I have been living with multiple sclerosis (MS) for many years prior to my diagnosis in May 2016. In late August, I attended a town hall in Chicago where legislators discussed the issue of prescription drug affordability and how Illinois House Bill 4472 could lower the costs of certain medications. As a patient and advocate who has struggled to afford my own prescription drugs, I was interested in learning more about the legislation.
Accessing my MS treatments has been a long and difficult journey. Earlier this year, I was prescribed a medication called Ocrevus that can retail for upward of $83,000 per year without insurance. My insurance would not cover it. This came just as I had retired on federal disability, and I was in no position to pay the cost myself. Ultimately, I was able to access Ocrevus only through the help of my physician and a patient assistance program — support that many are not lucky enough to have.
At the town hall, I found myself surrounded by others who are also fed up with skyrocketing drug costs and are demanding action to make prescription drugs more affordable. I joined others in sharing my experience with the panel and asked why medications that are developed and manufactured in the U.S. are sold for far less in other countries. The answer was simple: Other countries have much stronger patient protections and regulations than we do.
State Sen. Celina Villanueva explained how HB4472 would fill the regulation gap by creating a Prescription Drug Affordability Board with the ability to evaluate high-cost drugs and set limits on what Illinoisans would pay for certain medications. I was relieved to hear that lawmakers are working diligently to address this issue, and I was inspired by the dozens of patients who showed up to advocate for their health care.
Prescription drugs don’t work if people can’t afford them. HB4472 is a long-term solution that will expand access to lifesaving medications for all Illinoisans, and on behalf of millions of Illinois patients, I am urging the General Assembly to pass it during the next legislative session.
— Lequita M. Mayhew, Chicago
Examining opinion on Trump
As a retired marketing consultant, I read the letter by Sue Atkenson (“Uber rider offers insight,” Sept. 12) as a terrific lesson for any aspiring salesperson. Likewise, it’s a good lesson for anyone faced with making an important purchase or decision.
She was impressed by her Jordanian Uber driver’s quick endorsement of Donald Trump, based on two things: “the economy and safety.” Atkenson says he believed Trump, a businessman, can fix inflation and wanted the country’s safety in the hands of a man, “who isn’t afraid and who is feared by those who mean us harm,” she writes. “A woman was not right for the job,” she says he told her.
Why is this a good lesson when making a sale? People only hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe.
It’s a great lesson for decision-making because it reminds us to do our own research. This Jordanian driver comes from a country that, even now, has a male-dominant view of women and leadership.
A study “Understanding Masculinities,” released two years ago with a number of sponsoring organizations, including the King Hussein Foundation, found that the majority of Jordanian men think the following:
• A woman’s most important role is taking care of family (87%).
• Men are better at making tough decisions than women (70%).
• Women are not tough enough for political leadership (67%; also, 52% of women agree).
My point? Should everyone be swayed by anyone’s opinion, without asking more questions? It doesn’t take much effort or time in this age of the internet. What it does take is curiosity and a desire to make the best decision possible.
— Linda Finley Belan, Chicago
Unimaginable toll on children
In response to letter writer Blaise J. Arena’s imagining of the life and death of a young Palestinian man (“A story about a Palestinian,” Sept. 8), here’s an ode to a real one. Nine-year-old Khaled Joudeh came to national prominence on Nov. 19 when he was pictured on the front page of The New York Times next to a headline describing Gaza as “a ‘Graveyard’ for Children.” The heart-rending photo shows Khaled grieving his dead 8-month-old sister. His mother, father, and 12-year-old brother were also dead from an Israeli airstrike. Only Khaled, his 7-year-old brother, Tamer, and 2-year-old female cousin, Nada, survived. More than 60 members of his family died. An uncle took the children in.
Anyone who knows a 9-year-old boy knows that they love to be caretakers. Khaled tried to comfort Tamer, who was in constant pain from a broken back.
Khaled clearly aroused the concern of many people, as the Times did a follow-up. On Jan. 9, Khaled, Tamer and Nada were killed by another Israeli attack. More than 15,000 children have been killed in Gaza.
We taxpayers provided those bombs. Our political class is so beholden to the arms industry that Congress, the State Department and President Joe Biden are willing to overrule international sentiment. Biden has been good on many things, but this man, who claims to talk with his grandchildren on the phone regularly, has a blind spot about the children of Gaza.
Until the public takes a stand, we will be complicit in the maiming and death of the innocent.
— Marsha Wright, Evanston
Forgiving student loan debt
There are reports that college graduates typically make $ 1.2 million more in earnings over a lifetime career than high school graduates.
I find it very concerning that President Joe Biden’s administration is promoting such misbehavior — that college graduates are not responsible for repayment of their contractual agreements to their loan providers. Why should disadvantaged taxpayers be burdened with repayment?
We are all under the additional burden of inflation and other rising taxes, so we need not feel sorry for special groups. Even financial guru Terry Savage promotes loan repayment avoidance programs for now-well-educated citizens.
Only those who issue loans can forgive.
Maybe we should all request mortgage forgiveness programs and really pollute our American values.
— Ronald Hameetman, Fox River Grove
Comparison of Harris, Trump
Just as with all other presidential “debates,” the candidates on Tuesday never answered the actual questions from the moderators. They immediately launched into their talking points.
The difference in the debate between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump was that Harris’ talking points covered her actual positions on at least some matters while she introduced herself to voters by reciting her qualifications and personal history.
The former president launched into incoherent conspiracy theories and accusations of immigrants eating dogs and cats and blue state governors sanctioning killing babies. He continued to insist he won the last election, extol the virtues of dictators and claim, contrary to economists’ opinions, that tariffs do not increase costs. He presented himself as an angry, confused old man who clearly has no place in the White House.
— Douglas Nyhus, Frankfort
Messaging app aid criminals
Regarding the messaging service Telegram: If you create a product or service that turns out to be incredibly useful for high-level criminal behavior, don’t you have a responsibility to modify your creation, or do you become an accessory to the crime? Wouldn’t this commonsense approach apply to social media messaging and interaction systems that are allowing dangerous criminal behavior to operate way more effectively, on an international basis?
— Douglas W. Peterson, Naperville
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.