 |
 |
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