@SmokeyJoe - I’m truly sorry to hear this. 
Autism can be healed to a certain degree with Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy. It takes a lot of sessions, but we have been able to improve the quality of life, mitigate ODD, sensory issues as well as improve speech.
I hope you research and explore this therapy. 
I would suggest that this policy mandate the FDA to approve Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for neurological disorders.
I agree that parent rights should be included here.
I understand your concerns but wonder how this document could be revised to reflect these without infringing on our right to choose how we treat ourselves.
As of today, the abortion issue is in the hands of the states. The gender dysphoria needs to be addressed in the DSM. Taxpayer funding for these would be a separate issue. This proposal seems to aim to keep our government agencies free of conflicts of interest and ensure the right to make our own choices without fear of penalty.
Maybe it would help if it were more specific about which treatments it’s referring to and ensure it’s not referring to abortion, trans surgeries/treatments on healthy bodies; should allow conscience objections for providers who feel uncomfortable providing the requested treatment; cannot indemnify providers from liability or medical malpractice for preventable harms caused by a risky treatments.
Taxpayer funding becomes involved when you state that a certain treatment becomes a “right.” That’s part of the problem when the government declares that you have a “right” to something, as opposed to a simple commitment to not intervene.
Thank you for pointing out the “right” behind taxpayer funding. I like your idea about addressing the need for conscience objection by providers. Still not sure how specific medical choices could be included in a proposal like this without detracting from its main objective? There are so many medical issues that are controversial, it seems they would need to be dealt with individually as they arise. I do think they need attention, just maybe not in this specific proposal.
Perhaps the treatments can be narrowed down to a category of items, a category which people would already know doesn’t include abortion or trans treatments. Either way, the wording has to be changed in some way, because these are obvious questions. Pro-life people scrutinize bills very closely. If it’s not addressed/clarified somehow, this bill, as currently written, is dead on arrival. No Republican will pass a bill like this, in his current draft.
The FDA has been approving neurotoxins for decades. Lice shampoo contains neurotoxins that are harmful to our health. Many children use this product and it causes damage to the central nervous system, resulting in mental health issues.
My mother used this poison on me and my siblings and i have nerve damage because of it. There are safe non toxic alternatives to treat a lice infestation. This poison is absolutely unnecessary and banning it would be a great step towards making America healthy.
Thank you Leslie for such a well written policy. I agree to this as well as another user suggested we include the M Rna for animals as well. That way we do not have this in our food.
I agree to this
yes we do
Release all medical cures & technologies that have been hidden from we the people who aren’t in the elite club
We need to add a
13. Lift ban on Stem Cell research in America, this could help with Organ scarcity.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Leslie. I see where you’re coming from, and as someone who navigates both worlds, I understand the complexities surrounding this issue. Government funding for independent non-profits offers significant benefits that are often overlooked. Let’s consider the perspective of these organizations and their unique role. Here are some key benefits of funding 501(c)(3)s and CBOs:
Non-profits play a vital role in addressing needs that may be underfunded or overlooked by government programs, particularly in specialized areas like disease prevention or localized issues. These organizations have the flexibility and insight that government bureaucrats may lack, particularly in the communities they serve. Government funding helps maintain a diverse and dynamic civil society, ensuring that multiple voices and solutions can thrive outside of rigid government structures.
Non-profits often specialize in fields like healthcare, education, and social justice. With deeper knowledge and experience in these areas, they can provide services that are more tailored and effective than broader government agencies. Funding these organizations enables them to expand their impact without compromising their independence or focus on their areas of expertise.
Non-profits are generally more nimble and cost-effective than government agencies. They can pilot new solutions or service models that may be too risky or unconventional for government programs to adopt. For example, non-profits can test new educational or mental health initiatives on a smaller scale, with the potential to scale successful models. Government funding enables the public sector to benefit from these innovations without the burden of direct management.
Independent non-profits are typically very accountable to their donors, stakeholders, and the communities they serve. They often maintain rigorous reporting standards and measure their effectiveness. While government funding should come with proper oversight, it can strengthen this accountability, ensuring that public funds are used effectively and strengthening the integrity and mission of non-profits.
When non-profits receive government funding but remain independent, they can continue to advocate, critique, and engage in public discourse without fear of government influence. This autonomy is critical to maintaining democratic principles like free expression and civil liberties. While there’s a growing push for public-private sector partnerships, the reality is that the larger, well-funded organizations often dominate, sidelining smaller, mission-driven non-profits. This pressure to conform or risk losing funding can create conflicts of interest and diminish the voices of those truly focused on the communities they serve.
Government funding can serve as a catalyst for attracting additional private-sector donations and investments. By contributing public funds, the government helps amplify private-sector contributions, ensuring that important causes are supported across sectors. This partnership creates a multiplier effect, increasing resources available to tackle complex social issues.
Non-profits often fill gaps where government agencies have fallen short, such as in healthcare, disaster relief, and job training. By funding non-profits, the government can reduce the strain on its own programs, allowing it to focus on broader policy frameworks while non-profits handle specialized, hands-on work. From my experience, especially in E. Tennessee and W. North Carolina, government agencies like FEMA, despite receiving millions in funding, often fail to respond effectively during crises. Non-profits, however, step in quickly to provide immediate relief and ongoing support.
For instance, my organization specializes in a disease that is often neglected by federal agencies. Without our program, many people would have had no access to critical services. In cases like this, non-profits often perform the same work as government agencies, but more efficiently and with greater focus.
Ultimately, the question isn’t whether the government should fund non-profits, but how. Government funding, when properly allocated with oversight and accountability, can support innovation, expertise, and efficiency without compromising the independence of the organization. Non-profits can continue to offer tailored solutions to meet the unique needs of communities, and government funding can help maximize their impact. This partnership allows for dynamic solutions to address complex social challenges while respecting the autonomy and mission of non-profits and those they serve.
Without organizations like mine, many people would not have access to life-saving services. We partner with Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which are also non-profits, but rely on federal funding to operate. Without these partnerships, millions would be locked out of essential healthcare services. While the non-profit sector may have its challenges, there are still many organizations, like mine, that are deeply committed to their mission and to helping people when they need it most.
Thank you for taking the time to read my response. This is a subject in which there are many varying opinions, but the takeaway, to me, is that we must continue to support our community-based organizations, when and where they are beneficial to our country and citizens. The lack of a non-profit sector leads to additional governance impedes innovation. Sure, there are grants, private foundations, and public donations, but let’s face it, if you are raising funds to support subjects in which society doesn’t realize is an issue, by the time your government agencies make it known, it’s too late. That’s why we exist.
Chris,
You make some very compelling arguments, but I have a major quibble in that you characterize this money as government money when it is, in fact, OUR money and therein lies the problem. If government can take our money and spend it on any pet project, government has too much power. In my opinion, government should never be in the role of picking winners and losers but by empowering government to direct OUR MONEY to nonprofits, that is exactly what has and will continue to happen.
Hi Leslie,
You may consider including a clause for mentally ill patients or people who are no longer in their right mind to make medically sound decisions for themselves.
Thank you for this! Myself along with several people i know, have been treated like drug addicts at emergency rooms or urgent care facilities just because they see we are on pain meds prescribed by our doctors due to illnesses that we suffer with. Chronic pain patients should not have to suffer and drs should not be afraid to prescribe the medication they feel will help their patients to feel more comfortable.
Health Freedom.
Thank you for your content on this topic. Please include health freedom for seniors/Medicare recipients who are struggling to stay healthy despite the high costs of doing so. Gym memberships or supervised exercise programs are not covered under Medicare. Supplements are not covered and therefore not prescribed by physicians even when they may help recipients improve their health. Medicare does not cover educational programs on disease prevention and promotion. Neither does it cover the costs for nutritional consultations and dietary programs. Seniors turn to social media to meet these needs and are overwhelmed by a variety of specialists who, for the most part may not provide understandable information. Despite the fact that there are numerous brilliant physicians on social media, most people may not understand the medical information provided. Health freedom should include free health education at all stages of life, including for government Medicare insurance recipients to empower them with the knowledge to make wise heath choices geared to staying healthy as they age.
For true health freedom we need some additional basic changes which may obviate some of these. Consider voting for this:
Bravo Leslie for your broad, insightful policies. However, Do you know that fixing a little bit here and there in the centuries-long systemic problems, it likes beating around the bush?
God sent a clear, systemic solutions to humanity. which is called: THE PUBLIC SELF-HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS.
No guts, no victory.
God bless America and you. 
