I am sure that I will get spammed or something, but if you appreciate all of the
things the president has tried to do for Medicaid, medicare etc. it might be a
good idea to write you representative in congress. His private behavior was
awful and none of my business. Experts even disagree about whether he committed
perjury. I am hoping this expression of advice is taken as it is meant.  That is
don't worry about his personal habits , look at his presidency. Running and
really ducking. Sent with fear and trepidation. Nita

Tebay, Wendy M wrote:

> Bill said,
> "PD costs society more than $68 million a day--much of it tax dollars
> ,(although how much has not been documented to the best of my knowledfge)
> The thing I can't understand is with the fiscal good sense it makes to cure
> this thing, why did we have to beat our brains out to get Congress to act?
> Why didn't they just pass the darn Mo Act right away?"
>
> Well, I hate to say it, but I think that's part of human nature, i.e., to
> put things off until you can no longer ignore them and they're finally right
> up in your face.  It would seem to me also that the fiscally prudent route
> would be to spend that same money on prevention and research for a cure,
> rather than supporting people indefinitely on disability, but logic and
> reason, sadly enough, often have little to do with people's decisions.
> Likewise, it would seem to me, that pd  research money, in the long run,
> would also be most effectiive if concentrated in the areas of prevention and
> focussing on the causes (e.g., liver deficiencies and toxins), rather than
> on treating symptoms primarily.
>
> One good thing lately is Clinton's attempt to change the medicare/medicaid
> system, so that people can afford to go back to work, rather than living off
> disability or even welfare, without risking losing their medical benefits.
> That kid I used to tutor a few years ago in this houseing project, and his
> family, were a prime example of this.  His mother, tho' only in her early
> 40's, had already had 2 strokes and thus took twenty-some pills a day.  She
> couldn't afford to go off welfare, cuz if she did, she'd lose her medical,
> and that'd probably spell her death sentence.  Due to her relative lack of
> education and/or job skills, she could only take low-paying jobs without
> benefits.  So, she was basically trapped forever on welfare, altho' that
> wasn't really what she wanted.  I know she wanted to work.  I'm sure living
> in the environment she did, was no help to her health either.  If it's to
> someone's detriment to work rather than to not, why would they?  I don't
> think even the most politically conservative types would do differently,
> were they ever faced with the same situation.   I think most people, given
> the choice, would rather be self-sufficient, rather than dependent on
> someone else, but sometimes, in certain situations, people need to some
> help, not to mention incentive, to make the transition.  Some of this all
> translate for me into my desire to cure myself of means other than surgeries
> and drugs eventually.  I don't want to be dependent on anything of that sort
> for my survival, especially if I'm forced to one day live off of a fixed
> income.  That's for the birds, and it isn't right.
>
> Ya know, I was thinking also recently, about our insurance system.  They
> could also probably reduce their costs long-term, especially for chronic
> illnesses like pd, but expanding their coverage to include some other, now
> unconventional items.  One would be a cook (preferably one well-versed in
> whole and organic foods) to cook for the pd patient.  It's a vicious cycle,
> I know at least for myself.  After a day's work, the last thing I feel like
> doing is cooking, especially with my pd, but I really need to eat alot, and
> to eat well.  My ability to function depends alot on my overall health, my
> energy level, etc.  In the long run, that could only retard the progression
> of my disease, and also serve to keep my healthy otherwise, so to deal with
> all the little side things that come up.  I think having cleaning people
> take care of our homes should also be covered.  We should also be covered if
> we wanted to either build homes that are free of toxic materials, or if we
> would want to do some sort of cleanup of our existing homes.  Like
> installing ultrasonic pest repellers rather than using pesticides,  Using
> paints that are non-toxic.  Getting rid of all of the standard household
> chemicals and replacing them with alternative and less-toxic ones.  Covering
> such supplies as herbs and vitamins, and also therpaies and classes like tai
> chi, meditation, etc.  Physical therapists are now covered, but what about
> exercise equipment for our homes?  The list could grow quite a bit, but if
> ya think about it, some of these things could not only make our lives
> easier, but I think ultimately, improve our health, reduce our stress, and
> in the end, cost much less money.  The longer we can maintain our
> independence and work, etc., the better off we all are.  I know for me, the
> deciding factor in my choosing to finally go on disability and give up
> working, won't necessarily be that I can't work, but that I can't work and
> keep up with all these other things in my life (cooking, cleaning, exercise,
> etc.) and fit them all into one day.  Even your average, "healthy" American
> has trouble doing it too, if the studies on the prevalence of sleep
> depravation are any indication.
>
> Anyway, thought I'd throw that one out there for some discussion as well.
>
> Wendy Tebay