[Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
Bridgit Pollpeter
bpollpeter at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 13 19:22:59 UTC 2013
Well, in checking out the website for this so-called affordable care,
not sure how it's affordable. The cheapest plan we seem to qualify for
starts around $700.
-----Original Message-----
From: Diabetes-talk [mailto:diabetes-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Bill Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:15 PM
To: Debbie Wunder; Diabetes Talk for the Blind
Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
Hi Folks, Bill Lewis here.
I used to wonder why one or two medical equipment companies went to the
trouble of putting voice into some of their products. Then I realize
they
either got financing under research and development government grants or
from private foundations.
Just when I was getting nervous as to why we have not heard anything
about
cuts in social security payments and medicare coverage, I have now begun
seeing articles in the newspapers.
Starting next year we on social security will receive 1.5 percent cola
increases, then have to pay more for the part-B section. Then it is
anticipated that we on social security and using medicare will be
required
to pay a $5000 prepayment for medicare coverage before it even kicks in.
I'm hoping that the public outrage will be enough to make the Senate and
President do a double take on their drive to completely ruin our
American
health industry. I don't know about you folks, but I can no longer
afford
to cough up huge prepayments for medical care. I already saw how HMO
programs backfired.
Furthermore, next year doctors and hospitals will receive 2% less in
reimbursements for medical services.
With such nice things to look forward to, I'm not going to hold my
breath
for innovations in diabetic-related products, until I see what comes out
of
this thing called ObamaCare orAffordable Care Act. And to think I am
usually optimistic about life. Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Wunder
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:26 AM
To: Diabetes Talk for the Blind
Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
Mike, in just a few short words, I often think that your attitude sets
us in the direction of failure. Sandy is correct in her approach, and we
need to move forward in a plan to change how the medical world sea's our
need. There are so many different groups of people whom could benefit by
the needs of the blind. Such groups and people with dyslexia, brain
injury, and blindness in later life. We have to collectively work on
make companies have to make their medical products accessible to all.
As Michael Hingson says"Talking with Vision" we have to be able to see
the need and believe in the possibility of changing medical equipment.
I believe this resolution is a great starting place, also a letter
writing campaigned to many of these companies demanding accessibility.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandi Ryan" <sjryan2 at gmail.com>
To: "Diabetes Talk for the Blind" <diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
> On the contrary, I am not in denial about the difficulty of this
> situation, the length of time and hard work that will be involved, or
the
> opposition we will need to overcome. I understand the downsides. But
to
> err so far on the side of "reality" that we feel defeated before we
start
> will doom us to failure. You said in your first message that this
project
> will require out-of-the-box thinking. In my opinion, your messages
> demonstrate just the opposite. We can work at this with hope and an
eye
> toward helping each other, or we can go into it negatively and lose
the
> battle at the beginning. I know which approach I want to take.
>
> And I don't think Apple created Voiceover and made their products
> accessible just because they're good that way. I think that the small
> population of blind people, working together and with partners,
created an
> atmosphere that demanded what we needed, and even this giant
corporation
> saw the light. And they created a model for accessibility that can
work
> for others, which is my point.
>
> We can debate this all year. I choose, however, to work on the issue.
> You
> can work with me and the others who want to do this, or you can call
me
> names and indicate that I'm too stupid to see the obstacles. I see
them,
> my friend. I just choose to ignore the ones I can, jump over the
smaller
> ones, and make the grindingly difficult climb to the top of the rest.
> Will this happen in my lifetime? I don't know. But if we manage to
budge
> even one corporation's mindset, or find a way to go around their
mindset
> and create accessibility in some other way, we will have accomplished
> something. And small accomplishments bring others into the fold.
I've
> been a Federationist for years, too--and I know the power of working
> together.
>
> Sandi
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
> To: "'Diabetes Talk for the Blind'" <diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
>
>
>> Sandi:
>>
>> With great respect, you are, too, a Pollyanna. You have a far rosier
>> notion
>> of humanity than do I, at least when it comes to homo corporationus.
You
>> believe that people can be convinced to do the right thing just
because
>> it's
>> right and moral. I, on the other hand, believe that most of humanity
are
>> money-grubbing illegitimate sons and daughters and, at least when it
>> comes
>> to spending money, cannot be depended upon to "do the right thing"
but
>> must
>> have incentives -- legal or financial -- to be inveigled into doing
the
>> right thing. Long live the difference.
>>
>> Also, if we are to make progress, we must be ruthlessly honest with
>> ourselves. For instance, few people in the rosy glow of i-device
>> accessibility remember to acknowledge that before Steve Jobs jumped
>> on the accessibility bandwagon, we and Massachusetts threatened to
>> file a lawsuit
>> whose effect would have been to halt the sales of *all* Mac computers
to
>> Massachusetts schools. And since schools are a very lucrative market
for
>> Apple, the company all-of-a-sudden began to pay close attention to us
and
>> to
>> ask what we expected of an accessible device. So it wasn't altruism
at
>> all,
>> not at least, in the beginning. It was good, old-fashioned
self-interest
>> and
>> money-grubbing that brought Apple to the table.
>>
>> Moreover, it's not as simple as just saying that there's voice
>> technology out there that can be used for minimal cost. FDA doesn't
>> buy the argument that the voicing technology is *not* an integral
>> part of any medical advice it will issue 510(k) approval to market.
>> FDA maintains that each and every
>> device must be rigorously tested including the voice. It doesn't buy
the
>> argument that one voice technology and its implementation which is
shown,
>> for example, to render numbers accurately from a voltage input, once
>> tested,
>> can be used on *all* technology. It will mandate testing of *each*
>> implementation.
>>
>> For example, FDA won't regulate blood glucose apps as long as they
>> aren't conveying actual measurements. But as soon as one hooks an
>> i-device to a blood glucose meter, for example, FDA will insist upon
>> approving *both* the meter *and* the implementation on the i-device.
>> And for us, FDA will insist
>> upon testing this with VoiceOver. FDA won't take it for granted that
>> VoiceOver will correctly render what the i-device gets from the
meter.
>>
>> Translation: recurring, large costs to gain approval to market *each*
>> device.
>>
>> I say this not to discourage but rather in the spirit of "know thine
>> enemy".
>>
>> I am not convinced that *any* accessibility laws now on the books
>> really cover medical devices. However, Veronica and I are looking
>> into the Orphan Drug Act as a way of creating a financial incentive
>> for companies to work on
>> accessible diabetes devices. And I am pondering whether it would be
>> possible
>> to introduce legislation into Congress which would indemnify
developers
>> of
>> accessible diabetes technology against liability. I'm not sure this
is a
>> good idea. However, I *am* certain that the current political climate
is
>> not
>> conducive to *any* mandates on business.
>>
>> Furthermore, the blindness market isn't nearly as large as we often
>> delude
>> ourselves into thinking. If the NFB Independence Market sells twenty
>> thousand of anything, it's a land-office business. This is what being
a
>> minority means!
>>
>> Again, this is not to say we shouldn't try. It is again in the spirit
>> of "know thine enemy".
>>
>> As the state resolutions advocate, we can enlist the help of other
>> organizations. However, my cynical side asks things like: "what's in
>> it for AARP or ADA?" We can't even get ADA to lower prices at its
>> diabetes expos for us! ADA came to do good and does damned well!
>>
>> But we'll keep plugging away. There is this -- and it's the
>> philosophy I live by: if we do nothing, we *know* what the result
>> will be.
>>
>> So once again into the breach!
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diabetes-talk [mailto:diabetes-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>> Behalf
>> Of
>> Sandi Ryan
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:29 PM
>> To: Diabetes Talk for the Blind
>> Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
>>
>> Oh, great, Colleen! Glad to hear Ohio passed the resolution, too.
>>
>> I don't believe I'm a Pollyanna. I don't believe everything has to
>> be accomplished through the Congress (which is definitely good), or
>> through a resolution that's all-encompassing. I'm not sure existing
>> laws can't be used to get what we want. I also believe that, given
>> multiple state resolutions and a national resolution specific to
>> diabetes technology and equipment, we will have more clout to take to
>> those in charge of deciding what accessibility measures are included
>> in meters, pumps, etc. Perhaps, with the Apple model of accessibility
>> successfully getting fully accessible
>> devices into the hands of not only blind people but people with
various
>> disabilities, perhaps raising the cost of each unit slightly, but not
by
>> much, we can work with the companies that make the devices for
diabetes
>> care. They've always claimed cost as their main deterrent to
>> accessibility--but they don't have to reinvent the wheel each time
they
>> do
>> something. There are now voices readily available that can be used.
>> Also,
>> not all blind diabetics are blind because of diabetes, so the
population
>> of
>> people blind from diabetes is not the entire population for such
devices.
>> Also, the population is aging, which leads to more blindness overall,
>> which
>> increases the market.
>>
>> I do not delude myself that this will happen in a year. But if, in
>> 1940, people had simply said "Well, this isn't going to happen for
>> decades. There's nothing we can do," nothing would have been done.
>> Someone has to step out and advocate for accessibility. I can't
>> think of better people to do it than the DANs and the NFB!
>>
>> Sandi
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "COLLEEN ROTH" <n8tnv at att.net>
>> To: <diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
>>
>>
>>> Hello Veronica,
>>> I understand where you are coming from but Resoluness are not passed
>>> just
>>> for the sake of passing them.
>>> The next step is working to get changes implemented. In July, 2013
at
>>> the
>>> NFB Convention a Resolution was passed which would include anything
>>> which
>>> a sighted person can use being accessible by the blind including but
not
>>> limited to appliances, Communications Devices and Medical supplies.
>>> The NFB of Ohio passed the Resolution on Diabetic Supplies at our
State
>>> Convention.
>>> The Resolution passed November 3, 2013.
>>> We used the texs of the Iowa Resolution with some editing where
>>> necessary.
>>> You will see some action being taken to get our Resolutions
implemented
>>> and to make those who are less than helpful fully aware of the NFB's
>>> position on various topics.
>>> Colleen Roth
>>> At Large Chapter President
>>> NFB of Ohio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Veronica Elsea <veronica at laurelcreekmusic.com>
>>> To: "'Diabetes Talk for the Bl'" diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:15 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please forgive my question but maybe it's just because I'm having a
>>>> really difficult time of it right now. I agree these resolutions
>>>> are great in a
>>>> way. Now the rest of the affiliate knows what we need. But then
what?
>>>> If
>>>> the
>>>> world jumped every time we passed some resolution at a convention,
we'd
>>>> have
>>>> all sorts of cool things by now. So what happens with the
resolutions?
>>>> How
>>>> does this turn into pressure on someone to do something? Just
wondering
>>>> lest
>>>> we start congratulating ourselves too soon.
>>>> Like I said, don't mean to be a downer, really I don't. Just
wondering,
>>>> that's all. Thanks.
>>>> Veronica
>>>>
>>>> Watch the video as The Guide Dog Glee Club sings "Rehab!" Yes! Yes!
>>>> Yes!
>>>> http://youtu.be/JvakJ5lk6Us
>>>> Then find more music from Veronica Elsea and The Guide Dog Glee
Club
>>>> at:
>>>> http://www.laurelcreekmusic.com
>>>> Veronica Elsea, Owner
>>>> Laurel Creek Music Designs
>>>> Santa Cruz, California
>>>> Phone: 831-429-6407
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Diabetes-talk [mailto:diabetes-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Cindy Ray
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:26 PM
>>>> To: Jerry Hathaway; Diabetes Talk for the Blind
>>>> Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
>>>>
>>>> Wow, that is truly awesome. Good work on that resolution and
>>>> congratulations.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Lou
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 1:55 PM, Jerry Hathaway
>>>> <jerry.hathaway2 at frontier.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The NFB of Oregon passed a resolution
>>>> > at our state convention on November 3, 2013 Regarding Advocacy to
>>>> > Make
>>>> Diabetes Tools and Technology Accessible to the Blind. The
>>>> resolution
>>>> is
>>>> listed below.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Resolution 2013-01 Regarding Diabetes
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Regarding Advocacy to Make Diabetes Tools and Technology
>>>> > Accessible
>>>> > to
>>>> > the
>>>> Blind
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > WHEREAS, The National Federation of the Blind has, since 1940,
>>>> > championed
>>>> the independence of the blind and worked to make the world
>>>> accessible
>>>> to
>>>> and
>>>> safe for the blind; and
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > WHEREAS, to help increase the independence of blind people, the
>>>> > National
>>>> Federation of the Blind has fought to make technology, readily
>>>> available
>>>> to
>>>> the sighted, accessible for the blind; and
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > WHEREAS, according to the National Eye Institute (NEI) of the
>>>> > National
>>>> Institutes of Health (NIH), diabetic retinopathy is the most common
>>>> cause
>>
>>>> of
>>>> blindness, affecting 4.1 million American adults over age 40, and
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > WHEREAS, very little technology currently on the market for
>>>> > constantly
>>>> > or
>>>> periodically monitoring blood glucose, accurately delivering
>>>> insulin,
>>>> or
>>>> performing other tasks to control diabetes is accessible to the
blind,
>>>> and
>>>> insulin pens carry a disclaimer that they should not be used by the
>>>> blind
>>>> without supervision; and
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > WHEREAS, technology has been demonstrated to increase diabetes
>>>> > control
>>>> > in
>>>> the sighted, and the same technology, made accessible to the blind
>>>> would
>>>> improve diabetes control among blind and visually impaired
diabetics,
>>>> and
>>>> increase independence in maintaining such control; and
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > WHEREAS, the need for improved accessibility of lifesaving
>>>> > diabetes
>>>> technology has been largely overlooked: Now, therefore,
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon
>>>> > in
>>>> convention assembled this 3rd day of November, 2013, in the city of
>>>> Salem, Oregon, that the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon
>>>> and its Diabetes
>>>> Action Network division work closely with companies developing
pens,
>>>> pumps,
>>>> glucometers, and other lifesaving diabetes control tools and
technology
>>>> to
>>>> integrate accessibility for the blind and deaf-blind into the
design
>>>> and
>>>> manufacture of such items; and
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Federation of the Blind
>>>> > of Oregon
>>>> enlist the support of the American Diabetes Association, the
>>>> American Association of Retired Persons, the American Association
>>>> of Clinical Endocrinologists, and the Center for Medicare and
>>>> Medicaid Services to establish and implement accessibility
>>>> standards for diabetes technology; and
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Federation of the Blind
>>>> > of Oregon
>>>> urge manufacturers of technology that provides information to the
>>>> blind and deaf-blind about diabetes management to recognize that
>>>> creating technology
>>>> useful only to the sighted creates a circumstance that
discriminates
>>>> against
>>>> the blind and deaf-blind, and urge such manufacturers further to
>>>> recognize
>>>> that the blind and deaf-blind of Oregon will join with other blind
and
>>>> deaf-blind people throughout the nation to take such action as may
be
>>>> necessary to end this discrimination; and
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Diabetes Action Network of the
>>>> > National
>>>> Federation of the blind of Oregon publicize widely the
>>>> inaccessibility
>>>> of
>>>> diabetes tools and technology as they are currently marketed, and
the
>>>> unnecessary hardship their inaccessibility creates in the lives of
>>>> blind
>>>> and
>>>> deaf-blind diabetics.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Jerry
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Diabetes-talk mailing list
>>>> > Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk nfbnet.org To
>>>> > unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>> > for
>>>> Diabetes-talk:
>>>> >
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk
>>>> nfbnet.org/cindyray%40gmail.
>>>> com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diabetes-talk mailing list
>>>> Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk nfbnet.org To
>>>> unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> Diabetes-talk: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk
>>>> nfbnet.org/veronica%40laurel
>>>> creekmusic.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diabetes-talk mailing list
>>>> Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk nfbnet.org To
>>>> unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> Diabetes-talk: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk
>>>> nfbnet.org/n8tnv%40att.net
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>> ----
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Diabetes-talk mailing list
>>> Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>> for
>>> Diabetes-talk:
>>>
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/sjryan2%40
>> gmail.c
>> om
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Diabetes-talk mailing list
>> Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> Diabetes-talk:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40pa
>> nix.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Diabetes-talk mailing list
>> Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> Diabetes-talk:
>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/sjryan2%40gma
il.com
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Diabetes-talk mailing list
> Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Diabetes-talk:
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/debbiewunder%
40centurytel.net
>
_______________________________________________
Diabetes-talk mailing list
Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Diabetes-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/wlewis19%40co
x.net
_______________________________________________
Diabetes-talk mailing list
Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Diabetes-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/bpollpeter%40
hotmail.com
More information about the Diabetes-Talk
mailing list