 |
 |
In a message dated 98-04-14 13:47:24 EDT, you write: << Telling the N.I.H. that they should be spending about a hundred million dollars on Parkinson's is not micromanaging. Telling the N.I.H. exactly what and whose projects to spend it on is: I would agree that Congress should not get into such small detail. 2. The politicians generally work on the squeaky wheel principal, tending to put public funds where the public demand is highest. Our appeal to the politicians has been to try to drive home the point that those afflicted with Parkinson's, their families, and their friends make up a substantial portion of their electorate. Therefore the monies that we have requested should be appropriated and spent. Others have made the same case for other diseases. We have done well in this area by getting the Udall Bill passed. But this is not enough. 3. It is the ecomonics where we have our strongest case. According to Dr. Lieberman's testimony, the expenditure of $100 million per year for three years will most likely result in a continued payout for the U.S. government of $10,000 million per year in perpetuity. No - it will be more than that, for as the population ages, the savings will increase. Even if the assumptions be wrong, suppose it will take 5 years at $100 million and pay out only $5,000 million per year: you are not going to find many better investments. Where is the money coming from? Does it much matter for a payoff this great? I can't forget the suffering and say that it's not an issue. The scientific and political sides are important. But the economics alone are compelling for a responsible Congress to act upon. And the sooner it gets done, the sooner it pays off. Won't that be nice for our government - and for us too? >> Art, Great stuff-- to my notion, the best argument for funding the Mo yet. Regards, WHH 54/18