Letter To President Obama Dated November 2009

I decided to clean out my unnecessary WORD documents today, and as always, I read them before deleting.   I was surprised at finding the following:

MESSAGE TO THE PRESIDENT:  Subject:  Afghanistan

November 6, 2009

This is the first time I am writing to you.

I can’t imagine how difficult it is for you to be wrestling with the Afghan dilemma, but I am sure you must be suffering greatly under the burden of making a decision that will affect every American citizen all around the world for years to come.

I would like to give you my thoughts on the subject:

I am suffering also.  About the lives lost, the lives maimed and lives laid barren with the loss of loved ones.  It tears my heart and many times I am close to crying for every one of them.  And for what?  Shades of Viet Nam shadow my horizon of the future.  Details of that are not necessary to outline in this letter.  That is in the past.  So, let’s leave it there.

General  McChrystal is probably right in his assessment of the military requirements to heighten the effects of intervention on behalf of the Afghan people.  In the 8 years that troops have been deployed there, how much has been accomplished?  To me, that is the bottom line, and this question posed has, in my opinion, only one answer:  Accomplishment has been in the negative. 

As a result of much reading about the situation, I believe the following: 

• (1) The Afghan people don’t want us there – it’s the politicians who want us there to plump up their egos and their personal pockets;
• (2) The War Lords will always be in power, controlling the large illiterate population;
• (3) The growing of poppies for drug trafficking will continue no matter who tries to stop it;
• (4) The Taliban is too strongly entrenched and no matter who attempts to stop them and by what means, they will always be poised to gain control over the majority of the populace;
• (5) The other nations are only too glad to let us keep sending our beautiful young people over there and not have theirs doing the fighting;and
• (6) All the US Dollars that have been spent during the Bush years and this year just ending of the Obama years, could have been used to prop up our own economy which needs so much help.  Must we keep spending more to see it go for naught, in my opinion?

If I took more time right now, to think further, I’m sure I could come up with more reasons for us not being in Afghanistan.  The Russians found plenty of reasons for leaving.

I hope you will take my few thoughts to heart and mind, while you continue to mull over the Afghanistan problem.  My “bottom line” is: Leave!

I would say that if I sent this letter today, it would still be current.  What say you?

 

[ Header image from http://www.freewebheaders.com ]

 

Discrimination By Insurance Companies Against The Chronically Ill

 

Despite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called “Obamacare,” and its requirement that medical insurance companies accept those with pre-existing conditions, insurance companies have found ways to deny services while keeping their eyes on the bottom line at the expense of those patients who are the most vulnerable.

An article by Angela Ostrom, published in Newsweek, points to the denial of quality coverage to patients with epilepsy, cancer and a host of other chronic conditions.  New and creative ways are found in which medical insurance companies could “skirt around” the lawful charge and focus of the ACA.

“One common strategy is to design plans so that medications for conditions like epilepsy, cancer [ME, fibromyalgia, lyme disease and others] and HIV/AIDS are all but unaffordable.”

“Federal rule makers are set to change that. They’re attempting to prevent insurance companies from denying quality coverage to patients with epilepsy, cancer and a host of other chronic conditions.  If they succeed, they’ll have, at long last, achieved one of the ACA’s most important goals:  ending discrimination against sicker patients.”

It is widely known that Big Pharma is getting rich upon the backs of unfortunate sufferers of chronic and/or serious and life-threatening illnesses.  These patients have huge medical and prescription costs – a greater percentage than those of us who are blessed with good health.  The more ill the patient is, the higher their cost of medical care, of course; however, the more ill the patient, the less income.  A paradoxical situation, but that’s the truth of it.

“The ACA bans insurers from outright refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Unfortunately, that provision didn’t actually stop insurance companies from turning away chronically ill patients—it just forced them to find new and creative ways to do so.

Cutting back on prescription medication. It’s too expensive.

“Insurers place many or all medications for a particular condition on the highest “tier” of their drug formularies—the lists of medicines patients are allowed to take, or off the formulary altogether. For medications in the highest tier, individuals are often required to cover 40 percent—or more—of the total cost.”

“Sadly, this technique for raising the cost of essential and often lifesaving therapies is now standard.”

There are other tactics that medical insurance companies use in order to make it more difficult for very ill patients to get the medication and care they need.  Too many patients don’t buy the medication they need.  It’s too costly.  Many patients cut back on their dosage of medication, trying to make it last longer, but while doing this, they render the medication useless as it then has no beneficial effect.

On another note:

Assistance from governments – state and/or federal – is like trying to trudge through a mud slide several feet deep, while going against the slide’s direction of movement.  Not a good picture.

Social Security Disability applications go through an automatic first denial.  One applicant’s application was denied along with the explanation for denial that had totally nothing to do with the applicant’s reason for applying for financial relief.  It was evident that the federal employee didn’t take the time to actually read the application and accompanying documentation.  Or, he/she was under orders to automatically deny.  This tactic sounds more reasonable, since Social Security Administration keeps complaining about its bottom line.

As with too many federal agencies, the weakest keep getting pushed “under the rug.”

[Pill box image from bingdotcom]

[ Header image from http://www.freewebheaders.com ]

 

 

Flush and Plunge

 

I am getting so tired of the media’s fixation on the states that have passed the “bathroom” laws.  Sure, there’s good reason for that:  Discrimination is yet again raising its ugly head into the fabric of American society.  Laws, pushed through by prejudicial politicians in the name of their “religious beliefs,” and “protection of our children,” are causing havoc in many sections of our citizenry.

The only thing media can do is report; they cannot out-rightly take sides – not if they want to keep their jobs and avoid lawsuits.

“A majority of Americans in a new poll say they oppose President Obama’s order telling schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom corresponding with their gender identity, rather than biological sex, according to the Washington Times.”

Yesterday morning, I heard there are 11 states that are suing Pres. Obama because of his order telling schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom corresponding with their gender identity, rather than biological sex.

“Americans overwhelmingly believe the federal government should not be involved in regulating school bathroom access, with just 24 percent supporting regulations issued from Washington. Another 25 percent said the matter is best left to state governments, while a plurality, 41 percent, said it’s a matter best left to the local government.”

I believe President Obama is wrong.  He should butt-out.  The Obama administration should not have became involved in the issue IMHO.

The Federal government can, and I hope will, withhold aid to public schools in the states whose legislatures believe it is right to restrict bathroom use in schools to students who are transgender.  These states have gone back to Victorian beliefs.

The politicians in the legislatures are afraid their children and grandchildren will become the victims of predators.  This is a stupid reason and just an excuse,  which is evident to people with intelligence.

There’s one good thing that I can see coming out of this ridiculous situation:  The states in which these idiotic laws were passed, should be hiring monitors to sit by the bathroom entrances and check the students’ birth certificates and make sure they are of the “correct” sex, upon examination.  There will be an increase in the jobs reports.

And there will be an increase in requests for certified birth certificates, I suppose.  The county and/or state offices will be inundated and they will have to hire more people to take care of the need ASAP.   After all, the students will have to use the bathrooms at some point during the day.

Yes, I can see it all now.

 

[ Header image from http://www.freewebheaders.com ]

 

The U.S. State Department May Push for Decriminalization of Drugs at UNGASS Convention

 

As reported in High Times, the U.S. State Department seems confident that prohibition may become unhinged at some point in 2016 and lead to the possible decriminalization of all illegal drugs around the globe.

On Tuesday, William Brownfield, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, told reporters that U.S. officials are currently at the drawing board in an attempt to draft an all-powerful piece of documentation — what he calls a “pragmatic reform agenda” — that they intend to present at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs next month in New York City.

Brownfield suggests that the proposed “recommitment” to the international drug conventions would be designed to persuade countries to remove the focus of the Drug War away from arrests and harsh penalties, and instead attack the issue from a public health standpoint.

President Obama has said many times publicly, that “we should decriminalize much of the basic behavior in drug consumption in order to focus law enforcement resources on the greater challenge of the large transnational criminal organizations.”

Major rewrites to the UN’s drug treaties would be necessary before governments could begin exploring new approaches to handling drugs without violating international law.

The details of the Obama Administration’s recommended revisions are not completely clear; however, they may support the philosophies that are in line with the text of the current three major international drug control treaties.

This is a great opportunity for the global community to recognize the realities of drug use in our modern world, and make choices that are more in sync and common-sense related, while prioritizing health issues.

 

[ Header image from http://www.freewebheaders.com ]

Amid All The Issues Before Congress, Marijuana Has Made A Step Forward

 

Marijuana’s path toward a potential federal approval or decriminalization has not been easy and signs of further difficulties are apparent.  It could be years before researchers and drug companies feel comfortable with the results of their completed trials and experimentation and those in the future. As you might be aware, the cannabis these drug companies use for their experiments are provided by our Federal government which is grown in VERY SECRET farms.

One pharmaceutical company has discovered in excess of five dozen cannabinoids it hopes to use to help cure a number of chronic and/or serious diseases.

Due to the fact that our Federal government lists marijuana as an illicit drug, and until that changes, the research by drug companies will basically slow down because of the legal stumbling blocks in their path, and more importantly, the costs.

Surprisingly, Congress, just recently passed legislation that hopefully, will protect businesses that legally sell marijuana in states that have passed marijuana legislation, from any interference and/or prosecution by federal agencies.

Is there an important possible stumbling block to becoming law?  Yes.  The bill passed by Congress has to be signed into law by President Obama.

[images from bingdotcom]

 

 

 

 

 

President Obama Is Unclear About His Authorization For The Use Of Military Force

I read with interest the contents of an email I received today from Congressman Alan Grayson regarding his meeting of the House Foreign Affairs Committee of a week ago (I apologize for the text overrun-beyond my control):

Payable in Dollars, and in Lives. Dear Carol: So we had a hearing a week ago on ISIS (“we” being the House Foreign Affairs Committee), and the witnesses were three experts on U.S. policy in the Middle East, all dues-paying members of the Military-Industrial Complex. They were James Jeffrey, who was Deputy Chief of Mission at our embassy in Iraq; Rick Brennan, a political scientist at the Rand Corp.; and Dafna Rand, who was on the National Security Council staff. The White House had just released the President’s draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS, and I felt that I needed a good translator, so I asked them what the ISIS war authorization meant. Their answers were chilling: the ISIS war authorization means whatever the President wants it to mean. If you don’t believe me, just listen to them: GRAYSON: Section 2(c) of the President’s draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force reads as follows: “The authority granted in subsection A [to make war on ISIS and forces ‘alongside’ ISIS] does not authorize the use of US armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Ambassador Jeffrey, what does ‘enduring’ mean? JEFFREY: My answer would be a somewhat sarcastic one: “Whatever the Executive at the time defines ‘enduring’ as.” And I have a real problem with that. GRAYSON: Dr. Brennan? BRENNAN: I have real problems with that also. I don’t know what it means. I can just see the lawyers fighting over the meaning of this. But more importantly, if you’re looking at committing forces for something that you are saying is either [a] vital or important interest of the United States, and you get in the middle of a battle, and all of a sudden, are you on offense, or are you on defense? What happens if neighbors cause problems? Wars never end the way that they were envisioned. And so I think that that’s maybe a terrible mistake to put in the AUMF. GRAYSON: Dr. Rand? RAND: Enduring, in my mind, specifies an open-endedness, it specifies lack of clarity on the particular objective at hand. GRAYSON: Dr. Rand, is two weeks ‘enduring’? RAND: I would leave that to the lawyers to determine exactly. GRAYSON: So your answer is [that] you don’t know, right? How about two months? RAND: I don’t know. Again, I think it would depend on the particular objective, ‘enduring’ in my mind is not having a particular military objective in mind. GRAYSON: So you don’t really know what it means. Is that a fair statement? RAND: ‘Enduring,’ in my mind, means open-ended. GRAYSON: All right — Section Five of the draft of the Authorization of the Use of Military Force reads as follows: “In this resolution, the term ‘associated persons or forces’ means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” Ambassador Jeffrey, what does “alongside ISIL” mean? JEFFREY: I didn’t draft this thing. GRAYSON: Nor did I. JEFFREY: Nor did you, but I would have put that in there if I had been drafting it, and the reason is, I think they went back to 2001, of course this is the authorization we’re still using, along with the 2002 one for this campaign, and these things morph. For example, we’ve had a debate over whether ISIS is really an element of Al Qaeda; it certainly was when I knew it as Al Qaeda in Iraq in 2010 to 2012, and these semantic arguments confuse us and confuse our people on the ground, in trying to deal with these folks. You’ll know it when you see it, if it’s ISIS or it’s an ally of ISIS. GRAYSON: How about the Free Syrian Army, are they fighting alongside ISIL in Syria? JEFFREY: No, they’re not fighting alongside ISIL, in fact often they’re fighting against ISIL, and ISIL against them in particular. GRAYSON: What about Assad, is he fighting “alongside” or against? It’s kind of hard to tell without a scorecard, isn’t it? JEFFREY: It sure is. GRAYSON: Yes. What about you, Dr. Brennan, can you tell me what “alongside ISIL” means? BRENNAN: No, I really couldn’t. I think that, what, you know, it might be. The 9/11 Commission uses the phrase “radical islamist organizations.” I think maybe if we went to a wording like that, it includes all those 52 groups that adhere to this type of ideology, that threaten the United States. But we’re putting ourselves in boxes and as you said Senator – Congressman — I’m trying to understand what that means, what the limits are … who we’re dealing with, and it’s very confusing. GRAYSON: Dr. Rand? RAND: Well, first of all, I believe that the confusion is probably a function of the fact that this is an unclassified document, so it’s not going to specify exactly which groups are considered associates; that would be for a classified setting. But second, as I said in the testimony, the nature of the alliances within ISIL are changing and are fluid, and those who are targeting, the military experts, know exactly who is a derivative or an associate or an ally of ISIS, at any given moment. GRAYSON: Why are you so confident of that? It seems to me that it’s a matter of terminology, not a matter of ascertainable fact. RAND: Based on my public service, I’ve seen some of the lawyers, and some of the methodologies, and . . . . GRAYSON: Okay. Here’s the $64 billion question for you, Ambassador Jeffrey, and if we have time, for you others. If you can’t tell us — you three experts can’t tell us — what these words mean, what does that tell us? Ambassador Jeffrey? JEFFREY: That it’s very difficult to be using a tool basically designed to declare war or something like war on a nation-state, which has a fixed definition, against a group that morphs, that changes its name, that has allies, and other things. Do we not fight it? We have to fight it. Are we having a hard time defining it? You bet. GRAYSON: Dr. Brennan? BRENNAN: I’d agree with the ambassador. I think the issue we that need to be looking at is trying to broaden terminology and understand that it is a tenet, or organizations and groups that adhere to this ideology, and make it broad enough that if one pops up in a different country that is doing the same thing, that is a sister of this organization, the President has the authority to act. GRAYSON: Dr. Brennan, I think that you just described a blank check, which I’m not willing to give to the President or anybody else. But thank you for your time. So that’s what the experts had to say. Now I have a question for you: How do you spell the word “quagmire”? Answer: I-S-L-A-M-I-C S-T-A-T-E. Courage, Rep. Alan Grayson “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” – Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass ch. 6 (1871).

Mr. President, Can This Bode Well for M.E.?

NIH names new clinical sites in Undiagnosed Diseases Network

As reported in a recent blog, I subscribe to many newsletters and blogs from different departments in our government.  As a result, I get backlogged with the many emails in my inbox.  Today, I opened an email from the National Institutes of Health, dated July 1st.  Right away, my brain started to buzz with the action of neurons [from Wikipedia:   an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information through electrical and chemical signals].  Could this lead to some “buzzable” action that will mean NIH support for M.E.?  It may be farfetched, but my mind grabbed this thought and ran with it.

Another letter to President Obama:

Dear Mr. President;

The National Institutes of Health has awarded grants to six medical centers around the country to select from the most difficult-to-solve medical cases and together develop effective approaches to diagnose them. The clinical sites will conduct clinical evaluation and scientific investigation in cases that involve patients with prolonged undiagnosed conditions.

The network includes and is modeled after an NIH pilot program that has enrolled people with intractable medical conditions from nearly every state, the District of Columbia and seven foreign countries. The network builds on a program at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md. that, for the past six years, has evaluated hundreds of patients and provided many diagnoses, often using genomic approaches, for rare conditions.

M.E. (myalgic encephalomyelitis), commonly referred to as CFS (chronic fatigue syndrome), is an officially-undiagnosed (mystery) illness for which there is no diagnostic criteria in the U.S. and has remained a mystery for over 3 decades. I strongly believe that it should be considered to be included by the NIH network.

Undiagnosed, or mystery, diseases are conditions that even skilled physicians cannot diagnose despite extensive clinical investigation. Our medical community knows very little about M.E.:  these symptoms are not part of the curriculum in medical schools; and most have never had patients displaying (presenting) the symptoms of the multi-faceted illness; in fact, many patients suffering from these many symptoms are referred to psychiatrists for evaluations. This is because the primary physicians are totally baffled by the patients’ symptoms, and since the patients “don’t look sick,” they wash their hands of them and “hand” them off to another specialty.

Mr. President, this is serious. Globally, there are at least 20 million sufferers and more than 1 million in the U.S. The people who are so sick have not many corners to look in for relief. As a matter of fact, most suffer from unbearable pain and need pain-reducing medication. These patients are having trouble getting the dosage they require because of a new policy preventing the filling of prescriptions for a dosage that is higher than the usual. These patients are not the “usual” patient. They are being denied the relief they require. They are not addicts and they have no intention of selling it.

Sincerely,

Carol Carlson

 

You are not a Christian

The Hobby Lobby fiasco by the 5:4 vote of the SCOTUS is an insult to us all; not just to women. It is another in the never-ending “thumbing their noses” to our Constitution and smiling and shaking hands with Republicans who worry more about money, power and control – all going hand-in-hand. This so-called “do nothing” Congress has not “done nothing.” They have literally peeled away too many of our rights and privileges that we used to have and which we held dear.

QBG_Tilted Tiara

I have a bit of a bug, just a small itch I need to scratch. I tell you my dander is raised, my scalp needs to be scratched; all day I have been thinking of our Supreme Court and just how un-Supreme they truly our. I truly do believe it is time for all of us to take a long hard look at who we are as a nation, get up off our proverbial and begin to do something about the nation we want to be rather than simply complain. If we are unwilling to do something, we have absolutely no right to complain about the outcome.

---

No Corporation is a Christian and I can prove it, here are the core principles of being a Christian or living within the body of Christ.

1. Professing a belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and following his teachings.
2. Baptism into the…

View original post 1,009 more words

Advocating For M.E: Letter to President Obama

The “invisible illness”

I am mailing my 8th letter to President Obama tomorrow.   I approach the content of my letters according to my thoughts and feelings of the day, and sometimes I get inspiration from something I read.  This is one of those times.  I refer to a blog I follow:  ME||WELLINGTON REGION ME/CFS SUPPORT GROUP INC.  Located in the UK.

July 2, 2014

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500

Re: M.E. (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) and The Department of Health & Human Services and NIH

Dear Mr. President;

This year is flying by. When you’re my age, time seems to go so much faster. As a senior citizen, I’ve had many life experiences – some good, some not so good. But, that’s life. If we can’t make adjustments to life situations as they occur, and make the necessary changes in our lives needed to continue on life’s path, we are in trouble.

Following that line of thought, change is necessary within the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Very necessary change. I’m referring, of course, to the lack of sufficient funds for research and the extremely slow-moving progression of recognition of a diagnostic criteria for the “invisible” chronic illness from which my daughter suffers. It is Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, (M.E.)  This disease is commonly referred to as CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome), a misnomer. It is much more than fatigue. We, patients and advocates, are trying to delete CFS from “chronic” usage. Pun intended.

I am a blogger on WordPress, where I write posts about my life experiences and also about advocating for M.E. One of the blogs I follow included, in a recent post, a very definitive description of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. This is reality:

“Imagine if…one day you got a flu or a stomach bug…but it never went away; instead, it got worse…the flu-like state would be with you every day, and there would be pain, in muscles, joints, arms, back, legs, face…and this pain would sometimes be unbearable, so that you couldn’t move or stand up…then there would be nausea and headaches…and you would get repeated infections, anywhere and everywhere in your body…and dizziness and vertigo…and muscle weakness; sometimes you would be so weak that you couldn’t hold a cup to your mouth or lift your arms or turn your head…then you would get extreme sensitivity to light, noise, smell; they would make you sick…you couldn’t bear anyone to touch you; this would cause searing pain…then there would be times when your short-term memory didn’t work and you couldn’t remember words or articulate them…your brain would be so fogged over… on top of all this, you couldn’t sleep…and this would drastically limit your life and it could go on for months, years, decades or even for the rest of your life…”

Mr. President, welcome to the life and world of a sufferer of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis!  Would you believe that more than 3 times as much funding for research was allocated to studies of male pattern baldness than for M.E.?  True.

Please take this plea seriously. This “invisible” disease is serious, and is affecting more young people right now!

Very Sincerely,

 

Carol Carlson

Letter to President Obama re: National Institutes of Health

Tomorrow, I’m mailing yet another letter to President Barack Obama.  This time, it’s in reference to Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the NIH.  There is a workshop planned for September 2014, which, in my opinion and that of other M.E. advocates, should not be taking place.  Please read on:

Re: M.E. (myalgic encephalomyelitis) and Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the NIH (National Institutes of Health)

Dear Mr. President;

Today, my letter is about the planned Pathways 2 Prevention (P2P) workshop, projected to take place September 2014 to discuss the “Role of Opioids in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.”

My daughter is suffering from M.E. Her quality of life is greatly diminished:  she has body pain all the time; suffers horrific headaches; and many other symptoms.

Chronic pain is a huge national problem, and there are many issues associated with opioid treatment. So you would think that NIH would have made an effort to involve stakeholders from across the chronic pain community, right?

There was no patient representation on the Working Group for the meeting. Working Group members provided their input at a meeting held August 28–29, 2013. Multiple advocacy organizations in the fibromyalgia community had no idea the workshop was even happening, including the National Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain Association. At least one opioid drug manufacturer was also completely unaware of this Workshop – despite having a regulatory affairs office.

I, and many other advocates for ME/CFS, have asked Dr. Francis Collins to cancel the P2P Workshop and reexamine the best way to collaborate with the ME/CFS research and clinical community. The NIH has failed to engage stakeholders in a meaningful and substantive way. The P2P Program is simply not designed to do this, and now there is more proof of that from another planned P2P Workshop.

I think what we’re seeing is indicative of NIH’s mindset. Unlike FDA, which has made great strides towards incorporating patients’ input into decision making, NIH is an ivory tower of researchers with limited history of engaging patients and other stakeholders. It may not even occur to them that they need to do this. NIH is not just failing to engage with ME/CFS stakeholders in the P2P process; NIH is failing to engage with ANY stakeholders through P2P (Pathways 2 Prevention).

In closing, I would like to point out that this planned workshop’s purpose of discussing opioids in treatment of chronic pain has a direct impact on all patients who experience great pain, no matter from which disease they suffer. As an advocate for M.E., I ask that you investigate why no patients’ input is being included in the planned workshop, and why Dr. Collins has approved this project which may harm, rather than help, those who suffer great pain.

Sincerely,