Diabetic eye disease

ID for train travel at reduced rates for blind citizens

 Because my grandmother was blind, I've always been sensitive to (and frightened by) eye diseases. Her condition was not caused by diabetes (most likely a disease/virus transmitted by poultry when she was a child, but no one really knows), but diabetes is the leading cause of blindness in adults today. There is a lot that can be done to stop the progression of diabetes, particularly weight loss, proper diet and exercise, and then medication, but too many think, "It will never happen to me."  Even some in my own family! Even some who read this blog!!

1. Diabetic eye disease comprises a group of eye conditions that affect people with diabetes. These conditions include diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema (DME), cataract, and glaucoma.
2. All forms of diabetic eye disease have the potential to cause severe vision loss and blindness.
3. Diabetic retinopathy involves changes to retinal blood vessels that can cause them to bleed or leak fluid, distorting vision.
4. Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of vision loss among people with diabetes and a leading cause of blindness among working-age adults.
5. DME is a consequence of diabetic retinopathy that causes swelling in the area of the retina called the macula.
6. Controlling diabetes—by taking medications as prescribed, staying physically active, and maintaining a healthy diet—can prevent or delay vision loss.
7. Because diabetic retinopathy often goes unnoticed until vision loss occurs, people with diabetes should get a comprehensive dilated eye exam at least once a year.
8. Early detection, timely treatment, and appropriate follow-up care of diabetic eye disease can protect against vision loss.
9. Diabetic retinopathy can be treated with several therapies, used alone or in combination.
10. NEI supports research to develop new therapies for diabetic retinopathy, and to compare the effectiveness of existing therapies for different patient group

National Eye Institute (NEI) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX4w6U-Qs1k

The Hype of ARRA: shovel ready jobs created and saved

Now that even the President as admitted (New York Times) that there never were "shovel ready" projects, the hype and tripe we were fed the past 2 years sound even worse. Plus the subtle message is that the government was doing nothing before Obama descended from the lofty heights of white guilt to save us, despite the fact that President Bush was the biggest spender on social programs in all the history of the U.S., only to be outdone by the raging trillion dollar deficits of Obama!

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) was signed into law by President Obama on February 17th, 2009. It is an unprecedented effort to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century. The Act is an extraordinary response to a crisis unlike any since the Great Depression, and includes measures to modernize our nation's infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need."

If there were challenges "long neglected" then where was Congress--controlled by the Democrats for most of my voting years? Jobs have not been created or saved, and if you laid the graph of our economic ups and downs since 2008 on top of one from the 1930s, you'd see Obama is following FDR's failed template.

The above quote came from the National Eye Institute where I was researching the number of Americans at risk for glaucoma over the age of 40. When I tried to check on how much of ARRA for the NIH (over $10 billion) has been spent, I found "spin doctors" from left wing think tanks and golly gee-whiz writers for government agencies all saying the same thing about saved or created.

Look folks, the health research industry (mainly universities) lives on government grants--this was a huge infusion for NIH, but I seriously doubt hiring a temp researcher or newly minted doctor on a project started 5-10 years ago really "created" anything. The time and effort to solicit and process the grant proposals, plus the special quasi-government companies that sprang up to do all this probably ate up 50% of it. All these jobs are temporary--a bit more glamorous than FDR's CCC camps of the 1930s, but from them we at least got some parks and roads.