Should “we” vote for a candidate on a single issue that the politician’s position agrees with your personal opinion
Should “we” believe what a politician claims they will do or not do?
Let’s face it, we have two political parties, and it appears that those two political parties have “rigged” the system so that it is nearly impossible for a new political party to get their “foot in the door”
Should “we” start by looking at the “planks” in each party’s political platforms?
I will focus this post on looking at those in the chronic pain community.
Over the last decade, decisions by politicians and certain state/federal agencies have had adverse effects on the QOL and even life itself of many within the community.
What is their position on treating chronic pain? Strong support for some MME/day limit? Strong support for treatment only using BUPE or NSAIDs or Acetaminophen? Do they have someone in the family or friend that has addiction problems or has OD’d?
There are ten states with “death with dignity” laws on the books and several other states are considering such laws
What is their position on treating addicts, putting them in jail, decriminalizing all drugs, or putting them on Bupe or Methadone with no limits
What is their position in dealing with drug dealers? Just leave them alone or charge them with murder for people dying from the illegal substances they are selling
What is their position on the execution (capital punishment) of people convicted of murder?
What is their position on abortion? Strongly pro-life with little/no exceptions for medically necessary abortion? Abortions within limited days into gestation? Strongly pro-abortion, even up to and including the day of delivery.
All these questions have to do with the politician’s view of the importance of life itself. If a politician has a family/friend who ODd from opioids and supports reducing the availability of Rx opioids to pts with a valid medical necessity, but has little/no concern about street dealers selling illegal drugs that is the primary cause of OD’s
“We” may find that the majority of politicians personally have very mixed ideas about the “value of life”
Filed under: General Problems
I hate the idea of becoming a single-issue voter. That being said those of us out here in pain world aren’t really left with much of a choice. My personal beliefs mean I cannot and will not vote for a democrat. They have shown they give less of a crap than Trump. That of course means I will vote GOP. BUT, every single solitary day that Trump was in office I messaged him about what was happening to pain pts. I mailed, emailed, messaged and even sent certified letters. His personal family history means he already has skewed ideas about drugs. We have to try but I am not sure who wins this election is going to do anything to help us and at this point I don’t know what will. Ultimately someone has to reign in the DOJ if we are going to get the DOJ to reign in the DEA.
this law has been on the books since 1965 – 5 yrs before the CSA was signed into law. How many AGs have we had since this the CSA was signed into law? I don’t remember a single AG sought to enforce this law
42 USC 1395: Prohibition against any Federal interference
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:1395%20edition:prelim)
From Title 42-THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 7-SOCIAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER XVIII-HEALTH INSURANCE FOR AGED AND DISABLED
§1395. Prohibition against any Federal interference
Nothing in this sub chapter shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.
(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, §1801, as added Pub. L. 89–97, title I, §102(a), July 30, 1965, 79 Stat. 291 .)
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Short Title
For short title of title I of Pub. L. 89–97, which enacted this subchapter as the “Health Insurance for the Aged Act”, see section 100 of Pub. L. 89–97, set out as a Short Title of 1965 Amendment note under section 1305 of this title.
Protecting and Improving Guaranteed Medicare Benefits
Pub. L. 111–148, title III, §3601, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 538 , provided that:
“(a) Protecting Guaranteed Medicare Benefits.-Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act [see Short Title note set out under section 18001 of this title] shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.].
“(b) Ensuring That Medicare Savings Benefit the Medicare Program and Medicare Beneficiaries.-Savings generated for the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act under the provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall extend the solvency of the Medicare trust funds, reduce Medicare premiums and other cost-sharing for beneficiaries, and improve or expand guaranteed Medicare benefits and protect access to Medicare providers.”
The President doesn’t get those messages himself! Dear God, do you think he has the time to look at all the messages he gets? I worked in Congress and the Senate as a teen and young adult. I had friends in Washington, D.C. Congress Until 2023 when the last two retired. There are young people who read the messages or they scan through them, and decide what the President Of The United States see’s!