Hello Group,
Would you believe this took me all day? I am still not completely happy with
it. Suggestions?
5 Aug 98
Dear Senator Stevens:
Although I am unaware of the particulars, I want to celebrate your vision
concerning budgeting "earmarked funds" for specific diseases. It seems to me
that we share the following view:
Chairman John Porter (House Appropriations Committee), Dr. Harold Varmus
(Director, NIH), and others see things differently than we.
I understand that they have these two notions:
1. That such initiatives as PL 105-78 (the Udall Act) somehow represent
"micromanaging."
2. That this situation constitutes some sort of Trojan horse to get
politics into the world of research science.
To me, believing these notions constitutes a lack of wisdom, and acting on
them constitutes a (functional) lack of compassion.
Chairman Porter's objections might seem logical to someone who can go home and
relax in a healthy body. That logic is flawed to those of us suffering these
diseases.
Opting for slowing research funding does the taxpayer no favor. For instance,
the $100 million in research and education, funds for which we persons with
Parkinson's Disease (PWP-PD) ask are a pittance compared to the cost of
maintaining the status quo.
Overall, NIH funding has been increased and will likely be increased even
more. I think this is wise.
The logic that curing PD quickly will be enormously cost effective, is
indisputable. Perhaps when the situation is ripe, earmarking of funds might
even prove to be an effective tool for regular use.
Like any other form of human endeavor, earmarking funds can certainly be
misused. Perhaps your issue and PD can lead the way.
God bless you.
William H Heitman, M.D. (Ret)
Mary F. Heitman, CG
Phone-(618) 628-0123
Fax-(618) 628-0134
e-mail- [log in to unmask]
Time is money. Time is life.
End Parkinson's Disease, now.
