posted by: bthespoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Liberty G on Mar 7, 2009 6:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We in America get far worse health results for more money than most other countries in the world. The key is - U.S. medicine is a biz - controlled, as is our legislative system, by big corporations for their own profit. Even research is largely dominated by pharmaceutical companies. The latter have also made sure that "care" means drugging people with powerful and dangerous prescriptions, many to alleviate the "side effects" of other drugs.
All the proposals for "reform" leave this infrastructure intact, and are based on ways to continue providing government welfare to the corporations that have already made medical treatment unaffordable to millions.
Other nations, by contrast, have explored and chosen a variety of "CAM" (Complementary & Alternative Medicine) options that have been proven effective and safe - and which are far cheaper than our pharmaceutical brews.
I wish it could happen here, but the powers that be are working hard to squash any competition, and no politician has the courage or wisdom to fight for a saner mix of health choices.
Sadly, I sit here with just one hope - that Obama doesn't cave on his position of no individual mandate - I thank Dean for seconding that. My greatest fear is that, like the folks in Massachusetts who fled because they couldn't pay mandated "health care" premiums, I will be faced with a tax I can't afford to pay for treatment I don't want (and which will not really be available anyway, given co-pays and deductibles). And where do I flee then? At least now, I can obtain a few of the
remedies that actually help me stay healthy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bthespoon on Mar 7, 2009 6:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of us who are paying attention know that we're paying way too much and getting far too little in return for what we're spending on health unsurance already. Simply by removing this one extremeley expensive, immoral and unnecessary middleman that is keeping us divided, conquered and from utilizing efficiencies of scale, we could easily save hundreds of billions of currently wasted health care dollars and millions of devastated lives each and every year after year simply by uniting everyone into one reliable and comprehensive public plan under one set of nondiscriminatory rules.
Improve Medicare for ALL, or public coverage with private care. Once we're all united into the same plan, then finally we will create the transparency we need to begin to deal with the other problems, and have the freedom of choices that we need to increase the competition we need among propviders, but that insurers only limit.
Obama knows this but refuses to explain the truth to the people, or even to allow surrogates like Al Gore and Oprah Winfrey to do so for him. The only reason I can come up with for why this is so is the age-old one: money. Just whose posckets do we think are going to end up with the $600+ billions of dollars that he's throwing at the problem? The health unsurance industry will get the bulk of the money. Feeding the beast that IS the (main part of the) problem (by far, namely our uniquely anti-american health unsurance industry) will only make them even stronger than they are already (which is way too strong) and the problem worse. Health unsurers are the broken part, and they are unfixable.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama Demands More Corporate Welfare
Posted by: Liberty G
» Because the only choice we need as far as coverage
Posted by: bthespoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Mar 7, 2009 6:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No doubt about it - major US health care reform will happen this or next year
The only groups remaining who oppose reform is the huge health industry itself and the parasitic industries who feed off this big bloated and corrupt tit
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're not paying close enough attention
Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: You're not paying close enough attention
Posted by: drricklippin
» I'm pretty sure they're going to get exactly what they want
Posted by: bthespoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Mar 7, 2009 8:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, people with chemical sensitivity regularly get their lives terminated when they absolutely must go to the hospital. A friend absolutely had to go a month ago, and is still recovering. I know of someone else who had leukemia, who absolutely had to go, and the hospital's fumes killed her. I've read of a Gulf War vet who was in for routine tests, who was wheeled by a room full of paint stripper fumes, and whose heart stopped twice in the next 3 hours. They got him back. If you're not one of our designated national sacrifice humans, good for you, but some otherwise normal Americans are dead people walking.
People with chronic conditions in general will tend to be excluded. Doctors are klutzes when it comes to something they can't "cure".
Cancer victimization will be helped in the very long run by national health care, particularly if the Federal government directly foots all the bills (but that won't happen!). Then in five years some bean counter would see the cost of cancer and the government would ban a bunch of obvious carcinogens. But let's not fantasize too soon about not having the manslaughter of millions of citizens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Sounds like what we have now under
Posted by: bthespoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Mar 7, 2009 8:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . . . . .
It would probably be cheaper to throw greedy private insurers under the bus and simply expand Medicare to cover everybody.
But, we will not see that happen. Indeed, Obama, right at the "starter's pistol" of the negotiations to formulate a plan, is already willing to compromise on his campaign promises – and not on single-payer, but on even having a government plan to compete with private insurers!
(Keep in mind that Obama's recent "healthcare summit" meeting did not include even one advocate for a single-payer plan, and at the news conference after the meeting, amid all of the mutual admiration for "job well done," no serious consumer advocates were called on by the president for comments. Plenty of industry insiders certainly were, though.)
It is guaranteed that private insurers will not be willing to cooperate, and that "compromise" to them means no competing government plan at all. So, it's beginning to look like what we're going to get are band-aids over a pumping jugular vein, "reform" that addresses the most egregious inefficiencies but still allows – indeed, enforces by law through compulsory universal insurance ownership – private insurers to continue to bleed us dry with sky-high premiums and declining service.
The only reform worth considering is to remove profit from the nation's healthcare system and return to a non-profit system, like we had in America up until about 1970 and like what exists in every other advanced industrialized nation on Earth.
Obama's "reform" is about to be hijacked by private health "providers" and turned into "refailure."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ralphzilla on Mar 7, 2009 9:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why we will never get health-care like Canada or Europe:
1) We still think we can kick ass and steal the world's resources, so most of our taxes go towards the military machine.
2) Our Pirate Culture of "I got mine, F you buddy" keeps us from truly giving a damn about our fellow citizens.
3) Our Puritanical roots freeze our thoughts into a warped mindset that suffering is the prime American experience. The rewards are on the other side of the veil.
So based on these obstacles how do we get an great American Health-Care System?
a) Use our Military to forcibly capture and abduct doctors and nurses from all over the world to serve as free heath providers here.
b) Force unemployed workers to build new facilities for these abducted medical staff
c) Require all retirees that have lost significant investments in the Markets to choose the Drug Overdose of their choice.
d) Limit Health Care to 1 child per family- families get to choose so we do get a choice!
e) Exchange free health care for the ability to be experimented on to further the research, profits, and sadistic pleasure of the rich.
Now that is a Truly American Health Care Reform!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Mar 7, 2009 3:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bandz on Mar 8, 2009 1:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Mar 9, 2009 1:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)
March 07, 2009 "FAIR" -- Major newspaper, broadcast and cable stories mentioning healthcare reform in the week leading up to President Barack Obama's March 5 healthcare summit rarely mentioned the idea of a single-payer national health insurance program, according to a new FAIR study. And advocates of such a system--two of whom participated in yesterday's summit--were almost entirely shut out, FAIR found.
Single-payer--a model in which healthcare delivery would remain largely private, but would be paid for by a single federal health insurance fund (much like Medicare provides for seniors, and comparable to Canada's current system)--polls well with the public, who preferred it two-to-one over a privatized system in a recent survey (New York Times/CBS, 1/11-15/09). But a media consumer in the week leading up to the summit was more likely to read about single-payer from the hostile perspective of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer than see an op-ed by a single-payer advocate in a major U.S. newspaper.
Media Blackout on Single-Payer Healthcare
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tmullins on Mar 7, 2009 1:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Mar 7, 2009 3:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Public coverage with private care
Posted by: bthespoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Liberty G on Mar 7, 2009 6:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We in America get far worse health results for more money than most other countries in the world. The key is - U.S. medicine is a biz - controlled, as is our legislative system, by big corporations for their own profit. Even research is largely dominated by pharmaceutical companies. The latter have also made sure that "care" means drugging people with powerful and dangerous prescriptions, many to alleviate the "side effects" of other drugs.
All the proposals for "reform" leave this infrastructure intact, and are based on ways to continue providing government welfare to the corporations that have already made medical treatment unaffordable to millions.
Other nations, by contrast, have explored and chosen a variety of "CAM" (Complementary & Alternative Medicine) options that have been proven effective and safe - and which are far cheaper than our pharmaceutical brews.
I wish it could happen here, but the powers that be are working hard to squash any competition, and no politician has the courage or wisdom to fight for a saner mix of health choices.
Sadly, I sit here with just one hope - that Obama doesn't cave on his position of no individual mandate - I thank Dean for seconding that. My greatest fear is that, like the folks in Massachusetts who fled because they couldn't pay mandated "health care" premiums, I will be faced with a tax I can't afford to pay for treatment I don't want (and which will not really be available anyway, given co-pays and deductibles). And where do I flee then? At least now, I can obtain a few of the
remedies that actually help me stay healthy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bthespoon on Mar 7, 2009 6:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of us who are paying attention know that we're paying way too much and getting far too little in return for what we're spending on health unsurance already. Simply by removing this one extremeley expensive, immoral and unnecessary middleman that is keeping us divided, conquered and from utilizing efficiencies of scale, we could easily save hundreds of billions of currently wasted health care dollars and millions of devastated lives each and every year after year simply by uniting everyone into one reliable and comprehensive public plan under one set of nondiscriminatory rules.
Improve Medicare for ALL, or public coverage with private care. Once we're all united into the same plan, then finally we will create the transparency we need to begin to deal with the other problems, and have the freedom of choices that we need to increase the competition we need among propviders, but that insurers only limit.
Obama knows this but refuses to explain the truth to the people, or even to allow surrogates like Al Gore and Oprah Winfrey to do so for him. The only reason I can come up with for why this is so is the age-old one: money. Just whose posckets do we think are going to end up with the $600+ billions of dollars that he's throwing at the problem? The health unsurance industry will get the bulk of the money. Feeding the beast that IS the (main part of the) problem (by far, namely our uniquely anti-american health unsurance industry) will only make them even stronger than they are already (which is way too strong) and the problem worse. Health unsurers are the broken part, and they are unfixable.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama Demands More Corporate Welfare
Posted by: Liberty G
» Because the only choice we need as far as coverage
Posted by: bthespoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Mar 7, 2009 6:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No doubt about it - major US health care reform will happen this or next year
The only groups remaining who oppose reform is the huge health industry itself and the parasitic industries who feed off this big bloated and corrupt tit
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're not paying close enough attention
Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: You're not paying close enough attention
Posted by: drricklippin
» I'm pretty sure they're going to get exactly what they want
Posted by: bthespoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Mar 7, 2009 8:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, people with chemical sensitivity regularly get their lives terminated when they absolutely must go to the hospital. A friend absolutely had to go a month ago, and is still recovering. I know of someone else who had leukemia, who absolutely had to go, and the hospital's fumes killed her. I've read of a Gulf War vet who was in for routine tests, who was wheeled by a room full of paint stripper fumes, and whose heart stopped twice in the next 3 hours. They got him back. If you're not one of our designated national sacrifice humans, good for you, but some otherwise normal Americans are dead people walking.
People with chronic conditions in general will tend to be excluded. Doctors are klutzes when it comes to something they can't "cure".
Cancer victimization will be helped in the very long run by national health care, particularly if the Federal government directly foots all the bills (but that won't happen!). Then in five years some bean counter would see the cost of cancer and the government would ban a bunch of obvious carcinogens. But let's not fantasize too soon about not having the manslaughter of millions of citizens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Sounds like what we have now under
Posted by: bthespoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Mar 7, 2009 8:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . . . . .
It would probably be cheaper to throw greedy private insurers under the bus and simply expand Medicare to cover everybody.
But, we will not see that happen. Indeed, Obama, right at the "starter's pistol" of the negotiations to formulate a plan, is already willing to compromise on his campaign promises – and not on single-payer, but on even having a government plan to compete with private insurers!
(Keep in mind that Obama's recent "healthcare summit" meeting did not include even one advocate for a single-payer plan, and at the news conference after the meeting, amid all of the mutual admiration for "job well done," no serious consumer advocates were called on by the president for comments. Plenty of industry insiders certainly were, though.)
It is guaranteed that private insurers will not be willing to cooperate, and that "compromise" to them means no competing government plan at all. So, it's beginning to look like what we're going to get are band-aids over a pumping jugular vein, "reform" that addresses the most egregious inefficiencies but still allows – indeed, enforces by law through compulsory universal insurance ownership – private insurers to continue to bleed us dry with sky-high premiums and declining service.
The only reform worth considering is to remove profit from the nation's healthcare system and return to a non-profit system, like we had in America up until about 1970 and like what exists in every other advanced industrialized nation on Earth.
Obama's "reform" is about to be hijacked by private health "providers" and turned into "refailure."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ralphzilla on Mar 7, 2009 9:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why we will never get health-care like Canada or Europe:
1) We still think we can kick ass and steal the world's resources, so most of our taxes go towards the military machine.
2) Our Pirate Culture of "I got mine, F you buddy" keeps us from truly giving a damn about our fellow citizens.
3) Our Puritanical roots freeze our thoughts into a warped mindset that suffering is the prime American experience. The rewards are on the other side of the veil.
So based on these obstacles how do we get an great American Health-Care System?
a) Use our Military to forcibly capture and abduct doctors and nurses from all over the world to serve as free heath providers here.
b) Force unemployed workers to build new facilities for these abducted medical staff
c) Require all retirees that have lost significant investments in the Markets to choose the Drug Overdose of their choice.
d) Limit Health Care to 1 child per family- families get to choose so we do get a choice!
e) Exchange free health care for the ability to be experimented on to further the research, profits, and sadistic pleasure of the rich.
Now that is a Truly American Health Care Reform!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Mar 7, 2009 3:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bandz on Mar 8, 2009 1:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Mar 9, 2009 1:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)
March 07, 2009 "FAIR" -- Major newspaper, broadcast and cable stories mentioning healthcare reform in the week leading up to President Barack Obama's March 5 healthcare summit rarely mentioned the idea of a single-payer national health insurance program, according to a new FAIR study. And advocates of such a system--two of whom participated in yesterday's summit--were almost entirely shut out, FAIR found.
Single-payer--a model in which healthcare delivery would remain largely private, but would be paid for by a single federal health insurance fund (much like Medicare provides for seniors, and comparable to Canada's current system)--polls well with the public, who preferred it two-to-one over a privatized system in a recent survey (New York Times/CBS, 1/11-15/09). But a media consumer in the week leading up to the summit was more likely to read about single-payer from the hostile perspective of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer than see an op-ed by a single-payer advocate in a major U.S. newspaper.
Media Blackout on Single-Payer Healthcare
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us
One of the Most Common Chemicals Used in Modern Life Is Now Being Seen as a Health Threat




