Baldies' Blog began originally in the UK by a 26 year old journalist with a blood cancer on a mission to inform the world about bone marrow donation.

He has since died, and I took on the cause of making cancer care more transparent for everybody.

Cancer is a disease that will touch everybody through diagnosis or affiliation: 1 in 2 men will be diagnosed and 1 in 3 woman will hear those words, "You Have Cancer."

I invite you to read how I feel along my journey and
how I am continuing to live a full life alongside my Hodgkin's lymphoma, with me controlling my cancer, not my cancer controlling me.

I hope that "Baldies' Blog" will prepare you to handle whatever life sends you, but especially if it's the message, "You Have Cancer."

Get a playlist! Standalone player Get Ringtones

Saturday, December 5, 2009

think I should have prescribed myself a nyc wkend a while ago. It's just what the doctor should have ordered. I had started looking around my country town and thinking hmmm... Maybe I should start looking like them. I don't even know where I get this style from and all I do is stick out. Well I actually look perfectly at home in manhattan. There was a time I strived to look like a fashionista manhattanite. Guess what? I've made it. I'm perfectly comfortable being me here. I also once wondered qwho those peope wqere speaking at the podiums at rallys *nd protests and thought oh how cool I want to be like them. Low and behold I can check that off of my things to do list to. Now that I'm healthy0 enough to leave my house ill start speaking again on weds. I'll bw doing an "ambulance tour" which is a media campaign for health care reform that entails trucking all over the west side of nh (from keene to hanover) and speaking to all local outlets. The goal is to re boost interest un health reform as it jas stalled in the senate.  Unfoetunately itts going to take more than a couple of interviews to reignite interest. With my neqfound energy, I have ideas though. I think it's time to hook up with Linda and Co. At the huffington post and finally make my u-tube commercials with all my videos.   Really, a girl shouldn't be stalked for her signature to assure I'll be paying for treatment when she can't breathe. That's just wrong. Patients should see their doctors more on intake than the admitting secretaries, especially if they're battling a life threatening problem at that very moment, but that's not how it works. I need to verify I'm financially responsible before I get assistance breathing.   Maybe it's time to open up my medical records and billing information for proof. I certainly have enough to prove what a huge mess the system is, I just don't know what to do with it. Who wants it? Any takers? It's all organized. It's semi-interpreted.S


linda keenan said...

how long are you in new york? this relates to media stuff. let me know - i might be able to hook you up with something down there.

Anonymous said...

December 07, 2009
Don't Be Fooled, Democrats Want Funding for Abortion to Be Part of Health Care Reform

Do we really trust President Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership to safeguard the “status quo” on federal funding of abortion?

During his speech to Congress on September 9, 2009, President Obama radically departed from his former promises to Planned Parenthood when he stated: “under our [health care reform] plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” He did not explain how this would be accomplished when, at the time that he gave that speech, none of the five versions of health care reform legislation on Capitol Hill prohibited federal funding of abortion -- and two expressly included it.

Nearly three months later, abortion funding remains one of the most hotly debated issues in health care reform, largely because President Obama has not followed through on his promise to ensure that abortion funding is not in the bill. In fact, he offered no opinions on specific abortion-related amendments until the Stupak-Pitts amendment was added to H.R. 3962 on the House Floor.

Now, however, he has echoed the mantra of the abortion lobby and pro-abortion members of Congress, stating, “there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo.”

In reality, pro-life members of Congress carefully crafted the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, added to H.R. 3962 with the support of 64 democrats, to mirror the Hyde Amendment which has applied to programs funded through the Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) Appropriations Bill since 1976. In contrast, the pro-abortion “Capps amendment,” a version of which is currently in the Senate bill, expressly provides for federal funding of abortion and private insurance plans that cover abortion, flouting over 30 years of federal policy.

The fact that the Stupak-Pitts amendment, not the Capps amendment, maintains existing law can be established from studying the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that apply to other programs.
The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds that are appropriated through the LHHS appropriations bill from being used to pay for abortion and prevents federal funds from being used to subsidize health care plans that offer abortion coverage.

In other words, programs like Medicaid cannot directly pay for abortions or subsidize private plans that include abortion coverage. The Stupak Amendment applies exactly the same principles to the new programs created by H.R. 3962. Just as Medicaid dollars cannot be used to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortions, neither can the new affordability credits created by health care reform.

Other government programs apply these principles to federal funds as well. The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program has a longstanding restriction on abortion funding and coverage. The current law provides: “No funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal employees health benefits program which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions.”

Importantly, even as President Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership are professing their desire to maintain the status quo, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out the Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Services Appropriations Bill (S. 1432) without the provision restricting abortion coverage in the FEHB Program.

Read on...

Anonymous said...

Just know that you are also fighting for tax payer funded abortions.