 |
 |
In a message dated 5/11/98 5:52:34 AM Central Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: << In a message dated 5/10/98 11:19:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: << Here's another possible sample letter which could with a little work be sent to a member of Congress. Actually, it is #4. >> Barbara letter # 4 is a great letter and needs little or no revisions. If list members would copy this letter and attach a petition with support group members signatures and any other signatures obtained and send it to the key appropriation members we might get more attention to our appropriation effort. If you have a word processor just change the addresee on the letter and you can send to all 29 key appropriation members. Attach copies of your petition signatures to each letter. A couple of hours work will help us all. >> here's another one. The Honorable Neut Gingrich, Speaker of the US House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gingrich, Please help us. This letter is about ending Parkinson's Disease(PD). We want immediate funding of the entire Udall Bill. We have three major questions with which you must deal when you grapple with federal spending in the next few weeks. 1. Why does nobody acknowledge the waste inherent in the status quo? Conservatively estimated at five billion dollars a year, not funding the Udall Bill insures the waste of more than 13.6 million dollars daily. Please try to stop this hemorrhage of taxpayer money. Some Americans are fond of pointing to the cost of military hardware and asking: "Why couldn't that be diverted into medical research"? However, the real costs are such that one could more legitimately ask, "Why couldn't what we spend on chronic diseases like PD be used to buy something less expensive--like aircraft carriers and B-2s?" 2. Is the use of "earmarked funds" really so terrible? Why are some Congressmen so rigid about this? Letting the NIH administration allocate funds has not worked over many years -including last year. Now that there are so many elegant research possibilities like the various growth factors, can we afford to continue these priorities? PD research funding has struggled along at less than $40.00 per patient for many years. As little as three years ago, this was $28. Nerve growth factors were discovered over five years ago. In 1993, the NIH was funding research on a decades old medicine teamed with a period of abstinence--"drug holidays." If earmarking gets the job done what difference does it make? Why should the NIH research hierarchy be against this? 3. Why can't Congress move faster on this? Over a million suffering Americans and countless others worldwide, are waiting for a cure or significant therapy to be found for Parkinson's Disease (PD). Their object is to return from the ravages of PD to a more normal, comfortable, and productive life. PD is greatly misunderstood. Early treatment works very well. However, starting in a few short years, the treated disease grows from a minor inconvenience to a dreadful, uncomfortable, life-eating monster. The disease gradually produces weirdness and inactivity, the results of which make most patients appear reclusive and lazy. If you want to see what this disease is, don't look at Janet Reno, visit Mo Udall. We have friends with PD. Please help them. We appreciate what you did with diabetes. Please see to full funding for the Udall Bill as soon as possible. Get the elegant research started. Pay today for huge future savings. We await your reply. Sincerely, Regards, WHH 54/18