ADHD TEENS & VAPING
Why ADHD Brains Get Addicted & How to Quit
Is your teen vaping? ...are you sure? Vaping is clandestine — and nicotine’s powerful effect on the ADHD brain makes stopping especially tough. Learn why vaping is so addictive for teens and adults with ADHD, and get talking points to start a rational and transparent conversation with your child →
Like Mother, Like Child
When ADHD is a family affair, practicing self care, setting household rules, and checking in regularly are essential.
Must-dos for moms with ADD →
When Teens Stop Taking Their Meds
A teen may decide he's tired of feeling "controlled" and refuse to take medication, even if it's helping him.
What parents can do →
Start your subscription to ADDitude magazine in print and digital format with a free issue and free instant access to The ADDitude Guide to Treating ADHD Naturally!
From ADHD to Zzzz
"As a child, trying to shut down my brain and stop thinking about the day's trivial mishaps was excruciating."
7 sleep strategies →
Representative Paul Ray Holding Press Conference to Announce his Legislation to Lower Prescription Drug Prices
What: The Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) is the middle man between the insurance companies and the drug companies, and are the reason consumers are being overcharged for their life-saving prescriptions.
This legislative session has a few bills regarding the hot topic of prescription drug prices, particularly life-saving drugs such as insulin. We have a couple of bills circulating that cap the copay costs of consumers for insulin. The idea behind these bills is to encourage insurance companies to negotiate better pricing with the manufacturers. The main flaw of these bills is that insurance companies don't directly negotiate with drug manufacturers. There is a middleman called the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM). They negotiate the price on behalf of the insurance company and try to maximize the profit for the insurance company and themselves.
Here's why prices are so high: The PBM requires the drug manufacturer to give them a rebate on the purchase price which artificially inflates the price of the drug. The PBM then takes the rebate and splits it with the insurance company. The consumer ends up paying the inflated price while the PBM and insurance company make a nice profit. The drug manufacturer only makes an $88 profit off of the $400 sales price because the PBM and insurance companies keep the rebate.
PBM's are trying very hard to put small, independent pharmacies out of business. They have created a monopoly and are guilty of price-fixing.
Who:
Representative Paul Ray
Where:
Utah State Capitol – Presentation Room
350 State St., Salt Lake City, UT 84111
When:
Monday, February 10 at 10:45 AM
Every Request Becomes a Chore War
Q: "My 12-year-old resorts to stomping, door slamming, crying, and whining — and will only complete tasks under duress. Help!"
Watch this video for the answer →
===========================
Representative Paul Ray Holding Press Conference to Announce his Legislation to Lower Prescription Drug Prices
What: The Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) is the middle man between the insurance companies and the drug companies, and are the reason consumers are being overcharged for their life-saving prescriptions.
This legislative session has a few bills regarding the hot topic of prescription drug prices, particularly life-saving drugs such as insulin. We have a couple of bills circulating that cap the copay costs of consumers for insulin. The idea behind these bills is to encourage insurance companies to negotiate better pricing with the manufacturers. The main flaw of these bills is that insurance companies don't directly negotiate with drug manufacturers. There is a middleman called the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM). They negotiate the price on behalf of the insurance company and try to maximize the profit for the insurance company and themselves.
Here's why prices are so high: The PBM requires the drug manufacturer to give them a rebate on the purchase price which artificially inflates the price of the drug. The PBM then takes the rebate and splits it with the insurance company. The consumer ends up paying the inflated price while the PBM and insurance company make a nice profit. The drug manufacturer only makes an $88 profit off of the $400 sales price because the PBM and insurance companies keep the rebate.
PBM's are trying very hard to put small, independent pharmacies out of business. They have created a monopoly and are guilty of price-fixing.
Who:
Representative Paul Ray
Where:
Utah State Capitol – Presentation Room
350 State St., Salt Lake City, UT 84111
When:
Monday, February 10 at 10:45 AM
==========================
Press Release
USDA Invests $4.4 Million in Rural Broadband Infrastructure in Georgia’s Gilmer County
ELLIJAY, Ga., Feb. 7, 2020 – Today, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Georgia State Director Joyce White announced a $4.4 million investment in high-speed broadband infrastructure. This investment will support the construction of 90 miles of fiber-optic infrastructure in Gilmer County. The service area includes 2,159 households, 25 pre-subscribed businesses, two critical community facilities, an educational facility and 24 pre-subscribed farms, including 22 poultry farms. This broadband investment will strengthen the poultry industry in north Georgia. This is one of many funding announcements in the first round of USDA’s ReConnect Pilot Program investments.
“We are extremely proud to partner with Ellijay Telephone Company to expand broadband access,” White said. “Under the leadership of President Trump and Agriculture Secretary Perdue, USDA has made deploying this critical infrastructure across rural America a top priority, because we know when rural America thrives, all of America thrives.”
The Ellijay Telephone Company (ETC), founded in 1903, is a technology leader in Gilmer, Fannin, Cherokee and Pickens counties in north Georgia. It offers cable television, telephone, security services and broadband solutions for business, commercial and residential subscribers.
Background:
In March 2018, Congress provided $600 million to USDA to expand broadband infrastructure and services in rural America. On Dec. 13, 2018, Secretary Perdue announced the rules of the program, called “ReConnect,” including how the loans and grants will be awarded to help build broadband infrastructure in rural America. USDA received 146 applications between May 31, 2019, and July 12, 2019, requesting $1.4 billion in funding across all three ReConnect Program funding products: 100 percent loan, 100 percent grant, and loan-grant combinations. USDA is reviewing applications and announcing approved projects on a rolling basis. Additional investments in all three categories will be made in the coming weeks.
These grants, loans and combination funds enable the federal government to partner with the private sector and rural communities to build modern broadband infrastructure in areas with insufficient internet service. Insufficient service is defined as connection speeds of less than 10 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1 Mbps upload.
In December 2019, Agriculture Secretary Perdue announced USDA will be making available an additional $550 million in ReConnect funding in 2020. USDA will make available up to $200 million for grants, up to $200 million for 50/50 grant/loan combinations, and up to $200 million for low-interest loans. The application window for this round of funding will open Jan. 31, 2020. Applications for all funding products will be accepted in the same application window, which will close on March 16, 2020.
To assist potential providers with their applications, USDA is hosting technical assistance webinars and workshops across the country. To see an updated list of dates and locations, or to register to attend, visit www.usda.gov/reconnect/events.
A full description of 2020 ReConnect Pilot Program funding is available on page 67913 of the Dec. 12, 2019, Federal Register (PDF, 336 KB). To learn more about eligibility, technical assistance and recent announcements, visit www.usda.gov/reconnect.
In April 2017, President Donald J. Trump established the Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity to identify legislative, regulatory and policy changes that could promote agriculture and prosperity in rural communities. In January 2018, Secretary Perdue presented the Task Force’s findings to President Trump. These findings included 31 recommendations to align the federal government with state, local and tribal governments to take advantage of opportunities that exist in rural America. Increasing investments in rural infrastructure is a key recommendation of the task force. To view the report in its entirety, please view the Report to the President of the United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (PDF, 5.4 MB). In addition, to view the categories of the recommendations, please view the Rural Prosperity infographic (PDF, 190 KB).
USDA Rural Development provides loans and grants to help expand economic opportunities and create jobs in rural areas. This assistance supports infrastructure improvements; business development; housing; community facilities such as schools, public safety and health care; and high-speed internet access in rural areas. For more information, visit www.rd.usda.gov.
====================Voting with food and water
by Robert C. Koehler
878 words
A bad app in Iowa throws everything into a tizzy. Who won? Come on, the horse race has begun. Let’s get some numbers up on the board.
Spectator Nation stomps its feet.
Voting is the activity at the core of democracy, right? It’s a citizen’s sacred duty. While I have always believed this, questions about the nature of our democracy have been simmering in my soul over the decades with ever-increasing intensity. Is affirming our citizenship really nothing more than making a pencil mark on a ballot or a blip on a computer screen, indicating our “choice” among highly controlled options?
“It’s no exaggeration to call this a crisis of legitimacy,” Richard Eskow writes, regarding the Iowa Democratic caucus. “Like the GOP, the Democratic Party holds a position that is unique among democracies. It is, in effect, one half of a state-sponsored duopoly that controls electoral politics. That kind of unaccountable power is detrimental to democracy. As long as it exists, however, it confers an obligation to serve the interests of democracy.”
He adds that the Dems must confront the crisis of legitimacy the Iowa caucus fiasco has generated “by changing an insider culture that serves it, and the public interest, poorly. If it doesn’t do that, and soon, the result may well be another victory for Trump and his party.”
While all this is true, I’m certain the insider culture has no intention of letting any serious change occur, which pushes the urgency to take action — morally creative action, you might say — further down the hierarchy: to the voter . . . to the citizen.
Indeed, I suggest a change in thinking regarding the nature of “voting” — yanking it away from its institutional roots and redefining it, not as simply making a choice among preselected (and often extremely tepid) options, but as an act of moral conviction, challenge and risk: To vote is to create the nation in which you live.
My inspiration for this redefinition of voting came from learning about the actions of volunteers at an organization called No More Deaths. The primary takeaway for me — upon learning that a U.S. District judge recently reversed the convictions of four group members, who had committed the offense of trying to help refugees stay alive as they trekked through the Sonoran Desert to the U.S. border — was that we as citizens have a deeper, more sacred obligation to our country, and what it is, than helping to choose a leader. Voting is also an act of leadership in and of itself.
A nation is not simply an infrastructure of rules and values, within which we live our lives. It is also a machine in motion, forcefully acting, at times, on values rooted in questionable moral certainties, including racism. To “vote” may mean to declare, in the moment: I do not live in a racist nation.
The four volunteers for the Arizona-based No More Deaths — whose mission is “to end death and suffering in the Mexico-U.S. borderlands through civil initiative: people of conscience working openly and in community to uphold fundamental human rights” — had been convicted last year of several federal misdemeanors, which included entering the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge without a permit and — the biggie — leaving food and water for migrants on their perilous journey. The four were given $250 fines and 15 months of unsupervised probation.
They appealed the conviction and, lo and behold, a different U.S. District judge, Rosemary Marquez, found the federal case against the four deeply flawed. The government said the volunteers’ action interfered with their efforts at border control, but Marquez found this reason deeply problematic, writing:
“The government seems to rely on a deterrence theory, reasoning that preventing clean water and food from being placed on the refuge would increase the risk of death or extreme illness for those seeking to cross unlawfully, which in turn would discourage or deter people from attempting to enter without authorization. In other words, the government claims a compelling interest in preventing defendants from interfering with a border enforcement strategy of deterrence by death.
“This gruesome logic is profoundly disturbing,” she wrote, noting that human remains have frequently been found in the wildlife refuge, including 32 sets of remains in 2017. But the claim that this cruel policy was actually deterring illegal entry is “speculative and unsupported by evidence.”
And The Guardian, reporting two years ago about the arrest of another No More Deaths volunteer, Scott Warren, for the crime of “giving food and water to two migrants” (he was eventually acquitted), pointed out that No More Deaths had released a report “documenting the systematic destruction by border patrol of water and food supplies left in the desert for migrants. Over a nearly four-year period, 3,856 gallons of water had been destroyed. The report linked to video showing Border Patrol kicking over gallons and pouring them out onto the ground.”
Standing up to this kind of cruel action — especially when it is ensconced in legality, armed and wearing a uniform — is voting at the deepest level of citizenship. Such voting comes with consequences, including the risk of arrest, but the consequences go both directions. The people are the ones, finally, with the power and responsibility to hold the government accountable.
This is participatory democracy.
–end–
Robert Koehler, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is an award-winning Chicago journalist and editor.
Lt. Governor, Department of Health to address Utah’s efforts to prevent Coronavirus
What:
Lt. Governor Spencer Cox and executive director of the Utah Department of Health, Dr. Miner, will address the current status of the Coronavirus in Utah. Dr. Angela Dunn, state epidemiologist, will detail steps Utah’s public health system is taking to ensure the state is prepared for an outbreak of the virus, should one occur.
Who:
Lt. Governor Spencer Cox
Dr. Joseph Miner, executive director of the Department of Health
Dr. Angela Dunn, state epidemiologist
Where:
Presentation Room
When:
Friday, February 7, 2020
1:20 p.m.-2:00 p.m.
Note: Utah does not have any known cases of individuals infected with the Coronavirus.
# # #
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GV Mass" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gvmass+unsubscribe@utah.gov.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/utah.gov/d/msgid/gvmass/CACoCixAn7C0fVwkpwZp1nG7-vHGvU5UUfDLmbO8MLStxgfyuJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Attachments area
56% full
Using 8.49 GB of your 15 GB
Powered by
Last account activity: 23 hours ago
Details
Voting with food and water
by Robert C. Koehler
878 words
A bad app in Iowa throws everything into a tizzy. Who won? Come on, the horse race has begun. Let’s get some numbers up on the board.
Spectator Nation stomps its feet.
Voting is the activity at the core of democracy, right? It’s a citizen’s sacred duty. While I have always believed this, questions about the nature of our democracy have been simmering in my soul over the decades with ever-increasing intensity. Is affirming our citizenship really nothing more than making a pencil mark on a ballot or a blip on a computer screen, indicating our “choice” among highly controlled options?
“It’s no exaggeration to call this a crisis of legitimacy,” Richard Eskow writes, regarding the Iowa Democratic caucus. “Like the GOP, the Democratic Party holds a position that is unique among democracies. It is, in effect, one half of a state-sponsored duopoly that controls electoral politics. That kind of unaccountable power is detrimental to democracy. As long as it exists, however, it confers an obligation to serve the interests of democracy.”
He adds that the Dems must confront the crisis of legitimacy the Iowa caucus fiasco has generated “by changing an insider culture that serves it, and the public interest, poorly. If it doesn’t do that, and soon, the result may well be another victory for Trump and his party.”
While all this is true, I’m certain the insider culture has no intention of letting any serious change occur, which pushes the urgency to take action — morally creative action, you might say — further down the hierarchy: to the voter . . . to the citizen.
Indeed, I suggest a change in thinking regarding the nature of “voting” — yanking it away from its institutional roots and redefining it, not as simply making a choice among preselected (and often extremely tepid) options, but as an act of moral conviction, challenge and risk: To vote is to create the nation in which you live.
My inspiration for this redefinition of voting came from learning about the actions of volunteers at an organization called No More Deaths. The primary takeaway for me — upon learning that a U.S. District judge recently reversed the convictions of four group members, who had committed the offense of trying to help refugees stay alive as they trekked through the Sonoran Desert to the U.S. border — was that we as citizens have a deeper, more sacred obligation to our country, and what it is, than helping to choose a leader. Voting is also an act of leadership in and of itself.
A nation is not simply an infrastructure of rules and values, within which we live our lives. It is also a machine in motion, forcefully acting, at times, on values rooted in questionable moral certainties, including racism. To “vote” may mean to declare, in the moment: I do not live in a racist nation.
The four volunteers for the Arizona-based No More Deaths — whose mission is “to end death and suffering in the Mexico-U.S. borderlands through civil initiative: people of conscience working openly and in community to uphold fundamental human rights” — had been convicted last year of several federal misdemeanors, which included entering the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge without a permit and — the biggie — leaving food and water for migrants on their perilous journey. The four were given $250 fines and 15 months of unsupervised probation.
They appealed the conviction and, lo and behold, a different U.S. District judge, Rosemary Marquez, found the federal case against the four deeply flawed. The government said the volunteers’ action interfered with their efforts at border control, but Marquez found this reason deeply problematic, writing:
“The government seems to rely on a deterrence theory, reasoning that preventing clean water and food from being placed on the refuge would increase the risk of death or extreme illness for those seeking to cross unlawfully, which in turn would discourage or deter people from attempting to enter without authorization. In other words, the government claims a compelling interest in preventing defendants from interfering with a border enforcement strategy of deterrence by death.
“This gruesome logic is profoundly disturbing,” she wrote, noting that human remains have frequently been found in the wildlife refuge, including 32 sets of remains in 2017. But the claim that this cruel policy was actually deterring illegal entry is “speculative and unsupported by evidence.”
And The Guardian, reporting two years ago about the arrest of another No More Deaths volunteer, Scott Warren, for the crime of “giving food and water to two migrants” (he was eventually acquitted), pointed out that No More Deaths had released a report “documenting the systematic destruction by border patrol of water and food supplies left in the desert for migrants. Over a nearly four-year period, 3,856 gallons of water had been destroyed. The report linked to video showing Border Patrol kicking over gallons and pouring them out onto the ground.”
Standing up to this kind of cruel action — especially when it is ensconced in legality, armed and wearing a uniform — is voting at the deepest level of citizenship. Such voting comes with consequences, including the risk of arrest, but the consequences go both directions. The people are the ones, finally, with the power and responsibility to hold the government accountable.
This is participatory democracy.
–end–
Robert Koehler, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is an award-winning Chicago journalist and editor.
