I realize that many are are against the new healthcare reforms, and believe that they should be repealed. I can only hope that this post can put a face on the need for the reforms, and may make you consider the issue from a different light.
My name is Meredith, and I am 20 years old. I have a disease called a Primary Immune Deficiency. My immune system does not produce antibodies correctly and parts are missing, and consequentially I get sick frequently and severely. I also suffer from Sjogren's Syndrome, Celiac Disease, and peripheral neuropathy in my hands, forearms, and feet. My greatest dream for as long as I can remember was to serve my country in order to honor my family's nearly 100 years of past military service, but my health issues disqualify me.
I started my plan of spending 8+ years in college last fall in order to become a Nuclear Engineer and hopefully work for the Navy someday. My insurance coverage from my parents will run out when I am 25. I will not be done with my schooling and the only option left to me if the healthcare reform is repealed will be to try and buy a policy from a private insurer. Due to my preexisting conditions, I would be considered in the "high-risk" category, and a policy would cost upwards of $16,000 a month. I doubt many of you could afford this plan, let alone a college student. To compound this, due to all of the health issues, I am currently unable to get a part-time job in addition to attending college.
Unless this healthcare reform stands, it could become a matter of life and death for me. My main medication, antibody replacement therapy for the Primary Immune Deficiency, costs over $100 a gram to make. I use 80 grams monthly, so that is $8,000 a month for that medication alone. Including all prescriptions, doctors appointments, medical testing, hospitalizations, ect., it costs over $250,000 to keep me alive for a year. Despite the cost, why do I deserve any less of a chance to live my life than anyone else?
I do not write this blog post lightly. I could be throwing away my future chances of working for the Navy, the only dream I have left, and the one thing that keeps me going. This healthcare reform is too important for me not to speak up and speak out. I realize to many people that I am merely a massive expenditure of money, something to be avoided like the plague.
I think if people take one thing away from this post, if one thing only.
I did not ask to be born with all of these health issues, and I do everything in my power to keep them under control.
I will never give up until the day I die. Until then, I will keep exercising 5+ times a week, even when sick, eating healthy, taking all of my medications, and being as proactive as I can about my health. I am also currently pursuing experimental treatment for my Primary Immune Deficiency, as all else has failed.
I refuse to simply lie down and die.
I want to live.
-Mer
For more information on Primary Immune Deficiencies:
http://www.primaryimmune.org/about_pi/about_pi.htm
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Immigration and America
Today is Independence Day here in America, and it seems like a perfect oppurtunity to discuss a key issue, immigration.
Arizona's recent immigration law has brought the issue to the table once more. It requires all immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and gives police the power to detain anyone who is suspected of being in the country illegally. Attorney General Eric holder claims that the new law isn't racist, but he's concerned that it may lead to racial profiling.
Wait, what? So it's not racist, but it may lead to racial profiling?
Racism- racial prejudice or discrimination
Racial Profiling- refers to the inappropriate use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement
So, even though racial profiling is just another version of discrimination, it's not racist? I don't know about you, but this makes no sense to me.
America is a nation of immigrants. Our country was founded by people from many different nations, and it would do us, and certain politicians to remember that. Although we do need to find a way to limit illegal immigration to this country, perhaps the answer would be to make it easier to legally become a citizen of the United States. Many people come to America to search for a better life, or an opportunity for them or their children to succeed. I don't think you can blame illegal immigrants for wanting to have a better life for them or their children.
So by making it easier for people to become legal immigrants, we discourage illegal immigration, and our country continues to grow.
Sounds easy, right?
Arizona's recent immigration law has brought the issue to the table once more. It requires all immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and gives police the power to detain anyone who is suspected of being in the country illegally. Attorney General Eric holder claims that the new law isn't racist, but he's concerned that it may lead to racial profiling.
Wait, what? So it's not racist, but it may lead to racial profiling?
Racism- racial prejudice or discrimination
Racial Profiling- refers to the inappropriate use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement
So, even though racial profiling is just another version of discrimination, it's not racist? I don't know about you, but this makes no sense to me.
America is a nation of immigrants. Our country was founded by people from many different nations, and it would do us, and certain politicians to remember that. Although we do need to find a way to limit illegal immigration to this country, perhaps the answer would be to make it easier to legally become a citizen of the United States. Many people come to America to search for a better life, or an opportunity for them or their children to succeed. I don't think you can blame illegal immigrants for wanting to have a better life for them or their children.
So by making it easier for people to become legal immigrants, we discourage illegal immigration, and our country continues to grow.
Sounds easy, right?
Saturday, July 3, 2010
No One Dies in Lily Dale
Hey everyone- Check out the latest in the HBO Documentary Films Summer Series, No One Dies in Lily Dale. The trailer for it is below. I think it looks very intriguing, you should check it out!
Look for another post tomorrow on Immigration in America for the 4th of July!
-Mer
Look for another post tomorrow on Immigration in America for the 4th of July!
-Mer
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The Gulf Coast Oil Disaster- Day 65
Unless you've been hiding under a rock for the past 65 days, you know about the massive Deepwater Horizion oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Since the spill first started, the entire fiasco seems to be following with Murphy's Law, where anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. First we had the Containment Dome, a Frankenstien-like idea, to try and contain the spill. It failed due to hydrate crystals, because someone didn't remember that it happens to be cold on the ocean floor. I think anyone who has gone swimming in a lake can tell you, that the deeper the water goes, the colder it gets. Then came the "top kill," forcing drilling mud through the blowout preventer, and then the "junk shot," trying to force golf balls and shredded tires through the blowout preventer. Then, the containment cap idea was hatched, and has been a partial success, though they had to remove it for a short period of time.
As more and more information comes out, it strikes me how this whole issue could have been prevented. There are indications that BP knew of problems with an offshore well hours before it exploded. The well had failed a key pressure test that showed pressure building up in the well, likely indicating that oil or natural gas were seeping in and could lead to an explosion. However, for the sake of getting the rig online, BP and Transocean did not stop operations. Furthermore, BP listed Peter Lutz, a south Florida biologist, as a consultant in its 2009 disaster response program. There's just one little problem with that though. Peter Lutz has been dead since 2005. Their plan also mentioned walruses, sea otters, sea lions, and seals, all of which don't live anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico.
The bottom line is this: This disaster was preventable, and it shouldn't have happened in the first place. BP and Transocean cut corners in order to get the rig operational and make money. Eleven people paid for this with their lives, and thousands more are paying with their livelihoods. Safety must come first. And for the people of the Gulf Coast, all they can do is watch and hope that the relief wells are able to fix the oil spill.
So what do we do now, with so much oil washing up not just in the Gulf area, but in Florida as well? By collecting seeds now, we can hopefully save and be able to replant and regrow the wetlands that are being affected. The best way to get rid of the oil in the wetlands is to burn it off, and then when the nightmare is over with, and no more oil is washing up, to replant with the seeds we have collected and nurture them back to health. If you can get the producers (the plants) to grow again, you can also get the consumers (animals) to return. As for the oil well, if the relief wells fail, we must consider the nuclear option. The Russians have used it 5 times with success, all on underground oil leaks. It, in essence, would squeeze the well's channel shut, blocking any more oil from escaping. Those who have crunched the numbers say that it has about a 20% chance of working.
Sounds better than what BP has come up with.
-Mer
Since the spill first started, the entire fiasco seems to be following with Murphy's Law, where anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. First we had the Containment Dome, a Frankenstien-like idea, to try and contain the spill. It failed due to hydrate crystals, because someone didn't remember that it happens to be cold on the ocean floor. I think anyone who has gone swimming in a lake can tell you, that the deeper the water goes, the colder it gets. Then came the "top kill," forcing drilling mud through the blowout preventer, and then the "junk shot," trying to force golf balls and shredded tires through the blowout preventer. Then, the containment cap idea was hatched, and has been a partial success, though they had to remove it for a short period of time.
As more and more information comes out, it strikes me how this whole issue could have been prevented. There are indications that BP knew of problems with an offshore well hours before it exploded. The well had failed a key pressure test that showed pressure building up in the well, likely indicating that oil or natural gas were seeping in and could lead to an explosion. However, for the sake of getting the rig online, BP and Transocean did not stop operations. Furthermore, BP listed Peter Lutz, a south Florida biologist, as a consultant in its 2009 disaster response program. There's just one little problem with that though. Peter Lutz has been dead since 2005. Their plan also mentioned walruses, sea otters, sea lions, and seals, all of which don't live anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico.
The bottom line is this: This disaster was preventable, and it shouldn't have happened in the first place. BP and Transocean cut corners in order to get the rig operational and make money. Eleven people paid for this with their lives, and thousands more are paying with their livelihoods. Safety must come first. And for the people of the Gulf Coast, all they can do is watch and hope that the relief wells are able to fix the oil spill.
So what do we do now, with so much oil washing up not just in the Gulf area, but in Florida as well? By collecting seeds now, we can hopefully save and be able to replant and regrow the wetlands that are being affected. The best way to get rid of the oil in the wetlands is to burn it off, and then when the nightmare is over with, and no more oil is washing up, to replant with the seeds we have collected and nurture them back to health. If you can get the producers (the plants) to grow again, you can also get the consumers (animals) to return. As for the oil well, if the relief wells fail, we must consider the nuclear option. The Russians have used it 5 times with success, all on underground oil leaks. It, in essence, would squeeze the well's channel shut, blocking any more oil from escaping. Those who have crunched the numbers say that it has about a 20% chance of working.
Sounds better than what BP has come up with.
-Mer
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Ethics of Genetic Engineering
The advancement of science and medical technology always comes with an ethical discussion attached. In previous years it has been embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. As the field of genetic engineering makes significant strides, the discussion of ethical application of scientific knowledge will only get more difficult.
Genetic engineering is the practice of cutting and splicing genes and DNA from different sources. A gene for color blindness could be replaced with one for normal color vision, and a gene that causes cystic fibrosis can be replaced with a "good" gene. Scientists have already created everything from higher yielding plants to glow in the dark monkeys! However, the practice leads to some interesting questions. Should genetic engineering be used on humans? There may not be a right or wrong answer.
One worry is that if genetic engineering is used on humans, it may bring about the discrimination of said individuals. This is a valid point, because even 45 years after the Civil Rights act, we still deal with discrimination pertaining to race. Also, just as someone who is sick can be discriminated against by their employer, genetic engineering could lead to discrimination due to being too healthy! Another issue surrounding genetic engineering is the ability to use it for selective breeding purposes. Should parents be able to custom build a baby from the genetic traits they want? Picking gender is already allowed in some in vitro fertilization clinics. How about a baby with blue eyes, or perfect teeth? This is sounding a bit too close to Adolf Hitler's quest for a perfect race for my comfort. But, what if the parents want to avoid the baby inheriting a genetic defect for the disease they carry? For an individual with an inherited genetic disease, this could mean they could have children without fearing passing on the disease.
The issue of genetic engineering is a very personal one for me. I have a condition called a primary immune deficiency. A primary immune deficiency occurs when a person is born without their immune system or their immune system doesn't function properly. (See this article for more details.) These diseases are caused by genetic defect and most often leave people with an increased susceptibility of infections. In my case, not only does my body not produce enough of one type of antibody, but there is a hidden piece of the puzzle they can't seem to figure out that makes me not respond to the normal treatment very well. My immune deficiency has a very limiting effect on my life, and my best hope is if they can someday perfect adult gene therapy.
Although I do realize that the usage of genetic engineering doesn't come without serious questions, I believe that it will someday benefit us all. And who knows, maybe it will save your life.
Genetic engineering is the practice of cutting and splicing genes and DNA from different sources. A gene for color blindness could be replaced with one for normal color vision, and a gene that causes cystic fibrosis can be replaced with a "good" gene. Scientists have already created everything from higher yielding plants to glow in the dark monkeys! However, the practice leads to some interesting questions. Should genetic engineering be used on humans? There may not be a right or wrong answer.
One worry is that if genetic engineering is used on humans, it may bring about the discrimination of said individuals. This is a valid point, because even 45 years after the Civil Rights act, we still deal with discrimination pertaining to race. Also, just as someone who is sick can be discriminated against by their employer, genetic engineering could lead to discrimination due to being too healthy! Another issue surrounding genetic engineering is the ability to use it for selective breeding purposes. Should parents be able to custom build a baby from the genetic traits they want? Picking gender is already allowed in some in vitro fertilization clinics. How about a baby with blue eyes, or perfect teeth? This is sounding a bit too close to Adolf Hitler's quest for a perfect race for my comfort. But, what if the parents want to avoid the baby inheriting a genetic defect for the disease they carry? For an individual with an inherited genetic disease, this could mean they could have children without fearing passing on the disease.
The issue of genetic engineering is a very personal one for me. I have a condition called a primary immune deficiency. A primary immune deficiency occurs when a person is born without their immune system or their immune system doesn't function properly. (See this article for more details.) These diseases are caused by genetic defect and most often leave people with an increased susceptibility of infections. In my case, not only does my body not produce enough of one type of antibody, but there is a hidden piece of the puzzle they can't seem to figure out that makes me not respond to the normal treatment very well. My immune deficiency has a very limiting effect on my life, and my best hope is if they can someday perfect adult gene therapy.
Although I do realize that the usage of genetic engineering doesn't come without serious questions, I believe that it will someday benefit us all. And who knows, maybe it will save your life.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Economic Recession: Why the Stock Market Isn't a Good Idea
Sometimes I just don't know where the time goes... well, I do. If you haven't figured it out yet, I've got a lot of health problems. Most of my time has been spent in doctor's offices or traveling to them.
This piece is (possibly) one in a series of pieces looking at different sides of the economic recession. I know that the Recession has been extensively covered by the news media, but I feel that they have left out or chosen to ignore some very important factors that have greatly contributed to it.
Today's topic? The stock market.
Now, for those of you that don't know, here's the best explanation of the stock market I could put together: A stock is the capital (money) raised by a corporation through the issue of shares entitling holders to an ownership interest. (equity) Now here's one of the crazy things: A stock actually has two factors that determine price: What you can buy it for (Your bid), and what you can sell it for. (Your ask) Both are the "real price," because buyers and sellers each have a price in mind. When they match, a sale is made. Basically, you want to buy low, sell high. Could they make it any more confusing?
Anyways, one of the big problems with this approach is the fact that the stock buyer's emotions can run the stock up or down. Take GM for example. News comes out that it's not doing well and may fail. What's the stock buyer's first thought? Sell, sell, sell! This drives down the cost of GM's stock, and adds to the hysteria that GM may fail. This drives more people to sell their stocks. Quite the vicious cycle.
The other main problem with the stock market is the fact that it is used as an icon of economic stability. How on earth can it be used as a basis for economic stability if it's run by emotions? Has anyone looked at some long term numbers rather than short term? Or have all of these people gone absolutely mad?
-Meredith
Questions or Comments? Contact purplepineappletown@hotmail.com
This piece is (possibly) one in a series of pieces looking at different sides of the economic recession. I know that the Recession has been extensively covered by the news media, but I feel that they have left out or chosen to ignore some very important factors that have greatly contributed to it.
Today's topic? The stock market.
Now, for those of you that don't know, here's the best explanation of the stock market I could put together: A stock is the capital (money) raised by a corporation through the issue of shares entitling holders to an ownership interest. (equity) Now here's one of the crazy things: A stock actually has two factors that determine price: What you can buy it for (Your bid), and what you can sell it for. (Your ask) Both are the "real price," because buyers and sellers each have a price in mind. When they match, a sale is made. Basically, you want to buy low, sell high. Could they make it any more confusing?
Anyways, one of the big problems with this approach is the fact that the stock buyer's emotions can run the stock up or down. Take GM for example. News comes out that it's not doing well and may fail. What's the stock buyer's first thought? Sell, sell, sell! This drives down the cost of GM's stock, and adds to the hysteria that GM may fail. This drives more people to sell their stocks. Quite the vicious cycle.
The other main problem with the stock market is the fact that it is used as an icon of economic stability. How on earth can it be used as a basis for economic stability if it's run by emotions? Has anyone looked at some long term numbers rather than short term? Or have all of these people gone absolutely mad?
-Meredith
Questions or Comments? Contact purplepineappletown@hotmail.com
Thursday, April 2, 2009
It's been a long time... but we're back!
Hello Everyone! I'm happy to announce that Purple Pineapple Town is back after the long hiatus! I've had a bad 6 months with my health and had to focus on the necessary things. I'm very happy announce though that I am back, with (hopefully) more regular postings, as I've got a lot of topics I want to cover. I've also got big plans as far as the layout and design of the site goes, so you're in for a bit of a surprise! I'd like to thank the readers that have stuck around, I really appreciate it. Hopefully I can pay you back a bit with some interesting content.
My friends at Crew Creative Advertising asked me to put up a piece on a new show coming up on Animal Planet, called River Monsters. The details:
The show tackles such legends as: Did a large catfish attack a teenager in a German Lake? Did a school of piranha eat flesh down to the bone of a busload of passengers that crashed in an Amazonian river? Host, biologist, and extreme angler Jeremy Wade travels worldwide to solve these freshwater mysteries, to debunk these myths and to track down these harrowing tales. Each Sunday, he'll come face-to-face with fear and try to understand these mysterious predators with a taste for human flesh, putting his life on the line to find truly monster sized fish while globetrotting through Germany, Australia, Brazil, and even the state of Texas. River Monsters premieres Sunday, April 5 at 10PM (ET/PT) and 9pm central on Animal Planet.
It seems like it could be interesting- I wonder if he'll take on the Loch Ness monster mystery? Here's a sneak preview picture- that's a huge fish!
Keep an eye out for new content and a new site design!
-Mer
My friends at Crew Creative Advertising asked me to put up a piece on a new show coming up on Animal Planet, called River Monsters. The details:
The show tackles such legends as: Did a large catfish attack a teenager in a German Lake? Did a school of piranha eat flesh down to the bone of a busload of passengers that crashed in an Amazonian river? Host, biologist, and extreme angler Jeremy Wade travels worldwide to solve these freshwater mysteries, to debunk these myths and to track down these harrowing tales. Each Sunday, he'll come face-to-face with fear and try to understand these mysterious predators with a taste for human flesh, putting his life on the line to find truly monster sized fish while globetrotting through Germany, Australia, Brazil, and even the state of Texas. River Monsters premieres Sunday, April 5 at 10PM (ET/PT) and 9pm central on Animal Planet.
It seems like it could be interesting- I wonder if he'll take on the Loch Ness monster mystery? Here's a sneak preview picture- that's a huge fish!
-Mer
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
