The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Not At My Table - Political Discussions => National & International Politics => Topic started by: zstyles on April 09, 2008, 02:34:16 PM

Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 09, 2008, 02:34:16 PM
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A state House committee has refused to hear legislation that would require insurers to cover the diagnosis and treatment of autism.

But the parents of autistic children are vowing to fight on.

The legislation known as Nick's Law has been passed by the Senate and was assigned to the House Economic Development and Financial Services Committee.

The measure is named for 10-year-old Nick Rohde of Edmond who suffers from autism. His mother, Robyne Rohde, says she and other parents will continue to pursue the bill.

Sen. Jay Paul Gumm of Durant says he has filed an amendment to incorporate Nick's Law into legislation pending in the Senate. But committee chairman Rep. Ron Peterson of Broken Arrow refused to give it a hearing Wednesday.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 09, 2008, 02:47:14 PM
What is the current law?  If you have health insurance do they drop you if your child is autistic or are they requiring new policies to include it?  If so, on what payment terms?

IMHO:
If you already insurance that is a risk the company assumed.  If you do not have insurance, legislation dictating losses to insurance companies seems out of place.  Seems care of such special needs might well be a proper purpose of the state.

I don't know enough about the issue, so I'm curious what the status quo is.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 10, 2008, 08:50:54 AM
Currently insurance companies will not cover therapy, speech and occupational for kids on the spectrum, they just don't because this has "never really" been an issue until recently. Now 1 out of 100 kids are being born with Autism and no one has answers and more and more parents are voicing their concern, its a national issue right now. Some are blaming the vaccine's that our kids are now getting which have changed over the last few years to give more and more to younger and younger kids at once which some parents say is causing this. There have been links to the preservative in the vaccines etc and more...but that isn't what this is about...if you search youtube, google etc you will find pages of info on the subject..

This is about having big insurance companies recognize this as a disease which can be treated but right now its being paid out of pocket no matter who you are or who your insurance company is because in Oklahoma they don't have to cover it. Arizona just passed a law that mandates that this be covered...this isn't some piddly law about new roads etc..this is about our kids and its a shame our lawmakers can't see this...
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: RecycleMichael on April 10, 2008, 09:02:11 AM
I thought it was interesting of the Tulsa World to put two stories on the front page today both dealing with the legislature.

The first one was a politician saying that a bill would unfairly raise insurance rates and the second one was requiring an ultrasound before performing an abortion.

Doesn't the second one costs insurance companies, too?

I agree with you zstyles. I can't believe that the committee chair wouldn't allow any of the citizens to even speak on the bill. It doesn't seem right.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 10, 2008, 09:18:37 AM
Great points...

Here is the link to the story today:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080410_238_A1_hBack27460

6 Million Annually is what he says it will cost the state? Seems like a drop in the bucket compared to what it will cost when they grow up and need even more help....plus how much are parents paying out of pocket that isn't being spent on other things in Oklahoma...myself..I am spending about 3,000+ a year....
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: hoodlum on April 10, 2008, 09:32:18 AM
I thought it was interesting that one had people wanting to legislate protection for unborn children and one had people ignoring legislation for helping those children already born, and that the kicker was that they were the same people.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: inteller on April 10, 2008, 09:36:19 AM
we need to find out the root causes of autism before sending insurance companies on a wild goose chase to treat it.  I'm all for their cause and I understand their frustration.

Maybe pass a funding bill for autism research.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 10, 2008, 09:45:02 AM
I tried to cure my ignorance last night, I learned:

1) 1 in 150 children are diagnosed with Autism or a related disease (like Asbergers).

2) The diagnosis has varying degrees from minor impact (most people would might notice the kid is strange, but little more [most kids imho :) ] - the most common diagnosis) to severe ("classic Autism" think RainMan)

3) The common perception that the rate has radically increased is medically viewed as wrong:

quote:
Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of the Child Study Center at Yale University School of Medicine, said, "It appears that the rates are unchanged over the past 20 years or so, but it is important to track these numbers."


quote:
The rise in the number of autism cases is not evidence of an epidemic, but shows that schools are diagnosing autism more frequently, researchers said Monday.


The methods of diagnosis, more knowledge with parents and a higher rate of evaluations and the recognition of "mild" forms of autism are generally held to account for the dramatic increase in diagnosed cases.   I can not say there is not a rise, just that those more in the know than I seem to think otherwise.

4) There is no proven link between a vaccine and Autism.  There have been studies on the matter and all have concluded that there is no causation effect shown.  The vaccines are given around the age of three, the same time Autism is usually diagnosed - hence the common perception.

The CDC concludes:
quote:
Carefully performed scientific studies have found no relationship between MMR vaccine and autism.


Similar studies were done in Canada, Sweden, and by private foundations and no link has ever been shown.
http://www.askquestions.org/details.php?id=6083&gclid=CK6yufTc0JICFQwUiQodKVFFBQ
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/mmr_autism_factsheet.htm


Anyway, I knew little about it - so I figured I would share my newfound knowledge.  Helpful links/articles:

http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_home

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/health/09autism.html

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/04/03/autism-children-rate-20060403.html
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 10, 2008, 03:00:23 PM
Before we get too off topic:Yes..this isn't for a treatment of the autism..this bill if for THERAPY treatment..speech and OT...you can't cure it and no one is asking for a medical treatment..this bill is simply asking for them to cover the small things that will help them live better lives...

Also I thought this was interesting..

OKLAHOMA CITY - House Democrats walked out of the chamber Thursday morning, angry about their treatment in committee meetings where they have not been allowed to ask questions.

The protest follows Wednesday's refusal by Rep. Ron Peterson, R-Broken Arrow, to allow Democratic members to question why Peterson's committee would not allow parents to speak in a public meeting on an amendment to extend insurance coverage to children with autism.

A week ago, Cherokee Chief Chad Smith also was not allowed to speak in a committee meeting where an "English-only" bill was being discussed.

Rep. Chuck Hoskin, head of the House Democratic caucus, said it was bad enough that members of the public were not allowed to speak, but elected representatives also are being denied the right to ask questions in committee and on the floor.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 10, 2008, 03:02:11 PM
cannon_fodder - Also I applaud your research into this..but again..this legislation isn't about curing it...it is about treating and helping these kids who need it with therapy...basic stuff that insurance currently denies..
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 10, 2008, 03:08:38 PM
I understand z.  I just didn't know much about the prevalence of Autism nor what diagnosis counted as "autistic."  I immediately thought of Rainman and savants - but clear with 1/150 such severity is not the norm.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: inteller on April 10, 2008, 03:14:08 PM
you also have to take into account misdiagnoses and also the fact that documented diagnosis en masse has only occured in the last few decades.  Before they would just say your kid was retarded.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: rwarn17588 on April 10, 2008, 04:25:49 PM
I think this is a case where the legislature is being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

If an autistic kid gets proper therapy and treatment, he or she stands a much better chance of becoming a productive adult, thus holding down a job and becoming a taxpayer like the rest of us. Stuff like that will pay much more dividends than a kid who's a semi-invalid for the rest of his life.

It's kind of like states that are reluctant to fund college education for its citizens (who, say, maintain a C or higher grade). A person with a college education will earn a lot more money and thus pay more taxes than someone who bails on college. The initial outlay of taxes for college education will result in a lot more money back into public coffers later on.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: iplaw on April 10, 2008, 04:59:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I understand z.  I just didn't know much about the prevalence of Autism nor what diagnosis counted as "autistic."  I immediately thought of Rainman and savants - but clear with 1/150 such severity is not the norm.



You are correct.  My wife teaches special ed and I was talking with her about this earlier today.  The covering for "autism" is probably the largest umbrella of all disabilities.

The biggest problem with autism is that there is no cure, no definitive treatment for the condition.  In fact, most children seem to benefit from homeopathic treatments (i.e. gluten free/casien free diets) rather than medicines.

Covering the condition under insurance is difficult because diagnosis is complicated and provided you have a diagnosis, treatment is speculative.

I would definitely argue that early intervention (Sooner Care), OT, PT, and other therapies provided by the state may be of greater benefit.

This seems to mirror the problems with Morgellon's disease, in that doctors can't seem to agree on how, or if it should be treated with medicine.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 14, 2008, 04:44:08 PM
Supporters of a proposal to require insurance companies to cover costs related to autism were denied an opportunity to speak during a state House committee meeting Wednesday as the measure died in a procedural move.

http://newsok.com/article/3227950/1207806161

By not allowing the proposal to be heard, Peterson and other members of his committee who were opposed to the measure could not be listed as having voted against it.

Peterson said after the meeting he had talked several times with supporters of Nick's Law and didn't need to hear their comments again.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 15, 2008, 08:18:10 AM
This is the third measure I have heard of recently denying someone a chance to speak... what gives?
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 16, 2008, 08:45:38 AM
Autism : Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, DDurant, was successful in amending House Bill 2531 to have insurance companies cover autism.

Dubbed "Nick's Law," the measure had failed to get a hearing in the House.

Gumm believes, though, that the benefits would outweigh the costs and that any costs would be negligible.

Sen. Bill Brown, R-Broken Arrow, said insurance companies would pass the costs on to consumers.

(Also on a side note the guy opposing it is in the insurance business)

Occupation: Insurance
Education: Northeasten State University, Education, Education degree
Legislative Experience: Senate Member, 2006 - present
Hometown: Broken Arrow, OK

brownb@oksenate.gov
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 21, 2008, 01:21:19 PM
From the Norman Transcript..

"On a more somber note, he said the proposal to force insurance companies to cover costs associated with autism was handled badly. The chairman of the committee hearing the matter avoided taking public comments from parents who waited hours to speak.

"It deserved an up or down vote. It didn't get its day in court. It wasn't debated on its merits," he said. "I thought that was a low point in our legislative system."
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: mrhaskellok on April 21, 2008, 11:22:23 PM

Why in the world should Uncle Sam tell any insurance agency they have to accept any patient or be forced to treat any specific disease?  I choose my insurance plans based on what services they provide.  If the risk outweighs the payout, why do we want to force them to take on the responsibility?  Are we not simply giving them the lucky pot of gold?  If they "do what they are told" from the government, wont they simply ask for handouts (i.e. "free" taxpayer $$$) later?  

I mean, that is like forcing your insurance company to insure your house in a flood plain, only to watch it get flooded along with all the other houses and then Uncle Sam gets 1) Blamed for the house being there  2) blamed for the flood itself  and 3) forced to foot the bill anyway.  Wait, that sounds familiar.  Hmmm

I have a huge heart for anyone stricken with diseases, but if their parents truly need help financially, then aren't there welfare systems in place for those kids?  

I accept the fact that I may be looking at this all wrong but I believe that we are simply going to disagree right down the line of "I believe in Universal Health care" and "I don't".  those that believe in UH believe that we all should share the costs of everyones health problems.  Forcing an insurance company to pay for anything is simply forcing them to charge me for a risk(expenditure) that according to them was not worth the extra business(revenue).  

Last I checked the constitution didn't mention the government is in the insurance business.  Do we need Uncle Sam to tell Target to carry XXXL clothes too because someone may need that size undies?  Come on, THANKFULLY, we live in a country that still (barely) comprehends the fact that the vast majority of society benefits by simply letting supply and demand work. If you doubt the merit to the system, either travel internationally abroad more or let me tell you a story or too about how other nations work and why they never have and never will be super powers.  


Its all really about where the dollars are going to come from, but with this bill, the parents of autistic kids simply want you to pay for their child's care.

It is very important to note this one simple thing...if the insurance company WANTS to (makes good business sense) cover treatment of autism, I have no problem with it.  I choose my company based on price and services.  Jack with that equilibrium and both suffer.

(If you are wondering where all this "hate speech" is coming from don't worry, I get to blame it all on my traumatic times in Iraq, so there.)  [:D][:D][:D]
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: mrhaskellok on April 21, 2008, 11:25:07 PM
To clarify also, there is a market for autistic treatment and those parents should ban together, run some numbers and petition about 1000 insurance companies and I bet, I just bet they might luck out.  Once a company sees $$$ (large group of parents willing to pay premiums) someone is going to budge.  Just don't use my tax dollars to make it happen.  Use your "back and brains" as my grandpa used to say.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 22, 2008, 04:57:37 PM
Well that is very narrow minded of you. ...I guess saving "6 million" a year would make or break an insurance company...I am full fledged republican..and don't agree in taxing anyone..but this is NOT a tax..is something that 19 other states have agreed SHOULD be done and is for the children....
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: Breadburner on April 22, 2008, 06:05:24 PM
I don't know why an insurance company should be forced to cover a pre-existing condition.....
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 23, 2008, 09:29:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles

Well that is very narrow minded of you. ...I guess saving "6 million" a year would make or break an insurance company...I am full fledged republican..and don't agree in taxing anyone..but this is NOT a tax..is something that 19 other states have agreed SHOULD be done and is for the children....



I disagree.

By forcing coverage without additional cost, they are passing that cost on to all other people on the insurance.  When done by government dictate, that is basically a tax.

If the State thinks this is care that needs to be tendered, then the State should pay for it.  Not force other people to pay for it.

Unless, as I have mention previously, it is a situation of bad faith in which the insurance companies are dropping people with autistic children and/or burying language in that regard in the policies.  Then right the wrong.

I understand people with autistic children need more help, but I'm not sure it is the proper place for the government to dictate what companies have to render that help.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: mrhaskellok on April 23, 2008, 11:06:23 AM
Yeah, I agree with CF...if there they are simply being criminal with their policies, then by all means, go get em!  

And don't end your sentence with, "its for the children".  No where in the Constitution does it say that if its for the "children" its ok, otherwise "these rules apply".   I think children are great, have one and one on the way, but I believe that if this great experiment is to work called America, then we have to learn to live by certain rules, rules tested by time to be more beneficial over the long term and impact lives more positively of the course of history.

Having seen what can happen in other nations when the government gets involved managing corporations, you get corporatism.  Then you are only one step away from a few very bad forms of government.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 24, 2008, 12:48:23 PM
So someone is born with this...its pre-exisiting? That makes no sense...

Insurance companies will cover the treatments as long as it isn't classified as AUTISM because so little is known about this...but 1 out of 150 kids is now being diagnosed with this...there are hundreds and thousands of kids who are going without treatment which when they get older will come back around...I can see though that most people on this forum either don't have kids or have no need to discuss this or give it a real compssionate thought...very narrow minded...

"Hey it doesn't affect me so I say screw you"...

The WHOLE POINT of this thread was not weather insurance should or should not cover it..but why the republican's refused to even HEAR the bill and turned away parents, refuses still to take phone calls..and refuses to see people or make appointments on the issue....
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: Breadburner on April 24, 2008, 12:57:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles

So someone is born with this...its pre-exisiting? That makes no sense...

Insurance companies will cover the treatments as long as it isn't classified as AUTISM because so little is known about this...but 1 out of 150 kids is now being diagnosed with this...there are hundreds and thousands of kids who are going without treatment which when they get older will come back around...I can see though that most people on this forum either don't have kids or have no need to discuss this or give it a real compssionate thought...very narrow minded...

"Hey it doesn't affect me so I say screw you"...

The WHOLE POINT of this thread was not weather insurance should or should not cover it..but why the republican's refused to even HEAR the bill and turned away parents, refuses still to take phone calls..and refuses to see people or make appointments on the issue....



So now we make to the nut cuttin...This is a partisan issue and a shot at Repulicans....Not to mention the fact I think your numbers are off 1 in 150 I doubt it.....Was it not 1 in 100 earlier...
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 24, 2008, 02:21:53 PM
1/150 is the number I have found.

I have children.  I gave the issue serious thought.  I am not a Republican.  And I have concluded that based on the information I have I think it is inappropriate to force private companies to pay for medical treatment, as outlined above.

And, while I think people should be heard, I understand that the legislature can not hear everyone with a voice on the issue.  I can not say if it was or was not appropriate in this instance, but if that is the basis of your complaint I am not too very concerned.  

Though I am concerned that it appears to be a recent habit of the Oklahoma legislature.  And refusing to make appointments and phone calls only aggravates the issue.  BUT, perhaps he has made up his mind and a meeting would be a PC waste of his, your, and tax payer time.  Not an excuse, but perhaps a cold reason.

If my conclusion makes me uncompassionate, unwilling to give it thought, and narrow minded in your view, then so be it.  I did research on the issue, asked several questions, read various articles, reviewed other opinions here, and came to my conclusion.  IMHO, that is the definition of giving it thought.

Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: Gaspar on April 24, 2008, 03:32:41 PM
I don't see what the problem is.  If you have a child with autism you disclose it to your insurance company.  Your insurance company can either refuse to cover that condition or raise your rates to account for the additional risk exposure.  

If your insurance company refuses to cover the condition, you just go get another insurance carrier. . .

OOOh wait!  That's the way it used to work, before people felt entitled to free/cheap healthcare coverage.  Now that we have one foot into government regulated health care, we look to government to make these decisions.  I see now.  It makes so much more sense.

Wait until we have full-blown gub-care  and they refuse to pay for chest X-rays unless you are over age 52 (recently adopted by one of our local "almost government" insurance carriers).

We demanded that our employers take control of our health insurance buying decisions.  We demanded that the government help to regulate our insurance carriers.  Now we are demanding that the government take over all of  our healthcare decisions.  

We no longer have any right to B!tch.

I feel for families that have to suffer under this system.  Why do we insist on making it worse?


Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 24, 2008, 05:33:05 PM
Actually no..I am a registered republican..vote GWB last election..sorry if I am just going by memory on those ..I do believe it was 1 in 150..sorry if I made my case weaker..I can go back to 1 in 100 if you like lol!
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on April 24, 2008, 10:23:59 PM
http://youtube.com/user/brentleach2k3

This might be a good place to check out..
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: tim huntzinger on April 25, 2008, 07:37:10 AM
Autism is a medical condition of the brain and should be afforded parity for appropriate treatments.  We need to stop the anti-brain bigotry and get on board this.  Insurance companies are able to have it both ways: they get to soak us on the premiums and pass on costs for therapies for neurological illnesses on to the taxpayer.

HST [having said that] I am unsure what medical treatments are available for autism outside of psychotropics, whose costs would pale compared to psychosocial approaches.  Far cheaper to prevent the condition if possible, but as a matter of fairness and justice autism should be covered by insurance companies.  This will help develop the most cost-effective approach that achieves results.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on May 08, 2008, 08:41:49 AM
Jack Kanjian loves dinosaurs. He's writing a book about his favorites on colored construction paper, illustrated with crayons. When he grows up, Jack wants to run a prehistoric zoo โ€” with real dinosaurs, not just replicas โ€” and start a TV station dedicated to the creatures.

He plays the piano, pee-wee basketball and rides horses competitively. A few weeks ago he went skiing in Aspen.

Jack has autism.

You'd never know it meeting him. He seems like any precocious 9-year-old, an honor student in the third-grade gifted program.

The reason for Jack's success: his parents, Palm Beach County Commissioner Bob Kanjian and his wife, Anne, who had the money to put him through rigorous therapy sessions called applied behavioral analysis during the crucial early years, after Jack was diagnosed with autism at 2 years old.

The treatments ran about $45,000 a year, Kanjian said, and weren't covered by insurance.

Kanjian is using his clout as a county commissioner to advocate that the same coverage be available to everyone with insurance. He wants Florida legislators to mandate that private insurance companies cover autism, a battle that's being waged in a growing number of states across the country.

When his son was diagnosed with the brain disorder, Kanjian recalled meeting a school custodian whose child also had autism. Their incomes determined the level of care each child got, he said.

"The difference between his job and my job shouldn't be the difference between whether his kids make it or not," said Kanjian, a Republican appointed to his commission seat in August by Gov. Charlie Crist. "We're a society that's better than that."

Kanjian added autism insurance to Palm Beach County's legislative priority list, which means the county's legislative staff and $370,000 private lobbying team will push the issue in the spring session.

It's an uphill battle. Insurance companies across the country have opposed such efforts, arguing that as additional coverages are mandated, premiums for all policyholders rise.

But in Tallahassee, the effort has a powerful ally in Senate Democrat Steve Geller of Cooper City. Geller has been trying get autism insurance mandated for years, but he sees more opportunity this spring. It's his final session in a long legislative career.

"I feel really, really strongly about this issue," he said. "I'm going to see if I can persuade some people who might not otherwise vote for it. This is my going-away present."

Geller said he'll likely go for a $10,000 or $12,000 yearly coverage limit for autism treatments โ€” less than what advocates want, but "a lot better than nothing," he said.

Autism is a brain-development disorder that impedes normal social and communication skills. There's a broad spectrum of autism patients. In severe cases or without early treatment, autistic children spend their adult lives institutionalized.

There is no cure, and researchers are unsure what causes autism, although it is believed to be an inherited disorder.

Jack has a moderate case. Like many kids with autism, he didn't respond to his name as a toddler, struggled to communicate and fixated on inanimate objects. He'd stare at ceiling fans and roll his toy trucks back and forth for hours, watching the wheels.

Once his parents got the autism diagnosis, the Kanjians took immediate action. They put him in the exhaustive one-on-one therapy sessions, running about 40 hours a week. He started achieving real breakthroughs when his 7-year-old sister, Hannah, started to talk. Suddenly, he had a model for how to communicate and to interact.

Jack's made such progress, his parents don't even tell his sports team coaches that he has autism.

But such treatments are out of reach even for most upper-middle class families. Many take out second mortgages to pay for the treatments and end up in debt and divorce, according to autism advocates.

Seventeen states mandate some level of autism coverage, although New York-based Autism Speaks, an advocacy organization, says only four states offer adequate benefits. South Carolina has the most comprehensive plan with a yearly coverage limit of $50,000 for autism treatment, said Elizabeth Emken, the group's vice president of government relations.

"It's an issue that's time has come, frankly," she said. "Nobody's really debating that these kids need this. The argument is who should pay for it?"

Kanjian, a former Palm Beach county School Board member, said he views autism insurance as a good business decision. Kids with autism in special-needs schools cost the school district about $23,000 a year, triple an average student. And having autism patients institutionalized as adults can cost the state millions later in life, he said.

"You're going to save their lives," he said. "But second, what a great investment."

Anne Kanjian, watching her son flip through his dinosaur book, added: "He's going to grow up and go to college and maybe find the cure for autism."
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: guido911 on May 08, 2008, 08:54:10 AM
^ Good story zstyles. I have a history with a previously undiagnosed autistic 2 year old that my family was providing care to several years back. I like to think that thanks to our efforts, which included in large measure getting this child the treatment/therapy he needed, we made a huge difference in his life. I would like to think that this child, who is probably in elementary school, has a real chance at a "normal" life. Treatment and therapy works, I witnessed it first hand.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 08, 2008, 10:18:15 AM
I understand their are severe problems and costs associated with autism.  I understand that with help autistic children can adjust.

But at a 1/150 rate occurrence, and 75,000,000 million children in the United States; that is 500,000 kids that need treatment.  At $15,000 mandated coverage for each - the government is dictating private companies spend $7,500,000,000.00 to cover them on a national level.  

If it is more economical for the State to have children that have undergone treatment and better for our society as a whole, then why aren't we the taxpayers doing more?  Why force those of us who have to pay for our insurance to pay MORE so the State can save money and 1% of the population can have their child's condition covered?

I don't mean to sound selfish here, it's mandates like this that make health insurance so expensive.  In Oklahoma it is already expensive, a dictation for extending coverage that is not very rare while being expensive will only increase that cost more.  If the State thinks this is something that should be done, then the State should facilitate the duty - not dictate it upon someone else.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: guido911 on May 08, 2008, 11:48:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I understand their are severe problems and costs associated with autism.  I understand that with help autistic children can adjust.

But at a 1/150 rate occurrence, and 75,000,000 million children in the United States; that is 500,000 kids that need treatment.  At $15,000 mandated coverage for each - the government is dictating private companies spend $7,500,000,000.00 to cover them on a national level.  

If it is more economical for the State to have children that have undergone treatment and better for our society as a whole, then why aren't we the taxpayers doing more?  Why force those of us who have to pay for our insurance to pay MORE so the State can save money and 1% of the population can have their child's condition covered?

I don't mean to sound selfish here, it's mandates like this that make health insurance so expensive.  In Oklahoma it is already expensive, a dictation for extending coverage that is not very rare while being expensive will only increase that cost more.  If the State thinks this is something that should be done, then the State should facilitate the duty - not dictate it upon someone else.



When it comes to children, who cannot work to pay for treatment, who by themselves cannot get health insurance, and who by themselves cannot even get medical treatment, solutions must be found despite the economic realities. To this extent, I agree with the principles of those pushing Nick's law and Huntzinger's point.
As for selfishness CF, I have no problem confessing that when it comes to health of our children, I am VERY selfish for the very reasons I just stated. I am also, gulp, very liberal when it comes to the health of our children and government's role, if not responsibility, in this issue.

Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 08, 2008, 12:06:44 PM
As I said Guido, if it is a proper roll that society should adhere to and, as indicated, we would all come out ahead... then so be it.  But government should do it, not pass the buck.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: guido911 on May 08, 2008, 03:12:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

As I said Guido, if it is a proper roll that society should adhere to and, as indicated, we would all come out ahead... then so be it.  But government should do it, not pass the buck.



All I want is consistency. Just a few weeks ago our legislature passed a law mandating that day cares carry minimun amounts of liability insurance and efforts (I think are still underway) to mandate that nursing homes carry minimum liability insurance. I see no difference between that exercise of government power on the private sector and requiring health care insurers, if they want to do business in this state, to provide insurance to cover the costs for autism treatment. In any case, I thought the real beef was that the GOP was blocking a hearing on the matter. Has this matter been heard yet?
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 08, 2008, 03:40:39 PM
Requiring someone to have liability insurance protects the population from potential harm CAUSED BY that individual.  It ensures that company (or driver) can pay for harm they are likely to cause.  It passes the cost of the potential harm proportionally on to the individuals or companies that are likely to cause it.  Essentially dictating that the company has the ability to pay (there are self insurance provisions available) for likely potential harm.

Conversely, requiring a company to provide health insurance coverage passes the potential cost of the individual for a risk to that individual on to the masses (others in the insurance pool).  There is no third party involved that we are protecting... we are dictating that an insurance company assume the risk for an individual.

Essentially, with liability insurance the government is dictating the availability of compensation for a third party, in this instance there is no third party we are protecting.  

Did I make that clear?  I worded it carefully because it's kind of an abstract concept, but an important one to me.  Our system of responsibility fails if the person who caused you harm can not pay for it - which is very likely in an auto accident (or nursing home med mal).  It's liability insurance vs. individual expense.

That, of course, says nothing about the merit of your desire to see coverage, just my view on the role of government.
- - -

And, as I understand it a hearing was held.  The issue was an Autism group was not allowed to speak.  Again, as I understand it.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: guido911 on May 08, 2008, 04:38:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Requiring someone to have liability insurance protects the population from potential harm CAUSED BY that individual.  It ensures that company (or driver) can pay for harm they are likely to cause.  It passes the cost of the potential harm proportionally on to the individuals or companies that are likely to cause it.  Essentially dictating that the company has the ability to pay (there are self insurance provisions available) for likely potential harm.

Conversely, requiring a company to provide health insurance coverage passes the potential cost of the individual for a risk to that individual on to the masses (others in the insurance pool).  There is no third party involved that we are protecting... we are dictating that an insurance company assume the risk for an individual.

Essentially, with liability insurance the government is dictating the availability of compensation for a third party, in this instance there is no third party we are protecting.  

Did I make that clear?  I worded it carefully because it's kind of an abstract concept, but an important one to me.  Our system of responsibility fails if the person who caused you harm can not pay for it - which is very likely in an auto accident (or nursing home med mal).  It's liability insurance vs. individual expense.

That, of course, says nothing about the merit of your desire to see coverage, just my view on the role of government.
- - -

And, as I understand it a hearing was held.  The issue was an Autism group was not allowed to speak.  Again, as I understand it.



I see a distinction without a difference. I see under both your and I views, the goverment acting to protect the interests of a class of persons who are blameless. But we can disagree.  Incidentally, how does your analysis work when you consider that Oklahoma's legislature mandates that insurers offer UM/UIM insurance to its insureds.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 09, 2008, 08:36:51 AM
It is unaffected.  They are forced to offer insurance at whatever rates they deem fair.  It is more a law requiring companies to let everyone know that such a thing exists and is reflective of the State policy on liability insurance.  If insurance companies were required to offer coverage for Autism to individuals and were free to charge what their actuaries deemed necessary I would have no problem.

Anyway, I see a huge distinction between making sure you can cover your potential debts and requiring other's to pay for an unfortunate circumstance.  In one, the actor is required to do something - in the other nothing is required of the actor.  In on the one causing the risk pays for it, in the other the risk mandate is spread to everyone.  Spreading risk to everyone should imply the State assuming the duty... not passing the buck.

But, if you see no difference between covering your own liabilities and being forced to cover someone else's.  I can not sway your opinion.

And again, this analysis is not a statement on the merits of your claim nor the propriety of state sponsored treatment of Autism.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: guido911 on May 09, 2008, 01:34:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

if you see no difference between covering your own liabilities and being forced to cover someone else's.  I can not sway your opinion.




Umm, that's what UM/UIM coverage is CF. Wanna try again?
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 09, 2008, 02:07:35 PM
You are not forced to get UM coverage.  No one else is forced to pay for your UM coverage.  If YOU chose to pay for YOUR UM coverage it benefits YOU.  

The Autism coverage would be forced.  Everyone would be forced to pay for it.  If the State forces everyone to get Autism coverage everyone would pay for it to bennefit a few.

There are huge difference there.  Most notably personal choice to either pay for the service or not.  Insurance are only required to offer it - I would be on board with a proposal to require insurers to offer Autism coverage in their medical policies, for an added fee.   Just like UM.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: guido911 on May 09, 2008, 03:41:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

You are not forced to get UM coverage.  No one else is forced to pay for your UM coverage.  If YOU chose to pay for YOUR UM coverage it benefits YOU.  

The Autism coverage would be forced.  Everyone would be forced to pay for it.  If the State forces everyone to get Autism coverage everyone would pay for it to bennefit a few.

There are huge difference there.  Most notably personal choice to either pay for the service or not.  Insurance are only required to offer it - I would be on board with a proposal to require insurers to offer Autism coverage in their medical policies, for an added fee.   Just like UM.




You are lost in your argument. The issue was whether government should force insurance companies to provide coverage. Look at a sentence from one of your previous
posts:

"I understand people with autistic children need more help, but I'm not sure it is the proper place for the government to dictate what companies have to render that help."

Oklahoma's UM/UIM statute, 36 O.S. ยง 3636(A) states:

A. No policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be issued, delivered, renewed, or extended in this state with respect to a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless the policy includes the coverage described in subsection B of this section.

From the above, Oklahoma's legislature forces insurance companies to offer UM/UIM insurance, Nick's law ostensibly forces insurance companies to offer coverage for autism.

We clearly are not communicating or are at an impasse. Moving on.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 09, 2008, 04:24:22 PM
That's a problem, because in my head it is perfectly clear and a radically difference.

I think you are misled by the law you cited below, you have to keep reading the entire statute- you are NOT required to get UM coverage.  I say again, you, nor anyone else, is required to have UM coverage.  You can sign a waiver specifically excusing yourself from UM coverage.  

No one is forced to get UM coverage.  However, you are proposing essentially forces everyone to get Autism coverage.  That is as simply as I can state it.

quote:
You may make one of four choices about Uninsured Motorist Coverage:

    1. You may buy Uninsured Motorist coverage equal to your bodily injury liability coverage for $_____ for ____ months.

    2. You may buy Uninsured Motorist coverage in the amount of $10,000.00 for each person injured, not to exceed $20,000.00 for two or more persons injured in one occurrence (the smallest coverage which Oklahoma law allows) for $______ for ____ months.

    3. You may buy Uninsured Motorist coverage in an amount less than your bodily injury liability coverage but more than the minimum levels.

    4. You may reject Uninsured Motorist coverage.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=87144

If you understand what I'm trying to say, or I am wrong - please explain. I get very frustrated when I am unable to communicate my point.
Title: Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran
Post by: zstyles on May 13, 2008, 11:51:14 AM


Autism Votes... It's time for lawmakers to listen.

Dear Oklahoma Autism Advocate,
Speaker of the House Chris Benge wants to know how much it will cost to end healthcare discrimination against kids with autism.  

We checked our pockets. Literally....

It's only SEVEN QUARTERS.  To provide children with autism with the coverage specified in Nick's law, individual monthly insurance premiums will increase by less than seven quarters, or $1.66 to be exact.

There are TWO WEEKS left in the session!  Just TWO WEEKS but we can do it!

Speaker Benge MUST hear from you TODAY to learn how $1.66 can not only help your child, but save Oklahoma taxpayers millions of dollars!  

How Can You Help?

1.  CALLYOUR OWN MEMBER of the Oklahoma House and ASK THEM to ASK THE SPEAKER TO LET NICK'S LAW GO TO THE HOUSE FLOOR FOR A VOTE!  Find out who represents YOU and their phone number by going to the Autism Votes Resources Page.

2.  CALL SPEAKER BENGE'S OFFICE!  Let the Speaker know how much Nick's Law is needed by families in Oklahoma.  Urge the Speaker to bring Nick's Law up for an immediate vote in the House.

Call Speaker Benge at (405) 557-7340!

3.  Follow up your calls by SENDING AN EMAILto Speaker Benge and YOUR OWN House Representative with the same message: Schedule a House Vote!

4.  FORWARD THIS EMAIL to everyone you know!!  SEND TO ANYONE WHO LIVES IN OKLAHOMA. Friends, family members, neighbors, church members, teachers, therapists and your co-workers. Tell them to CALL the Speaker and send Emails TODAY!!!

Once you hang up...DIAL AGAIN.  Let's help Oklahoma become the next state to provide kids with autism the health care coverage they need and deserve.  

Sign up now at www.autismvotes.org/oklahoma for breaking news and action alerts in Oklahoma.

Thank you!

Shelley Hendrix
Director of State Advocacy Relations
Autism Speaks