It’s hard to imagine a more perfect metaphor for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) than a cancer department.
Its mission is to fight cancer by finding cures, not by finding new drugs and vaccines.
That means finding a cure for cancer, as opposed to finding one for any other disease.
And that’s precisely what the CDC does.
As the country’s chief cancer-fighting agency, the CDC is responsible for finding a cancer cure for a variety of diseases.
Among the many things it does is investigate whether new drugs, vaccines, and treatments are safe and effective, how to best administer them, and how to monitor the safety and effectiveness of them.
As such, the agency is tasked with determining whether new treatments are needed for all patients, not just those with advanced cancer.
In the past, the FDA, the U.S. Department of Justice, and other federal agencies have also played this role.
The FDA is tasked to make sure that new drugs are safe, effective, and well tolerated before they are approved by the FDA.
The DOJ investigates if new vaccines are safe to use in people with cancer and has the power to stop or limit the development of new vaccines if they do not meet the FDA’s safety standards.
The CDC, by contrast, is tasked only with finding a vaccine that works and that is safe.
That’s why, despite its role in finding new cures, the government agency is often criticized as toxic, toxic, and dangerous.
That criticism stems from its funding.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention receives roughly $4.5 billion annually from the federal government.
As part of its budget, the Trump administration has been proposing a $2.5 trillion cut to the CDC’s budget.
That would mean a significant cut in the CDCs funding, which is an agency that has spent much of its history fighting the very disease it is now fighting.
It has also been criticized for a number of reasons, most notably for funding cancer research.
But what if we look at the CDC in a different light?
If the agency were not tasked with fighting cancer, it would not be responsible for the deaths of millions of people around the world.
According to the World Health Organization, cancer is the third leading cause of death in the world, after heart disease and stroke.
And the number of people dying from cancer each year is on the rise.
In 2016, cancer killed more than 10 million people worldwide, according to the UN World Health Assembly.
The number of cancer cases in the United States has more than doubled since 2000, from 10,922 to 16,938 in the last 10 years.
In 2017, there were more than 5,500 cancer cases reported to the National Cancer Institute, according the World Cancer Research Fund.
The rise in cancer cases, deaths, and hospitalizations in the U, S., and Canada has led to an estimated $1.3 trillion in medical bills and costs.
To put that into perspective, the world’s largest cancer charity, the World Economic Forum, estimates that cancer costs the world over $300 billion a year.
But if the CDC were not responsible for fighting cancer in the first place, how would it make the lives of the millions of Americans who have been diagnosed with the disease better?
How would it help us all?
The answer is simple: by eliminating the funding.
When Congress cut the CDC budget, it eliminated the agency’s main source of funding.
It also cut the agencys budget by approximately 20% from the previous year.
The cut to CDC funding would mean the elimination of nearly all the funding that helps fund research and development, the development and testing of vaccines, diagnostic testing, and the monitoring of the safety of drugs.
The elimination of this critical funding source could leave many of the nation’s most vulnerable populations without access to lifesaving drugs and treatments.
In a perfect world, we could all live healthier lives.
But in a world of increasing health care costs, fewer and fewer people are being able to access treatment and health care.
According a 2016 report by the Pew Research Center, just 13% of Americans have health insurance.
As a result, they are more than four times more likely to die prematurely, more than three times more than people without insurance, and have a higher risk of dying from preventable diseases.
As more people have access to treatment, the need for care will only increase.
To combat this rising toll of death and disability, the federal budget is a critical source of economic stimulus to help rebuild the health care system.
And when Congress does not invest in prevention and care, we are left with a nation that is struggling to address the mounting health care crisis.
Without the CDC, Americans are faced with the choice of continuing to live in an unhealthy, dangerous, and uninsurable state, or simply living in a worse one.
But instead of addressing this crisis by reducing the CDC