With all the shouting vacant on in this area America's shape trouble predicament, many are probably result it trying to concentrate, much a reduced amount of understand the cause of the problems confronting us. I discover myself sad by the tone of the conversation (though I understand it---people are scared) as well as bewildered with the intention of somebody would suppose themselves satisfactorily qualified to know how to preeminent increase our shape trouble logic simply since they've encountered it, as public who've spent full careers studying it (and I don't mean politicians) aren't guaranteed could you repeat that? To sort out themselves.
Albert Einstein is apparent to be inflicted with understood with the intention of if he had an hour to save the planet he'd waste 55 minutes major the conundrum and single 5 minutes solving it. Our shape trouble logic is far more complicated than generally who are offering solutions admit or recognize, and except we focus generally of our hard work on major its problems and painstakingly understanding their causes, one changes we get on to are solely likely to get on to them worse as they are better.
Though I've worked in the American shape trouble logic as a doctor since 1992 and be inflicted with seven year's worth of experience as an administrative director of primary trouble, I don't consider myself qualified to painstakingly evaluate the feasibility of generally of the suggestions I've heard pro humanizing our shape trouble logic. I sort out think, however, I can by smallest amount say to the conversation by describing approximately of its troubles, taking reasonable guesses by their causes, and outlining approximately all-purpose doctrine with the intention of must be useful in attempting to solve them.
THE PROBLEM OF COST
No lone disputes with the intention of shape trouble costs in the U.S. Has been rising dramatically. According to the Centers pro Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), shape trouble costs is projected to get to $8,160 for every person for every time by the aim of 2009 compared to the $356 for every person for every time it was in 1970. This boost occurred roughly 2.4% nearer than the boost in GDP ended the same cycle. Though GDP varies from year-to-year and is therefore an imperfect way to assess a increase in shape trouble expenditure in comparison to other expenditures from lone time to the then, we can still conclude from this data with the intention of ended the continue 40 years the percentage of our inhabitant returns (personal, affair, and governmental) we've spent on shape trouble has been rising.
Despite could you repeat that? Generally take upon yourself, this could or could not be bad. It all depends on two things: The reasons why costs on shape trouble has been increasing relation to our GDP and how much regard we've been getting pro all dough we waste.
WHY HAS HEALTH CARE BECOME SO COSTLY?
This is a harder question to answer than many would believe. The increase in the cost of shape trouble (on mean 8.1% for every time from 1970 to 2009, calculated from the data above) has exceeded the increase in inflation (4.4% on mean ended with the intention of same period), so we can't attribute the increased cost to inflation lonely. Health trouble expenditures are renowned to be meticulously associated with a country's GDP (the richer the state, the more it spends on shape care), yet even in this the United States remains an outlier (figure 3).
Is it since of costs on shape trouble pro public ended the age of 75 (five era could you repeat that? We waste on public linking the ages of 25 and 34)? Inside a word, thumbs down. Studies trade show this demographic trend explains single a small percentage of shape expenditure growth.
Is it since of giant profits the shape insurance companies are raking in? Probably not. It's admittedly trying to know pro particular as not all insurance companies are publicly traded and therefore be inflicted with balance sheets unfilled pro broadcast assess. But Aetna, lone of the leading publicly traded shape insurance companies in North America, reported a 2009 following quarter profit of $346.7 million, which, if projected made known, predicts a yearly profit of around $1.3 billion from the approximately 19 million public they insure. If we take upon yourself their profit margin is mean pro their industry (even if untrue, it's dodgy to be instructions of magnitude uncommon from the average), the whole profit pro all confidential shape insurance companies in America, which insured 202 million public (2nd bullet point) in 2007, would occur to approximately $13 billion for every time. Total shape trouble expenditures in 2007 were $2.2 trillion (see Table 1, leaf 3), which yields a confidential shape trouble industry profit approximately 0.6% of whole shape trouble expenditure (though this analysis mixes data from uncommon years, it can perhaps be permitted as the facts aren't likely uncommon by one order of magnitude).
Is it since of shape trouble fraud? Estimates of losses due to fraud range as distinguished as 10% of all shape trouble expenditures, but it's tricky to discover tricky data to back this up. Though approximately percentage of fraud almost certainly goes undetected, perhaps the preeminent way to estimate how much money is lost due to fraud is by looking by how much the government in fact recovers. Inside 2006, this was $2.2 billion, single 0.1% of $2.1 trillion (see Table 1, leaf 3) in whole shape trouble expenditures pro with the intention of time.
Is it due to pharmaceutical expenditure? Inside 2006, whole expenditures on prescription drugs was approximately $216 billion (see Table 2, leaf 4). Though this amounted to 10% of the $2.1 trillion (see Table 1, leaf 3) in whole shape trouble expenditures pro with the intention of time and should therefore be considered noteworthy, it still remains single a small percentage of whole shape trouble expenditure.
Is it from administrative expenditure? Inside 1999, whole administrative expenditure were estimated to be $294 billion, a satiated 25% of the $1.2 trillion (Table 1) in whole shape trouble expenditures with the intention of time. This was a noteworthy percentage in 1999 and it's tricky to imagine it's shrunk to one noteworthy degree since at that time.
Inside the aim, though, could you repeat that? Probably has contributed the utmost amount to the boost in shape trouble costs in the U.S. Are two things:
1. Technological innovation.
2. Overutilization of shape trouble assets by both patients and shape trouble providers themselves.
Technological innovation. Data with the intention of proves increasing shape trouble expenditure are due mostly to technological innovation is surprisingly trying to take, but estimates of the contribution to the increase in shape trouble expenditure due to technological innovation range anywhere from 40% to 65% (Table 2, leaf 8). Though we mostly single be inflicted with empirical data pro this, several examples illustrate the opinion. Heart attacks used to be treated with aspirin and prayer. Now they're treated with drugs to control shock, pulmonary edema, and arrhythmias as well as thrombolytic therapy, cardiac catheterization with angioplasty or stenting, and coronary pathway bypass grafting. You don't be inflicted with to be an economist to map made known which scenario tops up being more expensive. We could gather to go these same procedures more cheaply ended calculate (the same way we've figured made known how to get on to computers cheaper) but as the cost for every procedure decreases, the whole amount spent on all procedure goes up since the digit of procedures performed goes up. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is 25% a reduced amount of than the fee of an commence cholecystectomy, but the tariff of both be inflicted with increased by 60%. Equally technological advances be converted into more widely unfilled they be converted into more widely used, and lone business we're splendid by responsibility in the United States is making equipment unfilled.
Overutilization of shape trouble assets by both patients and shape trouble providers themselves. We can straightforwardly mark out overutilization as the excessive consumption of shape trouble assets. What's not so straightforward is recognizing it. Every time from October through February the majority of patients who occur into the Urgent Care Clinic by my sickbay are, in my check over, responsibility so unnecessarily. What are they appearance in pro? Colds. I can offer support, faith with the intention of nothing is sincerely ill-treat, and advice in this area over-the-counter remedies---but not any of these things will get on to them better nearer (though I often am able to reduce their level of concern). Further, patients be inflicted with a tricky calculate believing the answer to incoming by a correct diagnosis fabrication in history gathering and precise corporal examination very than technologically-based difficult (not with the intention of the latter isn't important---just a reduced amount of so than generally patients believe). Just how much patient-driven overutilization expenditure the shape trouble logic is tricky to pin down as we be inflicted with mostly single subjective evidence as higher than.
Further, doctors often disagree amongst themselves in this area could you repeat that? Constitutes excessive shape trouble consumption. Inside his exceptional article, "The Cost Conundrum," Atul Gawande argues with the intention of regional alteration in overutilization of shape trouble assets by doctors preeminent accounts pro the regional alteration in Medicare costs for every person. He goes on to argue with the intention of if doctors may possibly be motivated to bridle in their overutilization in high-cost areas of the people, it would save Medicare sufficient money to keep it solvent pro 50 years.
A reasonable deal with. To make with the intention of to take place, however, we need to understand why doctors are overutilizing shape trouble assets in the initially place:
1. Judgment varies in suitcases everywhere the health check literature is vague or unhelpful. When faced with diagnostic dilemmas or diseases pro which standard treatments haven't been established, a alteration in practice customarily occurs. If a primary trouble doctor suspects her uncomplaining has an ulcer, does she handle herself empirically or refer to a gastroenterologist pro an endoscopy? If particular "red flag" symptoms are bestow, generally doctors would refer. If not, approximately would and approximately wouldn't depending on their training and the intangible implementation of discrimination.
2. Inexperience or poor discrimination. Other veteran physicians look after to rely on histories and physicals more than a reduced amount of veteran physicians and consequently order fewer and a reduced amount of expensive tests. Studies recommend primary trouble physicians waste a reduced amount of money on tests and procedures than their sub-specialty colleagues but take akin and now and again even better outcomes.
3. Fear of being sued. This is especially ordinary in Emergency Room settings, but extends to almost each area of medicine.
4. Patients look after to demand more difficult very than a reduced amount of. Equally prominent higher than. And physicians often be inflicted with problem refusing uncomplaining requirements pro many reasons (eg, lacking to please them, worry of missing a diagnosis and being sued, etc).
5. Inside many settings, overutilization makes doctors more money. There exists thumbs down dependable incentive pro doctors to limit their costs except their shell out is capitated or they're receiving a straight salary.
Gawande's article implies here exists approximately level of employment of shape trouble assets that's optimal: Aid too little and you make mistakes and missed diagnoses; aid too much and surplus money gets spent lacking humanizing outcomes, ironically now and again ensuing in outcomes with the intention of are in fact worse (likely as a upshot of complications from all the superfluous difficult and treatments).
How at that time can we make doctors to employ uniformly skilled discrimination to order the aptly digit of tests and treatments pro all patient---the "sweet spot"---in order to yield the preeminent outcomes with the lowest expose of complications? Not straightforwardly. There is, fortunately or unfortunately, an art to skilled shape trouble resource employment. Some doctors are more able by it than others. Some are more diligent in this area keeping current. Some trouble more in this area their patients. An explosion of studies of health check tests and treatments has occurred in the continue several decades to help handbook doctors in choosing the generally effectual, safest, and even cheapest ways to practice medicine, but the diffusion of this evidence-based medicine is a tricky affair. Just since beta blockers, pro model, be inflicted with been publicized to increase survival with sensitivity attacks doesn't mean each doctor knows it or provides them. Data visibly trade show many don't. How in rank spreads from the health check literature into health check practice is a theme worthy of an full placement unto itself. Getting it to take place uniformly has proven exceptionally trying.
Inside synopsis, at that time, generally of the boost in costs on shape trouble seems to be inflicted with occur from technological innovation coupled with its eat too much by doctors working in systems with the intention of motivate them to practice more medicine very than better medicine, as well as patients who demand the ex- thinking it yields the latter.
But even if we may possibly snap our fingers and magically eliminate all overutilization now, shape trouble in the U.S. Would still wait amongst the generally expensive in the planet, requiring us to ask next---
WHAT VALUE ARE WE GETTING FOR THE DOLLARS WE SPEND?
According to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine aristocratic The Burden of Health Care Costs pro Working Families---Implications pro Reform, growth in shape trouble costs "can be defined as reasonably priced as long as the rising percentage of returns devoted to shape trouble does not reduce values of living. When absolute increases in returns cannot keep up with absolute increases in shape trouble costs, shape trouble growth can be paid pro single by sacrificing consumption of goods and services not correlated to shape trouble." When would this always be an acceptable state of affairs? Only as the incremental cost of shape trouble buys equal or greater incremental regard. If, pro model, you were told with the intention of in the virtually prospect you'd be costs 60% of your returns on shape trouble but with the intention of as a upshot you'd take pleasure in, say, a 30% opportunity of living to the age of 250, perhaps you'd mediate with the intention of 60% a small fee to shell out.
This, it seems to me, is could you repeat that? The argument on shape trouble costs really needs to be in this area. Certainly we must bring about on ways to eliminate overutilization. But the real question isn't could you repeat that? Absolute amount of money is too much to waste on shape trouble. The real question is could you repeat that? Are we getting pro the money we waste and is it worth could you repeat that? We be inflicted with to produce up?
People alarmed by the notion with the intention of as shape trouble expenditure boost policymakers could decide to allocation shape trouble don't realize with the intention of we're already rationing by smallest amount approximately of it. It solely doesn't appear as if we are since we're rationing it on a first-come-first-serve basis---leaving it by smallest amount to a degree up to opportunity very than to plan, which we're uncomfortable major and enforcing. Thus we don't realize the wits our 90 year-old father in Illinois can't be inflicted with the liver he needs is since a 14 year-old girl in Alaska got in line initially (or maybe our father was in line initially and gets it while the 14 year-old girl doesn't). Given with the intention of generally of us wait uncomfortable with the notion of rationing shape trouble based on criteria like age or helpfulness to society, as technological innovation continues to drive up shape trouble costs, we very well could by approximately top be inflicted with to get on to vital judgments in this area which health check innovations are worth our full society sacrificing access to other goods and services (unless we're so foolish as to do again the vital mix of believing we can keep borrowing money forever lacking always having to shell out it back).
So could you repeat that? Regard are we getting? It varies. The expose of dying from a sensitivity attack has declined by 66% since 1950 as a upshot of technological innovation. Because cardiovascular disease ranks as the digit lone cause of death in the U.S. This would seem to rank distinguished on the extent of regard as it repayment a enormous proportion of the population in an valuable way. Equally a upshot of advances in pharmacology, we can currently handle depression, anxiety, and even psychosis far better than somebody may possibly be inflicted with imagined even as recently as the mid-1980's (when Prozac was initially released). Clearly, at that time, approximately increases in shape trouble expenditure be inflicted with yielded giant regard we wouldn't aspire to produce up.
But how sort out we decide whether we're getting skilled regard from extra innovations? Scientific studies should verify the innovation (whether a extra test or treatment) in fact provides clinically noteworthy benefit (Aricept is a skilled model of a drug with the intention of facility but doesn't provide splendid clinical benefit---demented patients notch privileged on tests of cognitive skill while on it but probably aren't significantly more functional or significantly better able to remember their children compared to as they're not). But comparative effectiveness studies are exceptionally costly, take a long calculate to complete, and can by no means be impeccably useful to each party uncomplaining, all of which earnings approximately shape trouble source permanently has to apply skilled health check discrimination to each uncomplaining conundrum.
Who's preeminent positioned to mediate the regard to society of the benefit of an innovation---that is, to decide if an innovation's benefit justifies its cost? I would argue the assemble with the intention of ultimately pays pro it: The American broadcast. How the public's views may possibly be resigned and at that time effectively communicated to plan makers efficiently sufficient to affect real plan, however, fabrication far further than the scope of this placement (and perhaps anyone's imagination).
THE PROBLEM OF ACCESS
A noteworthy proportion of the population is uninsured or underinsured, limiting or eliminating their access to shape trouble. Equally a upshot, this assemble finds the path of smallest amount (and cheapest) resistance---emergency rooms---which has significantly impaired the skill of our nation's ER physicians to in fact render timely emergency trouble. Inside addition, surveys recommend a alarming primary trouble doctor famine relation to the demand pro their services. Inside my check over, this imbalance linking supply and demand explains generally of the poor customer service patients visage in our logic each time: Long pass the time era pro doctors' appointments, long pass the time era in doctors' offices some time ago their appointment time arrives, at that time fleeting era spent with doctors inside exam place to stay, followed by problem success their doctors in linking personnel visits, and irrevocably delays in getting test results. This imbalance would likely single to a degree be alleviated by a reduced amount of shape trouble overutilization by patients.
GUIDELINES FOR SOLUTIONS
Equally Freaknomics authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner state, "If morality represents how public would like the planet to bring about, at that time economics represents how it in fact does bring about." Capitalism is based on the opinion of enlightened self-interest, a logic with the intention of creates incentives to yield behavior with the intention of repayment both suppliers and consumers and hence society as a total. But as incentives make made known of belt, public commence to perform in ways with the intention of take up again to benefit them often by the expense of others or even by their own expense down the road. Whatever changes we get on to to our shape trouble logic (and there's permanently more than lone way to skin a cat), we should be guaranteed to align incentives so with the intention of the behavior with the intention of results in all part of the logic contributes to its sustainability very than its ruin.
Here at that time is a synopsis of could you repeat that? I consider the preeminent recommendations I've occur across to take up the problems I've outlined higher than:
1. Change the way insurance companies think in this area responsibility affair. Insurance companies be inflicted with the same goal as all other businesses: Make the most of profits. And if a shape insurance company is publicly traded and in your 401k portfolio, you aspire them to make the most of profits, too. Unfortunately, the preeminent way pro them to sort out this is to deny their services to the very customers who shell out pro them. It's harder pro them to apply expose (the function of one insurance company) relation to say, a car insurance company, since far more public get on to shape insurance claims than car insurance claims. It would seem, therefore, from a consumer perspective, the confidential shape insurance develop is fundamentally flawed. We need to create a disincentive pro shape insurance companies to deny claims (or, conversely, an superfluous incentive pro them to shell out them). Allowing and cheering aross-state insurance competition would by smallest amount to a degree engage emancipated promote forces to drive down insurance premiums as well as commence up extra markets to community insurance companies, benefiting both insurance consumers and providers. With their customers currently armed with the all-important power to energy elsewhere, shape insurance companies might occur to check over the quality with which they in fact provide service to their customers (ie, the paying made known of claims) as a way to save and grow their affair. For this to bring about, monopolies or near-monopolies should be disbanded or by the very smallest amount dejected. Even if it does bring about, however, government will probably still be inflicted with to tighten parameter of the shape insurance industry to ensure approximately of the heinous abuses with the intention of are vacant on currently bring to a standstill (for model, insurance companies shouldn't be allowable to stratify consumers into sub-groups based on age and boost premiums based on an grown-up group's privileged mean expose of illness since healthy grown-up consumers at that time aim up being penalized pro their age very than their behaviors). Karl Denninger suggests approximately interesting ideas in a placement on his blog in this area requiring insurance companies to offer identical tariff to businesses and those as well as creating a mandatory "open enrollment" cycle in which participants may possibly single opt in or made known of a preparation on a yearly basis. This would prevent those from single export insurance as they got sick, eliminating the adverse selection conundrum that's driven insurance companies to deny payment pro pre-existing conditions. I would add with the intention of, however reimbursement tariff to shape trouble providers are single-minded in the prospect (again, an full placement unto itself), all shape insurance diplomacy, whether confidential or broadcast, should reimburse shape trouble providers by an equal percentage to eliminate the existence of "good" and "bad" insurance that's now reliable pro motivating hospitals and doctors to limit or even deny service to the poor and which could be reliable pro the same business occurring to the elderly in the prospect (Medicare reimburses single vaguely better than Medicaid). Finally, regarding the perception of a "public option" insurance preparation commence to all, I agonize with the intention of if it's significantly cheaper than confidential options while as long as near-equal repayment the full people will rush to it en masse, driving confidential insurance companies made known of affair and forcing us all to subsidize lone another's shape trouble with privileged taxes and fewer choices; yet by the same calculate if the cost to the consumer of a "public option" remains comparable to confidential options, the very public it's predestined to help won't be able to afford it.
2. Motivate the population to engage in healthier lifestyles with the intention of be inflicted with been proven to prevent disease. Prevention of disease probably saves money, though approximately be inflicted with argued with the intention of living longer increases the likelihood of rising diseases with the intention of wouldn't be inflicted with otherwise occurred, leading to the overall consumption of more shape trouble dollars (though even if that's real, persons superfluous years of life would be judged by generally valuable sufficient to justify the superfluous cost. After all, the total function of shape trouble is to increase the quality and quantity of life, not save society money. Let's not deposit the cart previous to the horse). However, the perception of preventing a potentially bad outcome sometime in the prospect is single imperceptibly motivating expressively, explaining why so many public be inflicted with so much vex getting themselves to implementation, munch aptly, lose consequence, bring to a standstill smoking, and that. The perception of financially rewarding wanted behavior and/or financially punishing undesirable behavior is highly controversial. Though I agonize this kind of strategy risks the enacting of policies with the intention of could impose on basic freedoms if taken too far, I'm not hostile to thinking artistically in this area how we may possibly control stronger motivational forces to help public realize shape goals they themselves aspire to realize. After all, generally obese public aspire to lose consequence. Most smokers aspire to abandon. They might be more thriving if they may possibly discover more powerful motivation.
3. Decrease overutilization of shape trouble assets by doctors. I'm in agreement with Gawande with the intention of result ways to make doctors to bring to a standstill overutilizing shape trouble assets is a worthy goal with the intention of will significantly bridle in expenditure, with the intention of it will require a enthusiasm to conduct experiment, and with the intention of it will take calculate. Further, I decide with the intention of focusing single on who pays pro our shape trouble (whether the broadcast or confidential sectors) will fail to take up the come forth adequately. But how exactly can we motivate doctors, whose pens are reliable pro generally of the money spent on shape trouble in this people, to focus on what's really preeminent pro their patients? The perception with the intention of outdoor bodies---whether insurance companies or government panels---could be used to fit values of trouble doctors should stay on in order to control expenditure strikes me as ludicrous. Such bodies be inflicted with neither the training nor overriding interest pro patients' welfare to be trusted to get on to persons judgments. Why moreover sort out we be inflicted with doctors if not to employ their expertise to apply nuanced approaches to complicated situations? Equally long as they bring about in a logic emancipated of incentives with the intention of compete with their duty to their patients, they wait in the preeminent spot to get on to decisions in this area could you repeat that? Tests and treatments are worth a agreed patient's consideration, as long as they're precise to dodge overconfident paternalism (refusing to take a head CT pro a headache might be overconfidently paternalistic; refusing to offer chemotherapy pro a cold isn't). So perhaps we must eliminate one fiscal incentive doctors be inflicted with to trouble in this area whatever thing but their patients' welfare, importance doctors' salaries must be disconnected from the digit of surgeries they go and the digit of tests they order, and must as a replacement for be fit by promote forces. This develop already exists in academic shape trouble centers and hasn't seemed to promote shoddy trouble as doctors feel they're being paid positively. Doctors need to earn a skilled living to compensate pro the years of training and massive amounts of debt they accrue, but thumbs down fiscal incentive pro practicing more medicine must be allowable to glue itself to with the intention of skilled living.
4. Decrease overutilization of shape trouble assets by patients. This, it seems to me, requires by smallest amount three interventions:
* Making unfilled the aptly assets pro the aptly problems (so with the intention of patients aren't vacant to the ER pro colds, pro model, but very to their primary trouble physicians). This would require hitting the "sweet spot" with respect to the digit of primary trouble physicians, preeminent by front-line gatekeeping, not of shape trouble costs as in the old HMO develop, but of triage and behavior. It would furthermore require a recalculating of reimbursement levels pro primary trouble services relation to specialty services to promote more health check students to energy into primary trouble (the reverse of the alarming trend we've been considering pro the continue decade).
* A massive effort to boost the shape literacy of the all-purpose broadcast to increase its skill to triage its own complaints (so patients don't in fact energy anywhere pro colds or demand MRIs of their backs as their trusted physicians tells them it's solely a strain). This might be preeminent accomplished through a run of learning programs (though agreed with the intention of thumbs down lone in the confidential sector has an incentive to back such programs, it might in fact be lone of the hardly any things the government should---we'd solely need to study and compare uncommon learning programs and methods to think it over which, if one, reduce excessive uncomplaining employment lacking aggravation outcomes and upshot in more shape trouble savings than they cost).
* Redesigning insurance diplomacy to get on to patients in approximately way more financially accountable pro their shape trouble choices. We can't be inflicted with public vacant bankrupt due to illness, nor sort out we aspire public to underutilize shape trouble assets (avoiding the ER as they be inflicted with chest bind, pro example), but neither can we take up again to support a logic in which patients are in fact motivated to overutilize assets, as the current "pre-pay pro everything" develop does.
CONCLUSION
Given the giant complexity of the shape trouble logic, thumbs down single placement may possibly maybe take up each conundrum with the intention of needs to be fixed. Significant issues not raised in this article include the challenges associated with rising drug expenditure, direct-to-consumer marketing of drugs, end-of-life trouble, sky-rocketing malpractice insurance expenditure, the lack of cost transparency with the intention of enables hospitals to ironically charge the uninsured more than the insured pro the same trouble, extending shape trouble insurance coverage to persons who still don't be inflicted with it, humanizing administrative efficiency to reduce expenditure, the implementation of electronic health check records to reduce health check miscalculation, the fiscal burden of businesses being vital to provide their employees with shape insurance, and tort reform. All are very much interdependent, permanent collectively like the memorable household of cards. To attend to one lone is to affect them all, which is why rushing through shape trouble reform lacking precise deliberation risks unplanned and potentially devastating penalty. Change does need to occur, but if we don't allow ourselves calculate to think through the problems visibly and cunningly and to apply solutions in a measured create, we expose bringing down with the intention of household of cards very than cementing it.
Posts
