?

Log in

Previous 10

Mar. 27th, 2010

Of Back Rooms, Back Alleys, Charlatans, Roulette, Magic Mirrors and Viagra

 Here are a few meandering thoughts on what I call health care deform. And of of the most egregious examples of the nonsense that went on during reconciliation.

 By 57-42, Democrats rejected an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. Coburn said it would save millions, while Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it "a crass political stunt."

 Hold that thought.

 I don't think I'm the only one baffled, bamboozled, and disgusted with the carnival known as health care reform. Back room deals, under the table nudges, and whispered expletives have exposed the true reflection of our President and Vice-President, Senators, and Representatives. Magic mirrors fill the Fun House of Representatives and they’ve relied on dizzying spins to gain political advantage.

 Politics should have nothing to do with health care, and all we've got now is a big, fat bunch of deals that change with every spin of the wheel. Where it stops, nobody knows. What cheap prize they will hand the American people in this bait and switch game?

 This law doesn't meet the criteria President Obama set for health care reform back in the days of reason and clarity of purpose. The days I was on board. The days I wasted writing letters, blogs, Tweets, making phone calls, and annoying all my Facebook friends imploring them to join me in supporting the cause.

 There is no public option. This plan doesn't eliminate all pre-existing conditions. Now being female of childbearing age eliminates a person's right to obtain a legal abortion-a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

 It forces people to buy coverage from the very companies who have been ripping us off all along, shunts coverage of children to their parent's policies, and leaves the most vulnerable and medically neglected (read: poor) people with decisions about whether to buy inadequate coverage or pay for food, clothing and shelter and be fined.

 It might increase costs. Even if you are a number cruncher and like to play games with statistics, ignoring the realities of life, the cost of abortion is a lot less than the cost of pregnancy and delivery care, or the cost of caring for a preterm baby, neglected, abandoned or abused child. The number hasn't come up for tort reform and how to handle the role of malpractice claims in the exponential rise of costs.

 Mirror, mirror on the wall, the view I see isn’t fair at all.

 • The insurance companies now have a guaranteed source of new meat.

• The lawyers still gross big money on "pain and suffering."

• Pre-existing conditions.

Appears to be all show, smoke, and mirrors to me.

 I was willing to compromise for the sake of the greater good. But this offers no benefit to me or to my patients:

 • If I lose my job I can get health coverage. But it won't cover abortion, and I'm likely to lose that coverage even if I keep the job since the private insurers will likely now exclude all coverage for elective procedures since they are simply "following Federal standards." I'm not planning on losing my job, and I'm also not planning on having an abortion but shit happens.

 • My teenage sons will have coverage until they are 26. Now they have a perfect excuse not to get a job. And I'm really worried about my daughter and her friends because their reproductive rights have been trampled.

 • I will pay more for my benefits and might lose the tax advantage of health care spending account (the roulette wheel is still spinning on that one).

 • As a health professional who cares for women and children, I have a whole new set of regulations to follow. I still have to worry about what money goes where, and what can and cannot be spent on who (illegal immigrants) or what (abortion). Where can I refer patients who need services? In these days of budget woes will New York City and New York State be able to subsidize the uninsurables like they do now? Will private companies still have grant funding to help out those who fall through the cracks?

 • What happens in emergency situations when we can’t worry about insurance or someone dies? How do I prove the thirteen-year-old is an incest victim even though she doesn't know what that means, or is afraid to tell the truth to a bureaucrat? What if the strain on a pregnant woman’s damaged heart, transplanted kidney or out of control lupus will kill her, in which case I will have to work up the supervisory chain of insurance company clerks trained to just say no?

 The Republicans just said no, and the Democrats refused to do the right thing, but tough shit ladies, someone had to compromise. I don't think the elimination of Viagra prescriptions would have been a bad trade-off. No one ever died from erectile dysfunction, less women would get pregnant, they cost big money-lots of cost saving there. No more preposterous than suggesting since abortions don’t cost too much so women should just accept the fact they’ll have to pay for their own mistakes.

But those old geezers in Washington D.C. grabbed their balls and called that a "political stunt." People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. In my dictionary the definition of sex offender applies to quite a few public officials, especially if you use the term broadly.

 Just say no might work in politics, but it doesn't in real life. The roulette wheel spins on. What will happen when the dust clears? Big effing deal indeed.


Feb. 24th, 2010

What Will Happen To Health Care Reform?


What will happen to health care reform? Nothing, or a worsening of the situation unless the politics are left out and the Republicans stop using obstructionist tactics to derail this and just about every other initiative the President undertakes. 

 The Democrats aren’t blameless either. Their willingness to stoop to backroom dealmaking and concessions just to get a bill passed have resulted in the loss of two vital provisions: the public option and the threat of serious limitations on women’s reproductive services which, I maintain, creates another pre-existing condition the bill was envisioned to eliminate.

 Here’s what else can happen if people are forced to buy coverage from the very companies ripping us off now. Without a public option, if you lose your job and have a family to support, perhaps the only insurance you can buy will be on a private exchange. Even if you can't afford it, you’re required to buy coverage. How will you pay for that, as well as mortgage/rent, utilities and food?  If your spouse makes too much for you to qualify for Medicaid (or an exemption from the mandatory coverage) this is all too possible.

 And here is an example of the convoluted way reproductive health services would work: In the military, where men no doubt can obtain condoms, women can’t get emergency contraception. Most health plans will follow the Federal guidelines and likely exclude birth control abortion coverage unless you pay out of pocket. The argument: "It's a rather small expense." My argument: "Pay for your Viagra, penile pumps and other treatments for erectile dysfunction. If you can't afford it, not having sex won't kill you."

 Here's an editorial from The New York Times on this Issue:

 Respect for Women in Uniform

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/opinion/15mon3.html?scp=1&sq=emergency%20contraception%20military&st=Search

 How about respect for women in general? I'm sick of my body being divided into pieces deserving of care and parts that are "my responsibility" or "my irresponsibility" depending upon whose opinion is being voiced. It takes two to tango, as they say.

Meanwhile, yet another hospital here in NYC (St Vincent’s) is bankrupt due to bad debt and charity care and lowered insurance reimbursement. They just had a layoff and more are likely. If they close, surrounding institutions will have to absorb the volume-and that means longer waits, under staffing which endanger patient safety and affect infection control measures (more crowding, less cleaning).

 Lawyers are still advertising no fee unless we win, wasting money on frivolous cases, many of which have not merit but are settled to avoid costly litigation.

 I have a great insurance plan, and would likely have to give up some perks, like my health care spending account funded from pre-tax payroll deduction. But my optical benefits have already been reduced and I must go to one vision care provider. I must fill all prescriptions at certain pharmacies to get that benefit.

 We’re all going to have to give up something. But unless the health of the American people is put first, not ideology, politics and vengeance there will be no meaningful reform.

Without a viable public option, protection for women's health care services, and changes in the legal system reform is not going to reform anything.

 Finally, this is a very intelligent op-ed from The New York Times on how the GOP can fix health care.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22healthintro.html?th&emc=th

 It contains proposals for health care reform written by conservative Republicans. If they can write such reasonable suggestions why can't the House and Senate come to some consensus?  The answer: politics.


Jan. 19th, 2010

No Matter Who Wins, We All Lose

If Martha Coakley loses the Senate race in Massachusetts, health care reform is doomed, right?

Wrong.

Health care reform was doomed when politics and deal making became the goal, rather than health care reform. Why else would House and Senate Democrats "celebrate" the passage of a bill that discriminates against women and tramples their rights? And force people to buy health insurance from the very companies that are ripping us off already? And make deals to allow states to "opt out" when the American people can't. And eliminate the public option? And not address in any meaningful way tort reform and the liability insurance crisis which continues to drive costs higher.

 Was I wrong to trust the Democrats and President Obama to do the right thing regarding health care reform? And that they heed the advice of experts from almost every major health care professional organization. Appears so.

 Are the Democrats solely to blame? No, the obstructions put up by the Republicans have more to do with discrediting the Democrats in general, and the President in particular than anything else.

 Is this politics as usual?

 Yes, which is why most Americans are so disgusted with all our elected officials.

 I worked very hard with Organizing for America during the initial efforts. Back and forth communication was great, the updates timely, and I felt like I was part of something wonderful. All that changed after the House sneaked through a bill eliminating any possibility of abortion coverage for women. The sight of Nancy Pelosi beaming for the cameras celebrating the deal still sickens me.

Then the communication stopped. No acknowledgement. No explanation, no justification, no strategy. All I get now are requests for money. Senator Gillebrand has never responded to any of my communications. Neither has Congressman Ackerman. Senator Schumer was tripping over himself apologizing, but he still voted for the bill eliminating the public option.

 CREDO Action from Working Assets

 OFA invited me to a strategy session this weekend, but I can't face it. Politics is not my thing. I'm unsubscribing from OFA and am subscribed to Creedo Action, which is much more in line with my political views, and like me, not afraid to open their big mouth and complain.

 I hope this bill is defeated because it's bad for women, it's bad for health care in general, and it's bad for cities like New York who have always picked up the slack and offered coverage for those who fall through the cracks. I'm sad, but that's the way it is.

 And as for Martha Coakley, the Democrats need to see this as a warning. The American people are fed up with this process.

 But no matter who "wins", we all lose.

 


Dec. 20th, 2009

Kill This Health Care Reform Bill Now!

Well, the experts have spoken but no one listened.

To say I'm disappointed with the proposed health care reform bill is an understatement. Once again, number crunchers, lawyers and politicians (since most of them are lawyers it's double jeopardy) have hijacked true reform and crafted bill catering to special interests: conservative, power hungry males, the anti-abortion lobby, and big business in the form of commercial insurers.

The bill myself and other worked so hard to support has created being female as a pre-exisitng condition, requiring women to pay extra for a rider to include coverage for abortion services. Absolute, inexcusable discrimination.

And those who now have no insurance will be required to buy coverage from an exchange run by, guess who? The very same commercial insurance companies that have screwed us all in the past. If you can't afford to buy food and pay your rent and mortgage how are you going to buy insurance?

Back in the 1980s, insurance companies instituted draconian measures to rein in costs and created the myriad of reimbursement strategies including DRG's, precertifications, referrals, preferred provider organizations....The list goes on and on. In the 1990s the Federal government added a whole new layer of regulations to hold down Medicare costs.

Did it improve care? Hell, no! Anyone who has been in a hospital or emergency room knows that there aren't enough nurses or space, yet there are entire departments dedicated to billing, coding, and enforcement of CLIA, HIPPA and all the other mandates. Hospitals are going out of business because their reimbursement rates have been cut. Providers like myself have closed practices because the cost of doing business is higher than the money paid by insurance companies to provide care--and they pay less and less every year. Add to that the malpractice insurance debacle, which I'm not sure has even been addressed in this bill.

Do you trust these people to administer a new bill? Given the last minute, deal making sellouts by the House and Senate which hijacked the original intent of the bill, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL PEOPLE, and the betrayal of those of us who worked in good faith to support reform, I do not.

The Democratic Party gloats about winning but all they have won is a political game, likely to make the situation worse, especially for women and families. They ask us for money, phone calls, petitions, events, signatures, letters....then don't even address our concerns or provide a forum for us to voice our discontent.

Senator Gillebrand and Representative Ackerman have not responded to any of my emails or letters. Senator Schumer has, assuring me that he agrees--but he is still voting for this deeply flawed legislation.

Please, call your representatives and tell this to kill this bill and start over.

Op ed columnist Gail Collins has summarized this much better, and with much more humor than I:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/opinion/19collins.html?emc=eta1

Dec. 9th, 2009

The Experts Have Spoken. Will the Politicians Listen?

This letter was posted to the ACNM website and represents the joint efforts of a lot of organizations involved with women's health and women's rights:

December 1, 2009
Dear Senator:

The undersigned organizations committed to protecting and improving women's health appreciate efforts to advance health care reform that works towards improving access to quality, affordable and comprehensive health care for all Americans. To that end, we urge your support for Senator Mikulski's Women’s Health Amendment, which will help ensure that health care reform meets women's needs.

The Women's Health Amendment will ensure that women have access to key preventive services they need throughout their lives by strengthening the bill's existing protections. A May 2009 report by the Commonwealth Foundation found that nearly half of women delayed or avoided preventive care due to cost—a serious women's health issue that any health care reform plan must address.

While the current bill takes important steps toward improving access to preventive health care by making those recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) available with no or limited cost sharing, USPSTF recommendations do not fully account for the range of preventive services a woman’s doctor may recommend or that a woman may need. The Women's Health Amendment will allow HRSA to develop evidence-based guidelines to help bridge critical gaps in coverage and cost-sharing for preventive health services, the same approach the bill takes to address gaps in preventive services for children. This needed change is intended to make women's unique health care needs – from family planning and well-woman visits to breast cancer screening and preconception counseling that promotes healthier pregnancies and optimal birth outcomes-- more accessible and affordable for women.

As you consider health care reform legislation, we urge you to vote in favor of the Mikulski Women's Health Amendment that will help millions of women receive essential health care.

Sincerely,

National Women’s Law Center
Advocates for Youth
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
American Civil Liberties Union
American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM)
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
American College of Radiology (ACR)
American Medical Women’s Association
American Nurses Association (ANA)
American Psychological Association
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN)
Break the Cycle
Center for Reproductive Rights
Family Violence Prevention Fund
Jewish Women International
March of Dimes
Maryland Women's Coalition for Health Care Reform
Medical Students for Choice
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF)
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy
National Cervical Cancer Coalition (NCCC) - HPV Cancer Coalition
The National Coalition for LGBT Health
National Council of Jewish Women
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)
National Institute for Reproductive Health
National Latina Health Network
National Organization for Women (NOW)
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Women's Health Network
Ovarian Cancer National Alliance
OWL - The Voice of Midlife and Older Women
Physicians for Reproductive Choice & Health (PRCH)
Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need
Reproductive Health Technologies Project
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS)
YWCA USA


And this action alert was sent out by the APHA to it's members. They have been active in fighting the Stupak amendment, and the last word I heard was that the Nelson amendment was also defeated.

Senate debate began today on the Nelson Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which would significantly impact women who can't afford to purchase separate supplemental coverage for abortion services.
Please take the time to send this message to your Senators today urging that they vote NO when the Senate votes on the Nelson Amendment.
Thank you,
APHA Government Relations


I still don't see how it's fair to ask women to pay extra for premiums in the event they need or want and abortion, when men don't have to pay extra premiums in the event they need treatments for erectile dysfunction. Then again, I've never been (and never will be) a politician.

Please contact your Senators and voice your opinion-whatever it is.

Nov. 29th, 2009

fifth position

The Dance Class

This essay, published in This Path in October, is not really about dancing or surfing. It's about life and the twists and turns it takes. I was moving along fine, until a routine mammogram turned up a "new finding." I've blogged about this before in greater detail, but the point is you never know when your turn will come to face serious illness. Which is why I've been so incensed about the US Preventative Services Task Force recomendations to delay the age of onset of screening and to decrease the intervals between screenings. If I'd had cancer, I'd have been dead if those recommendations were followed. I know a lot of women who didn't get good news like I did. I still need to go for imaging every six months--that will be January--and I'm not looking forward to it. But the alternative--finding out I waited too long and the consequences are worse.

If anyone would like an autographed copy of This Path please contact me at carole@caroleannmoleti.com

To read an excerpt of "Endless Possibilities", published in the same anthology, hop over to my other blog http://caroleannmoleti.livejournal.com/24658.html



The Dance ClassCollapse )

Nov. 20th, 2009

What Should Women Do When The Government Has Betrayed Them?

It's been a bad couple of weeks for women's health. It seems that bureaucrats and politicians, mostly male, have decided that one way to cut costs is cut or limit access to services: even legal ones that experts (not researchers) know are justified and save women's lives.

First, the Stupak amendment attached to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, would prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion under the proposed new public option health plan. Now, the United States Preventative Health Services Task Force has come to the conclusion that screening mammograms are not needed until a woman turns 50 because more woman between 40-49 face the risk of a false positives than breast cancer. And that women over fifty should be screened every two years instead of every year.

To add a further layer of confusion, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists just issued a recommendation which supports changes in screening for cervical cancer, delaying the onset of screening for young women and decreasing the interval between screenings in older women.

The major difference between the ACOG Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and the US Preventative Services Task Force mammography report is the way the conclusions were arrived at. The Task Force did data analysis, "number crunching," including data from other countries which may or may not be applicable to United States women given regional exposure, genetic, and other influences.

ACOG develops all its recommendations by expert consensus panels made up of practicing physicians who interpret study data on pathology, occurrence, recurrence, treatment options, outcomes, and risk factors. The consensus approach holds more weight to me, since those doing the work, facing individual patients and diagnostic and treatment dilemmas consider more than just impersonal statistical data.

The American Cancer Society and many specialists in breast disease disagree with the Task Force guidelines for mammography. And as a woman who has had a false positive finding and the endured the emotional roller coaster of the diagnostic process, I disagree also. The chances of me being cured when my lump was less than one centimeter and only visible on a mammogram were much higher than if it was big enough for me to feel. Ten years would have elapsed before my mammogram, and I would have been dead if it had been cancer. But I might not even have felt it because the same erudite panel has determined that clinical breast exams and teaching women breast exams don't do any good. Even thought they are simple to perform, are a standard part of any routine physical and cost nothing when the woman does it herself.

Why not recommend we not do PSA tests and digital rectal prostate screenings, and that men shouldn't examine themselves, because it's uncomfortable and there are false positives? Is that any more ridiculous than not doing mammograms when there is an excellent chance of cure if a small lesion is found? There are no other weapons in the arsenal yet, so some scatter is inevitable. But we occasionally hit the bullseye and find something. And save someone's life. That life might be yours, your mother's, your sister's, your aunt's or your friend's.

The ACOG cervical cancer screening guidelines conform to those issued three years ago by the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) and are not a major change from what is already being practiced. We now know the human papilloma virus infection causes cervical cancer, and the natural history of the disease has been studied for many years.

Since vaccination for HPV commenced, rates of infection with HPV are expected to drop in immunized children and adolescents, further decreasing the risk of cervical cancer. Better technology in Pap smear screening using liquid based cytology is much more accurate that traditional fixed slide specimens.

This is how evidence based medicine is supposed to work. Consensus panels by qualified professionals in clinical practice utilizing good, sound scientific research are a safeguard that changes in practice which cut costs do not harm patients.

Of course, limitations on abortion and family planning services are purely politically motivated. The vast majority of health professionals believe that reproductive health decisions are personal, an individual right, and should not be subject of political debate. If you don't believe in abortion, you don't have to have one or perform one.

I will get my mammograms every year, and I will recommend my patients do so. If they feel comfortable waiting, it should be their choice, based on individual risk factors, family history and personal preference.

I work with a population of women who remain at high risk for HPV infection and will continue with yearly screening for the vast majority of women over 21, and a large proportion of those younger, some of whom initiate sexual activity as young as 12 or 13 years of age, and who are vaccinated late or not at all against HPV.

If this is the kind of political, sexist decision making that will be hallmarks of the public option, we really don't need it. There are already enough number crunchers, politicians, religious groups, insurance companies and lawyers interfering with medical professionals' ability to care for patients. We don't need more "help" from people who don't know what they're talking about or are only looking at the bottom line.

Insurance companies often follow Federal guidelines so you might not have a choice to have an abortion, a mammogram, or a Pap smear unless you pay for it out of pocket if this bill passes. What's next? Birth control?

So what should women do? Call your senators and let them know exactly how you feel about a health care reform bill that could make being female a pre-existing condition. Demand that any bill contain safeguards such as consensus panels of qualified medical professionals to make decisions about what tests and procedures should and should not be covered,

Nov. 14th, 2009

The Silence is Deafening

My joy that the health care reform bill passed in the House last week was short lived. I didn't believe it when a friend informed me that the bill included a provision precluding use of Federal funds for abortion in the public option. But soon after, the news broke-- all too quietly. The New York Times has published editorials and op-ed all week condemning this as unacceptable, but I have seen or heard little else in the media and from big lobbying groups which I support with my member dues.

The silence on the part of the Obama administration on the matter, particularly in view of the previous flurry of daily correspondence is also troubling. As is the reaction several usually well informed and progressive male colleagues and friends have shared: It was the only way to get the bill passed. They'll fix it later."

The biggest shock was a (male) associate's comment: "An abortion only costs a couple hundred dollars so women can just pay out of pocket."
WTF!!!??? Like women who are availing themselves of the public option have that kind of money? Drugs to treat erectile dysfunction don't cost too much so how about you guys pay out of pocket for that, your penile pumps and the like?

Ouch. Like a kick in the balls, right? Yeah, and you deserve it, buddy. Line up, girls!

To exclude a legal medical procedure that half the population could need at some time or another amounts to the biggest pre-existing condition exclusion imaginable: Being female.

I'm calling my Senators, for sure. And telling them to pull their support for the health care reform bill unless this travesty is reversed. This is not a bill about abortion, it's about health care for everyone in the United States.

I feel grossly betrayed by the Obama camp, having spent countless hours and considerable effort on the reform effort, only to hear NOTHING about how this is going to be addressed. And until I do, all my efforts will be devoted to fighting the bill. No reform is better than this. Lousy care should prevail for all people if it means that only men are going to get the benefit of a new system.

To my colleagues in the American Public Health Association and the American College of Nurse-Midwives: Where the hell are you? Cat got your tongue all of a sudden?

This feels like it could be a new chapter in Margaret Atwood"s The Handmaid's Tale.

Sisters, listen to me good. Many of you are too young to remember the days when women died or were maimed for life from back alley, green soap, and coat hanger abortions. Or were forced to have more babies than their bodies, hearts and minds could handle.But it happened. I saw it, plenty of times. Do not take the rights guaranteed and upheld by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade for granted. This is the kind of paternalistic, sexist decision making seen in Third World and Middle Eastern countries and it has no place in the United States.

Yell, scream, protest. Kick as many balls as you have to. Wearing stilettos. Wearing combat boots.Wearing whatever you like. Women are in the majority and we vote. Unless they decide to revoke that right, too.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/opinion/12michelman.html

Nov. 7th, 2009

Today ist he Day! Call Your Representative NOW!


The House Republicans just released their version of health reform. It's a disaster -- so outrageous that Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has dubbed it the "Health Insurance Company Protection Act" -- but Republicans are arguing it's the key to real reform.


FACT: The Republican Health Care plan would barely make a dent in most of our premiums, and could lead to higher premiums for older Americans.

 

FACT: The New York Times reports the GOP plan doesn't stop insurers from refusing to cover you because of a pre-existing condition.

 

FACT: The GOP plan would cut the deficit by just $68 billion over the next ten years-the Democratic plan by $104 billion over the same period.

 

FACT: The CBO also estimates that under the Republican bill the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 52 million by 2019.

 

FACT: Politico: the Republican plan doesn't keep insurers from dropping you when you're sick, but they must let you know you're being dropped.

 

FACT: TODAY'S THE DAY! CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. IT JUST TAKES A FEW MINUTES. http://my.barackobama.com/HouseVote

Oct. 21st, 2009

Four Excepts of My Memoir Have Been Published


Carole Ann Moleti, midwife, family nurse practitioner, and lifelong New Yorker, has chronicled her career as a public health professional in some of the most dangerous and medically underserved areas in New York City.

  

Excerpts of her memoir Someday I'm Going to Write a Book: Diary of an Urban Missionary, including the Oasis Journal 2009 contest winner for Best Nonfiction "Everything Must Go," have been published in Oasis Journal, This Path, and Thanksgiving to Christmas: A Patchwork of Stories, and Noneuclidean Cafe.

 

Carole's writing packs an emotional punch, tinged with New York humor to temper the often troubling real-life dramas she has been a part of during her thirty-year career.

 

Nancy Wall, author of The Swiftness of Crows: Poems of Two Continents, says of Carole's work:

 

"... excellent use of detail paints a remarkable picture of character, place, and time."

 

An active promoter of health care reform, Carole has been quoted on President Obama's website. She writes both fiction and nonfiction which focuses on political and women's issues.

 

Join Carole at any of her scheduled readings and appearances, check out the links on her website, or follow her on Twitter or Facebook.

 

http://caroleannmoleti.com

 

http://twitter.com/CMoleti

facebook.com/cmoleti.

 

  

"'Tis the Season"  In Thanksgiving to Christmas: A Patchwork of Stories, edited by Dixon Hearne, AWOC.com, August 2009.

 

Hysterical musings on the influence of the shopping goddess.

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Thanksgiving-To-Christmas/Dixon-Hearne/e/9780937660584/?itm=2

 

 

In This Path,  edited by Greene, Haigler, Reilly-Bishop and Rollins, Silver Boomer Books, October 2009.

 

"The Dance Class"

 

It's what you don't see coming that knocks you off your feet.

 

"Endless Possibilities"

 

Looking deep inside, and a good kick in the ass, can help when the realities of life bury passion and commitment. 

 

www.amazon.com/This-Path-Ginny-Greene/dp/0980212049/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256174384&sr=1-2http://

 

 

"Everything Must Go." In Oasis Journal 2009, Imago Press, October 2009.

 

This winner of the Best Nonfiction Prize examines the birth and death of innocence, and the enduring effect of families in our lives.

 

http://www.amazon.com/OASIS-Journal-2009-Leila-Joiner/dp/1935437089/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256174308&sr=1-2

 

Also by Carole Ann Moleti:

 

"On the High Seas" in Oasis Journal 2008, edited by Leila Joyner, Imago Press, October 2008.

 

What became of seven Cuban rafters rescued by a luxury cruise ship off the coast of Cozumel?

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/OASIS-Journal-2008/Leila-Joiner/e/9780979934186/?itm=1&usri=1

 

 

 

Also by Carole Ann MoletiCollapse )

 


 

Previous 10

March 2010

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com